Agree Agree:  83
Likes Likes:  257
Page 94 of 95 FirstFirst ... 446984909192939495 LastLast
Results 1,396 to 1,410 of 1420
  1. #1396

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    ‘It snuck up on us’: Scientists stunned by ‘city-killer’ asteroid that just missed Earth

    By Allyson Chiu July 26

    Alan Duffy was confused. On Thursday, the astronomer’s phone was suddenly flooded with calls from reporters wanting to know about a large asteroid that had just whizzed past Earth, and he couldn’t figure out “why everyone was so alarmed.”

    “I thought everyone was getting worried about something we knew was coming,” Duffy, who is lead scientist at the Royal Institution of Australia, told The Washington Post. Forecasts had already predicted that a couple of asteroids would be passing relatively close to Earth this week.

    Then, he looked up the details of the hunk of space rock named Asteroid 2019 OK.

    “I was stunned,” he said. “This was a true shock.”

    This asteroid wasn’t one that scientists had been tracking, and it had seemingly appeared from “out of nowhere,” Michael Brown, a Melbourne-based observational astronomer, told The Washington Post. According to data from NASA, the craggy rock was large, an estimated 57 to 130 meters wide (187 to 427 feet), and moving fast along a path that brought it within about 73,000 kilometers (45,000 miles) of Earth. That’s less than one-fifth of the distance to the moon and what Duffy considers “uncomfortably close.”

    “It snuck up on us pretty quickly,” said Brown, an associate professor in Australia with Monash University’s School of Physics and Astronomy. He later noted, “People are only sort of realizing what happened pretty much after it’s already flung past us.”

    The asteroid’s presence was discovered only earlier this week by separate astronomy teams in Brazil and the United States. Information about its size and path was announced just hours before it shot past Earth, Brown said.

    “It shook me out my morning complacency,” he said. “It’s probably the largest asteroid to pass this close to Earth in quite a number of years.”

    So how did the event almost go unnoticed?

    First, there’s the issue of size, Duffy said. Asteroid 2019 OK is a sizable chunk of rock, but it’s nowhere near as big as the ones capable of causing an event like the dinosaurs’ extinction. More than 90 percent of those asteroids, which are more than half a mile wide or larger, have already been identified by NASA and its partners.

    “Nothing this size is easy to detect,” Duffy said of Asteroid 2019 OK. ″You’re really relying on reflected sunlight, and even at closest approach it was barely visible with a pair of binoculars.”

    Brown said the asteroid’s “eccentric orbit” and speed were also likely factors in what made spotting it ahead of time challenging. Its “very elliptical orbit” takes it “from beyond Mars to within the orbit of Venus,” which means the amount of time it spends near Earth where it is detectable isn’t long, he said. As it approached Earth, the asteroid was traveling at about 24 kilometers per second, he said, or nearly 54,000 mph. By contrast, other recent asteroids that flew by Earth clocked in between 4 and 19 kilometers per second (8,900 to 42,500 mph).

    “It’s faint for a long time,” Brown said of Asteroid 2019 OK. “With a week or two to go, it’s getting bright enough to detect, but someone needs to look in the right spot. Once it’s finally recognized, then things happen quickly, but this thing’s approaching quickly so we only sort of knew about it very soon before the flyby.”

    The last-minute detection is yet another sign of how much remains unknown about space and a sobering reminder of the very real threat asteroids can pose, Duffy said.

    “It should worry us all, quite frankly,” he said. “It’s not a Hollywood movie. It is a clear and present danger.”

    Duffy said astronomers have a nickname for the kind of space rock that just came so close to Earth: “City-killer asteroids.” If the asteroid had struck Earth, most of it would have probably reached the ground, resulting in devastating damage, Brown said.

    “It would have gone off like a very large nuclear weapon” with enough force to destroy a city, he said. “Many megatons, perhaps in the ballpark of 10 megatons of TNT, so something not to be messed with.”

    In 2013, a significantly smaller meteor — about 20 meters (65 feet) across, or the size of a six-story building — broke up over the Russian city of Chelyabinsk and unleashed an intense shock wave that collapsed roofs, shattered windows and left about 1,200 people injured. The last space rock to strike Earth similar in size to Asteroid 2019 OK was more than a century ago, Brown said. That asteroid, known as the Tunguska event, caused an explosion that leveled 2,000 square kilometers (770 square miles) of forest land in Siberia.

