You are a TRUE HERO.

Hats off!!

Saan really scared me with the book's suspense.

Let me do this, one after another.

First, this is NOT BIOTECHNOLOGY'S FAULT!! These are LEGAL LOOPHOLES and are to be plugged as and when they are realized. But, if the outrage is actually about "Dave" and "Gerard", am very much confident that they are creatures of fantasy created by MC to drive home a point.

And, true, there is no ONE gene for anything, especially related to behavior. We fought off stupid inquiries and mindless debates on how cloning of Osama Bin Laden will create another hundreds of OBLs is NOT TRUE, so is cloning Mahatma Gandhi. This is just not done. There are many many factors at play which determine our mental behavior. For that matter, even genes responsible for physical traits are not expressed fully until under some conditions, which is to say, depend on expression of many other genes. Seriously, please be assured, every one of you that have a gene for violence doesn't make you a VIOLENT person, it just means, given the situation and right conditions, you are more prone to react violently to certain situations THAN OTHERS. That's about it.

And, patenting of genes, sure it's a blot. But now there are rules in place. The USPTO which was accused of numb-mindedly issuing gene patents in days of early genomic research is now more careful about them. They have now adopted a more "better-safe-than-sorry" approach to issue patents on any controversial inventions. I know this, because am studying that goddamn thing.

And, regarding tissues and research, it's more legal than science. We need stuff, and there are rules and processes to do them. This happens when there are loopholes in the system which few unscrupulous elements use to their benefit. Just like any other branch of legal issues. It's more about the humans than the science. They will be covered (loopholes) as and when they are necessary.

The OUTT organization described towards the end should be AUTM (Association of University Technology Managers). And we are not any Merchants of Death (we 'cos I am hoping to be one of them in the next one year). When Bayh-Dole act was put in, it was made in a good spirit, to ensure that patents held by Universities didn't rot in the Federal storehouses. This gave power to the universities to make sure or ensure that the research they have been doing with FEDERAL GRANT was to be delivered to public. This is not argued. Commercialization was supposed to be a good thing for the public, unfortunately, like many other things got stuck in a lot of rut. But this isn't bad. There are a lot of benefits coming out of a University Technology Transfer office, as there might (are) few problems with it. But, hey, who/which doesn't have that??

It is also true that research nowadays is more about money than about research and science itself. This is especially true in areas of high commercialization. But one can't blame all Professors or Research Scientists for it. Without Industry, things wouldn't be at this point in the first place. The allegations of universities becoming more and more secretive about research is a direct consequence of the law. But, should we ban it altogether? No, we can't. Evolve checkstops and regulations. Make more sensible laws!!

I am writing this as an advocate of what biotechnology has to offer and what there is to this side of court. Not to launch any personal attacks. More or less of what I mentioned here is general talk rather than any research findings. It is plain common-sense. Sure there are issues being blown out of proportion, especially coming from MC, I wouldn't think twice about this.

Luckily, this is fiction, "except for the parts that are not". TRUE!

Disclaimer: The above was written in the heat of the moment. As such, few or a lot of edits may be required. But, by and large, I stand by what I have mentioned here. I am always open to discussions and anything similar to that.

Disclaimer: A complete personal opinion on the cricketing controversy. If you disagree with this, do so with respect. Otherwise you are from the winning side :P

I was literally screaming when Dravid was given out on the final day. I wasn't up until late just to see this!! It was a shocker!! Dravid was playing so well, filling my heart and I believe all his fans' too, with optimism that this bloke was still there, hanging on. It was just about time we (Indians, just in case you are wondering) were beginning to look to "draw" the game, whole and square. After that followed another shocking appeal from Ponting for Dhoni. Hmmm, Ponting was too busy appealing to notice that he had in fact grounded the ball in the process. Nope, it wasn't 3 seconds, neither did he appear to be in control. And he was livid!! Oh my!! And surprisingly, the commentators never concentrated, or properly discussed it. (By the way, I was watching a live Australian feed).

Ganguly should have persisted for some more time, but given the fact that we are still 'gentlemen', unlike them 'somethings', he walked on, dissatisfied. He waited for Ponting to give the decision? Oh sorry, Clarke?  Who the *uck was the umpire there? Or were they relying on the  "Gentleman's agreement" they agree to before the match? At this point in the match? Hmmm, I wonder. Obviously it was a mutual understanding anyway, one had to respect it. Just like the Australians did. Dhoni and Kumble did what they could do the best. But unfortunately couldn't last. Sigh.

After reading all the controversy, faithfully, waking up each day after the test, being slightly inspired by the "standing-up" of the rest of the team for Harbhajan, which soon translated, very fast, into a kind of mockery, I come to understand that the issue has started from the field and ended up on the board room. True, as many suggested, it could have been rested then and there. Or perhaps, as someone suggested, Ponting might have been a bit too eager to see off Harbhajan. Or may be he was really trying to show the "calm and restraint" that he and Symonds asked the Aussie crowd to maintain when the latter was jeered at in India, from India itself, even before Indian team landed on the shores of the Oz land. Ok, did you follow this by the way?

Anyway, now hat Bucknor has been replaced, I am sure the next appeal for an umpire change will be the Pakistanis followed by Sri Lankans and then the English (of course when playing the Australian team). I am not sure West Indies or South Africa would appeal, just now. And then what? Change umpires all the time?

India refused to played with Bucknor officiating. Bucknor meanwhile, didn't say anything (or was under the order to be so). With him not backing off, there was a stalemate. Of not only the series being threatened, but the ensuing monetary losses. Sigh. Cricket for a brief time was relegated to the background when the latter was being discussed.

I read, my memory being bad, someone suggesting that the pressure on umpires should be relieved to some extent. Player referrals?? But only two per match? But will this bring down the standard of umpiring? What if, like this test, there are more than two bad decisions? In the same day. Or do we have the technology COMPETENT enough to actually being helpful rather than just create a doubt? (All said and done, one still argues Clarke's catch was 'suspect'. SUSPECT my foot, from miles away, on a 15" laptop screen and a miserly live telecast at 320x240 resolution, I could clearly see that!! Ok it's another if my sigh was a suspect).

Now, everything seems to be settled. Bucknor out, Harbhajan in, Sydney out, Canberra in. Will we play any better? Would we actually see our famed batting line-up actually play that way? At Perth??

In the end, I simply wish we replied to the Aussies in the field rather than anywhere else. I just wish.

P.S. Didn't umpires (actually umpire, that too Indian) actually give Kumble his 10-for in Delhi?

Is already here??

Damn!!

Happy New Year folks.