Let's Pretend We're Noble Prize Winners

Anna Gregoline | August 12, 2004
If you could make one scientific discovery in your lifetime, what would it be? Why?

If you could make one medical advancement your lifetime, what would it be? Why?

Jackie Mason | August 12, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | August 12, 2004
Scientific discovery: I'm stealing this from Star Trek, but matter-energy conversion. It eliminates not just hunger, but physical needs of all kinds, as any physical object can be produced with enough energy. It also eliminates waste, as all garbage would be converted back into energy. No more dirty dishes: Beam them away when finished and replicate new ones as needed. Same for laundry; your clothes would never fade or shrink. There are a million uses for it, but it won't happen for centuries at the soonest.

Medical advancement: Curing a disease that has our doctors stumped, as named in one of today's other discussions. Nanotechnology is of better use, but it is already on track towards feasibility.

Erik Bates | August 13, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | August 13, 2004
Scientific Discovery: Molecular teleportation (I hate traffic)

Medical advancement: I know people are all for a cure for cancer. I think a way to detect it earlier would be much better. Because most cancers can be cured if found early enough, the problem is that people are rarely diagnosed early enough.

Anna Gregoline | August 13, 2004
Hard-D, I like your idea from Star Trek - sounds like it would cure a multitude of problems.

I think my science acheivement would be a perfect form of sustainable energy. Something non-polluting and inexpensive.

Medical advancement - I would like to eradicate the largest disease in the world - whatever that is at the time.

John Viola | August 13, 2004
problem with energy-matter conversion is that in any process, energy is lost (entropy is always greater than zero). which is another reason why a 'perpetual motion machine' violates the laws of physics. it is reasonable that '10 units of energy' would be required to make '5 units of matter' for example.

Scott Hardie | August 13, 2004
True... Even if they refined the process, there would always be at least a tiny amount of energy needed to make the conversion. But by then we'll be conquering space and if we need fuel, we can just break down some asteroid belts 'n shit.

John Viola | August 14, 2004
yeah, or search out a planet and kick the living crap out of the inhabitants to get the resources we need - kinda like 'How the West was Won'!

*tears of pride well up in eyes*

Melissa Erin | August 14, 2004
[hidden by request]

Robert Phillips | September 1, 2004
On a more reasonable note...How about a very easy way to produce and store hydrogen...In fact we may have an answer as ironic as it seems...Pepple Bed Nuclear Reactor. This is a huge thing and if it was not for the radical anti-nuke people we would have safe nuclear energy and all the pure hydrogen we could use to fuel our vehicles. The skies would be clean and pure...The hydrogen age cometh..

Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
Pebble Bed Reactors sound like a good idea, and this says it's under development several places. I doubt their non-use has much to do with radical anti-nuclear people. There might be a few small issues with making it efficient or safe. But since we already have several nuclear power facilities in the U.S., I'm sure this will be our future. It sounds very good, from what I can understand of the science involved.

Robert Phillips | September 1, 2004
oops sorry I meant Pebble Bed Reactors...You obviously percieved my mistake.

Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
I looked up your spelling on Yahoo and gathered from the results what you meant.

Anthony Lewis | September 3, 2004
I like the molecular transport answer.

As far as a medical discovery...I'm torn between what would make me more money. A pill to cure obesity. A cure for cancer...or guaranteed penis enlargement/erectile dysfunction cure combo.

Hmmmmm