    Although the chances of a large asteroid landing on a city are “modest,” Brown said it is still worthwhile to devote resources toward detection and prevention. Brown said Asteroid 2019 OK proves there are “still dangerous asteroids out there that we don’t know of” that “can arrive on our doorstep unannounced.”

    Scientists are working on developing at least two approaches to deflecting potentially harmful asteroids, Duffy said. One strategy involves gently pushing the asteroid slowly over time off its course and away from Earth, he said. The other, which he called a “very elegant solution,” is the gravity tractor. If an asteroid is detected early enough, it could be possible to divert it using the gravity of a spacecraft, according to NASA.

    People shouldn’t try to “blast it with a nuke,” Duffy said.

    “It makes for a great Hollywood film,” he said. “The challenge with a nuke is that it may or may not work, but it would definitely make the asteroid radioactive.”

    In light of Asteroid 2019 OK, Duffy stressed the importance of investing in a “global dedicated approach” to detecting asteroids because “sooner or later there will be one with our name on it. It’s just a matter of when, not if.”

    “We don’t have to go the way of the dinosaurs,” he said. “We actually have the technology to find and deflect certainly these smaller asteroids if we commit to it now.”

    Emily Lakdawalla, senior editor of the Planetary Society, which promotes space exploration, said the recent near miss is a reminder that “it’s an important activity to be watching the skies.” The more that can be learned about an asteroid, the better prepared people can be to prevent potential disasters, she told The Post.

    Still, Lakdawalla said that while the asteroid’s close brush with Earth may have sparked some concern, “it is zero percent danger to us.”

    “It’s the kind of thing where you learn about something that you didn’t know about, like things flying close by us, and your inclination is to be scared,” she said. “But just like sharks in the ocean, they’re really not going to hurt you and they’re really fascinating to look at.”

  2. #1397

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by JazzNU View Post
    “It should worry us all, quite frankly,” he said. “It’s not a Hollywood movie. It is a clear and present danger.”
    It's not a Hollywood movie, but let me phrase the rest of what I'm going to say using the title of a Hollywood movie. LOL!

    There's a TON of Armageddon jokes floating around about this and should we be calling in Bruce Willis.

  3. #1398

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    I have always been puzzled about the Nuke it option. How does a nuclear weapon work in space? It has no air to push or heat up, no medium to transfer energy. You would need to "glue" the nuke to the asteroid, detonate it and then see if you moved it.
    For that, might as well land a rocket on it and switch it on. Then push the asteroid.
    No wonder I never made it into NASA.
    (My application for janitor was rejected).
    Missing winter...

  4. #1399

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    I didn't even make the call-backs for that janitorial job. GH

  5. #1400

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    So this equation is breaking the internet.

    The Math Equation That Tried to Stump the Internet

    Sometimes BODMAS is just PEMDAS by another name. And no, the answer is not 100.

    By Steven Strogatz
    Aug. 2, 2019

    Mathematical Twitter is normally a quiet, well-ordered place, a refuge from the aggravations of the internet. But on July 28, someone who must have been a troll off-duty decided to upset the stillness, and did so with a surefire provocation.

    It has to do with something that high school teachers call “the order of operations.” The latest blowup concerned this seemingly simple question:

    oomfies solve this

    — em ♥︎ (@pjmdolI) July 28, 2019

    Many respondents were certain the answer was 16. Others heard Yanny, not Laurel, and insisted the right answer was 1. That’s when the trash talking began. “Some of y’all failed math and it shows,” said one. Another posted a photo showing that even two different electronic calculators disagreed. The normally reassuring world of math, where right and wrong exist, and logic must prevail, started to seem troublingly, perhaps tantalizingly, fluid.

    The question above has a clear and definite answer, provided we all agree to play by the same rules governing “the order of operations.” When, as in this case, we are faced with several mathematical operations to perform — to evaluate expressions in parentheses, carry out multiplications or divisions, or do additions or subtractions — the order in which we do them can make a huge difference.

    When confronted with 8 ÷ 2(2+2), everyone on Twitter agreed that the 2+2 in parentheses should be evaluated first. That’s what our teachers told us: Deal with whatever is in parentheses first. Of course, 2+2 = 4. So the question boils down to 8÷2×4.

