mramaad

why?

As for the branches of particle research and astronomy with no foreseeable future, yes I think those are frivolous and a waste of resources. Regarding the potential to synchronize gene expression with some sort of periodicity that you mentioned, I can definitely see the possibility of application (think of pharmaceutical administration, etc). That is really all I was looking for and if the IAMA authors had given me that I would have been happy. But just saying "because we can" demonstrates an attitude towards their work that really rubs me the wrong way.

I wouldn't say a problem exactly but...yea I think we have a lot of problems in the world that could use those scientific minds and the resources at their disposal. Science for the sake of science is a bit luxurious given the problems we face. On the other hand, the pursuit of knowledge for future application is absolutely essential...and I think that progress in fields such as astronomy and particle physics definitely will prove applicable in the future. But color-changing flowers?...I just don't see the application. So I asked the scientists "why?" And they answered "because we can." Not really very inspiring.

Sure it is, and that's a fine thing to pursue. But at the cost of resources (scientific talent and otherwise) it's a questionable decision. It's using science to create a gimmick and turn a profit. To me it's similar to doctors putting all the resources spent (by themselves and others) on their education into something as trivial as cosmetic surgery. It just feels wasteful and indulgent.

bit of a straw-man there with your alternative (hmm let's see I can make a flower that changes color or I can waste my life watching tv and drinking beer after getting home from "some kind of job")...Why not apply your scientific training to something that can actually improve human life? Clinical research, something to advance our society/ the quality of the lives of others, etc...