    And there’s the rub. Now that we’re faced with a division and a multiplication, which one takes priority? If we carry out the division first, we get 4×4 = 16; if we carry out the multiplication first, we get 8÷8 = 1.

    Which way is correct? The standard convention holds that multiplication and division have equal priority. To break the tie, we work from left to right. So the division goes first, followed by the multiplication. Thus, the right answer is 16.

    More generally, the conventional order of operations is to evaluate expressions in parentheses first. Then you deal with any exponents. Next come multiplication and division, which, as I said, are considered to have equal priority, with ambiguities dispelled by working from left to right. Finally come addition and subtraction, which are also of equal priority, with ambiguities broken again by working from left to right.

    To help students in the United States remember this order of operations, teachers drill the acronym PEMDAS into them: parentheses, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction. Other teachers use an equivalent acronym, BODMAS: brackets, orders, division and multiplication, and addition and subtraction. Still others tell their pupils to remember the little ditty, “Please excuse my dear Aunt Sally.”

    Now realize, following Aunt Sally is purely a matter of convention. In that sense, PEMDAS is arbitrary. Furthermore, in my experience as a mathematician, expressions like 8÷2×4 look absurdly contrived. No professional mathematician would ever write something so obviously ambiguous. We would insert parentheses to indicate our meaning and to signal whether the division should be carried out first, or the multiplication.

    The last time this came up on Twitter, I reacted with indignation: It seemed ridiculous that we spend so much time in our high-school curriculum on such sophistry. But now, having been enlightened by some of my computer-oriented friends on Twitter, I’ve come to appreciate that conventions are important, and lives can depend on them. We know this whenever we take to the highway. If everyone else is driving on the right side of the road (as in the U.S.), you would be wise to follow suit. The same goes if everyone else is driving on the left, as in the United Kingdom. It doesn’t matter which convention is adopted, as long as everyone follows it.

    Likewise, it’s essential that everyone writing software for computers, spreadsheets and calculators knows the rules for the order of operations and follows them. For the rest of us, the intricacies of PEMDAS are less important than the larger lesson that conventions have their place. They are the double-yellow line down the center of the road — an unending equals sign — and a joint agreement to understand one another, work together, and avoid colliding head-on. Ultimately, 8 ÷ 2(2+2) is less a statement than a brickbat; it’s like writing the phrase “Eats shoots and leaves” and concluding that language is capricious. Well, yes, in the absence of punctuation, it is; that’s why we invented the stuff.

    So on behalf of all math teachers, please excuse us for drilling your younger selves on this tedium. My daughters spent weeks on it each school year for several years of their education, as if training to become automatons. No wonder so many students come to see math as an inhuman, meaningless collection of arbitrary rules and procedures. Clearly, if this latest bout of confusion on the internet is any indication, many students are failing to absorb the deeper, essential lesson. Perhaps it’s time to stop excusing dear Aunt Sally and instead embrace her.

    Better still would be to teach everyone how to write unambiguous math expressions, and then all of this would go away. For those students destined to become software designers, writing code that can handle ambiguous expressions reliably whenever they arise, by all means exhume Aunt Sally from her crypt. For everyone else, let’s spend more time teaching our students the more beautiful, interesting and uplifting parts of mathematics. Our marvelous subject deserves better.

    Steven Strogatz is a professor of mathematics at Cornell and the author of “Infinite Powers: How Calculus Reveals the Secrets of the Universe.”
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

  6. #1401

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    I know what I was taught in junior high and high school, reminding you that was in the late 1960's. We were taught that, in this equation, parentheses go first, then multiplication and division are considered equal (as are addition and subtraction), and would proceed from left to right, so the answer would be 16. I am not saying that I know beyond any doubt that 16 is clearly correct to mathematicians, I'm merely saying that I am certain that in my high school math class, 16 was correct. GH

  7. #1402

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    The age of hyper-mega-super-hyperbole.
    THIS is breaking the internet? Some people really need to get a life.
    Missing winter...

  8. #1403

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Study: many of the “oldest” people in the world may not be as old as we think
    A new paper explores what “supercentenarians” have in common. Turns out it’s bad record-keeping.

    We’ve long been obsessed with the super-elderly. How do some people make it to 100 or even 110 years old? Why do some regions — say, Sardinia, Italy, or Okinawa, Japan —produce dozens of these “supercentenarians” while other regions produce none? Is it genetics? Diet? Environmental factors? Long walks at dawn?

    A new working paper released on bioRxiv, the open access site for prepublication biology papers, appears to have cleared up the mystery once and for all: It’s none of the above.

    Instead, it looks like the majority of the supercentenarians (people who’ve reached the age of 110) in the United States are engaged in — intentional or unintentional — exaggeration.

    The paper, by Saul Justin Newman of the Biological Data Science Institute at Australian National University, looked at something we often don’t give a second thought to: the state of official record-keeping.

    Across the United States, the state recording of vital information — that is, reliable, accurate state record-keeping surrounding new births — was introduced in different states at different times. A century ago, many states didn’t have very good record-keeping in place. But that changed gradually over time in different places.

    Newman looks at the introduction of birth certificates in various states and finds that “the state-specific introduction of birth certificates is associated with a 69-82% fall in the number of supercentenarian records.”

    In other words, as soon as a state starts keeping good records of when people are born, there’s a 69 to 82 percent fall in the number of people who live to the age of 110. That suggests that of every 10 supposed supercentenarians, seven or eight of them are actually younger than that, but we just don’t know it because of poor record-keeping.

    This doesn’t mean that any of these false supercentenarians are lying. It could be that they lost track of their age a long time ago, accidentally double-counted some years, or were told the wrong birth year. But it does mean that the majority of people claiming to be supercentenarians, born in areas that didn’t keep reliable, accurate birth records, are probably not quite as old as they say they are.

    As a result, most of the studies we’ve conducted on them — trying to divine the secrets of old age from genetic tests and diet surveys — may be no good. But this isn’t just a funny little accident of old-age science: It actually illustrates a serious challenge in science.

    Why we may have to question what we know about supercentenarians
    The paper also looks at the phenomenon in Italy and Japan, where something different seems to be happening.

    Italy keeps better vital statistics than the United States does, and has had reliable vital statistics across the country for hundreds of years — yet in Italy, too, there are clusters of the country where lots of supercentenarians pop up. Maybe the Italian supercentenarians are for real?

    Newman’s analysis suggests not. He starts out by noticing something fishy: The parts of Italy that claim the most supercentenarians overall have high crime rates and low life expectancy. Isn’t that weird? Why would an area generally have low life expectancy but also produce an extremely disproportionate share of the world’s oldest people?

    The same pattern repeats itself in Japan: Okinawa has the greatest density of super-old people, despite having one of the lowest life expectancies in the country and generally poor health outcomes.

    The paper puts forward a controversial proposal. It seems unlikely that living in high-crime, low-life-expectancy areas is the thing that makes it likeliest to reach age 110. It seems likelier, the paper concludes, that many — perhaps even most — of the people claiming to reach age 110 are engaged in fraud or at least exaggeration. The paper gives a couple of examples of how this might come about; some of it might be reporting error, and some of the supercentenarians might be produced by pension fraud (someone might be claiming a dead person is still alive for pension benefits, or claiming the identity of a parent or older sibling).

    Newman’s overall conclusion: “Remarkable age attainment is predicted by indicators of error and fraud,” and isn’t correlated with things like a healthy population of 80-year-olds or high-quality access to medical care. “As a result, these findings raise serious questions about the validity of an extensive body of research based on the remarkable reported ages of populations and individuals.”

    In other words, all of our research into the biomarkers, habits, and diets that predict extreme old age? Probably worthless, because a significant share of the sample was not actually as old as we thought.

    The paper still needs to undergo peer review, but if its findings hold, it does illustrate an interesting statistical phenomenon: When you’re looking for something exceptionally rare, your data set will be dominated by errors and false positives. For example, if you’re looking for a disease that affects only one in a million people, and your test for the disease is 99.99 percent accurate, then it’ll turn up 100 false positives for every true positive. Even though you used a highly accurate test, most of your “positives” don’t have the disease!

    Similarly, supercentenarians are extremely rare. Only about one in 1,000 people who live to the age of 100 make it to 110. The vast majority of people would never impersonate their parent or older sibling for benefits, or forge a birth certificate, or participate in identity theft, or get confused about how old they even are. But if one in 1,000 people would do that, then fraudulent supercentenarians will be more common than bona fide supercentenarians. When you’re looking at an exceptionally rare phenomenon, you have to be exceptionally careful — or you’ll mostly find yourself studying something else entirely.
    Roger forever

  9. #1404

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Their Mothers Chose Donor Sperm. The Doctors Used Their Own.
    Scores of people born through artificial insemination have learned from DNA tests that their biological fathers were the doctors who performed the procedure.

    Eve Wiley of Dallas learned, through DNA testing, that her biological father was her mother’s fertility doctor.CreditCreditAllison V. Smith for The New York Times

    By Jacqueline Mroz
    Aug. 21, 2019
    Updated 5:09 p.m. ET

    Growing up in Nacogdoches, Tex., Eve Wiley learned at age 16 that she had been conceived through artificial insemination with donor sperm.

    Her mother, Margo Williams, now 65, had sought help from Dr. Kim McMorries, telling him that her husband was infertile. She asked the doctor to locate a sperm donor. He told Mrs. Williams that he had found one through a sperm bank in California.

    Mrs. Williams gave birth to a daughter, Eve. Now 32, Mrs. Wiley is a stay-at-home mother in Dallas. In 2017 and 2018, like tens of millions of Americans, she took consumer DNA tests.

    The results? Her biological father was not a sperm donor in California, as she had been told — Dr. McMorries was. The news left Ms. Wiley reeling.

    “You build your whole life on your genetic identity, and that’s the foundation,” Ms. Wiley said. “But when those bottom bricks have been removed or altered, it can be devastating.”

    Through his attorney and the staff at his office, Dr. McMorries declined to comment.

    With the advent of widespread consumer DNA testing, instances in which fertility specialists decades ago secretly used their own sperm for artificial insemination have begun to surface with some regularity. Three states have now passed laws criminalizing this conduct, including Texas, which now defines it as a form of sexual assault.

    Dr. Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University, is following more than 20 cases in the United States and abroad. They have occurred in a dozen states, including Connecticut, Vermont, Idaho, Utah and Nevada, she said, as well as in England, South Africa, Germany and the Netherlands.

    According to the Dutch Donor Child Foundation, DNA testing has confirmed that a fertility specialist, Dr. Jan Karbaat, fathered 56 children, born to women who visited his clinic outside Rotterdam. Dutch authorities closed his practice in 2009, and he died in April 2017 at age 89.

    An attorney for Dr. Karbaat’s family said they had no comment on the allegations and emphasized that the cases are decades old.

    “Thirty years ago, people looked at things in very different ways,” said J.P. Vandervoodt, a lawyer in Rotterdam. “Dr. Karbaat could have been an anonymous donor — we don’t know that. There was no registration system at the time.”

    Joey Hoofdman, center, one of dozens of children conceived with sperm from Dr. Jan Karbaat, a fertility specialist in the Netherlands.CreditBas Czerwinski/EPA, via Shutterstock

    In June, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoked the license of a fertility specialist in Ottawa, Dr. Norman Barwin, 80, and reprimanded him for repeatedly using the wrong sperm — including his own — in artificial insemination procedures over decades.

    The college found that he had inseminated at least 11 women with his own sperm. In addition, scores of donor children claim they were conceived with the wrong sperm at Dr. Barwin’s clinic, though not the doctor’s.

    He told one woman that he had used his sperm to calibrate a clinic instrument and that this contamination explained her conception. The college called that unbelievable and his actions “beyond reprehensible.”

    “His actions will continue to have repercussions for his patients and their families in perpetuity,” said Carolyn Silver, general counsel at the college.

    Dr. Barwin and his lawyers did not return calls for comment.

    In the past, patients had little reason to suspect fertility doctors to whom they had entrusted one of medicine’s most intimate tasks, said Dov Fox, a bioethicist at the University of San Diego and the author of “Birth Rights and Wrongs,” a book about technology and reproductive law.

    “In a word, gross,” he said of the cases. “In a couple more: shocking, shameful. The number of doctors sounds less like a few bad apples and more like a generalized practice of deception, largely hidden until recently by a mix of low-tech and high stigma.”

    Fertility fraud

    Dr. Donald Cline, a fertility specialist in Indianapolis, used his own sperm to impregnate at least three dozen women in the 1970s and 1980s, according to state prosecutors. Based on DNA testing, 61 people now claim he is their biological father.

    Dr. Cline, who retired in 2009, pleaded guilty to two felony obstruction of justice charges and admitted that he had lied to state investigators. He surrendered his medical license and was given a one-year suspended sentence.

    Calls to Dr. Cline’s lawyer were not returned.

    Prosecutors said they were not able to press for a tougher sentence for a simple reason: In Indiana, as in most states, there were no laws prohibiting this conduct.

    Prosecutors accused Dr. Donald Cline, a fertility specialist in Indianapolis, of substituting his sperm for that of donors over two decades.
    CreditMarion County, via Associated Press

    In May, Indiana passed a law that makes using the wrong sperm a felony and gives victims the right to sue doctors for it. Patients may sidestep the statute of limitations in these cases, bringing legal action up to five years after the fraud is discovered, rather than after it took place.

    That provision is significant to accusers, because those who discover the identity of their biological fathers in these cases are usually adults.

    Cases of so-called fertility fraud have prompted other states to enact similar laws that allow patients and children to pursue legal remedies from so-called doctor daddies.

    After discovering the identity of her biological father, Ms. Wiley pressed for a similar law in Texas, meeting with legislators to demand better accountability of what she saw to be a grossly unregulated industry.

    In June, Texas passed its own fertility-fraud law, and it goes further than those in Indiana and California. If a health care provider uses human sperm, eggs or embryos from an unauthorized donor, the law identifies the crime as a sexual assault. Those found guilty must register as sex offenders.

    The bill passed unanimously in the state Legislature.

    “It was a very compelling story of deception, and we’re seeing more and more cases of assisted reproduction being used improperly,” Stephanie Klick, a Republican state representative and a sponsor of the bill, said of Ms. Wiley’s experience. “We need to make sure that what happened doesn’t happen again.”

    Some experts believe the measure is extreme. “Sexual assault is a step too far,” said Judith Daar, dean of the Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University. “Using that language, and imposing the ramifications that assault imposes, is highly problematic and more harmful than helpful.”

    The Texas law applies when a health care provider uses his own sperm or the sperm of a donor other than the one the patient selected. But could a doctor or clinic nurse be convicted of sexual assault if the wrong sperm were provided in a mix-up?

    “If a physician is rushed and inattentive, and grabs the wrong vial, a jury might find that the physician knew or should have known that the material was not what the patient selected,” said Ms. Daar, who leads the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

    If a simple mix-up could result in conviction as a sexual predator, she fears fertility doctors in Texas may stop practicing.

    Ms. Klick, the Texas legislator and a nurse, believes that this form of deception does constitute assault.

    “There’s a physical aspect to it — there is a medical device that is being used to penetrate these women to deliver the genetic material,” she said. “I equate it with rape, because there’s no consent.”

    “It’s creepy,” she added. “It violates so many different boundaries on a professional level.”

    Doctor knows best?

    A few years ago, Marenda Tucker, 36, took a DNA test to find out more about her heritage.

    Ms. Tucker, a mother of four, who lives in Oregon, knew that she had been born through sperm donation. According to her mother, the doctor said he had used an anonymous sperm donor from the South.

    The DNA test matched her to relatives of the doctor himself. “Once I had the matches, I realized it was the doctor, and I was like, yuck, gross,” she said. “When I talked to my mom about it, she felt violated.”

    “Until now, I’ve been able to handle what life has thrown at me,” she added. “But this was this weird identity crisis.”

    Reached by phone by a reporter at his home in Little Rock, Ark., with questions about Ms. Tucker’s conception, the retired physician, Dr. Gary Don Davis, said: “Well, that’s surprising. Let me check on that. Goodbye.”

    Further attempts to reach him were unsuccessful, and he died in June.

    Why would doctors secretly substitute their sperm for that of a donor, or even a husband?

    Dr. Madeira, the law professor who has been tracking many of these cases, said that some specialists may simply have thought it was smart business. Frozen sperm was not the recommended medical standard until the late 1980s, and many physicians may not have had ready access to sperm when patients sought help.

    “They could have self-justified their malfeasance in an era of ‘doctor knows best,’” Dr. Madeira said. “In their minds, they may just have been helping their patients by increasing their chances of getting pregnant with fresh sperm for higher fertilization rates.”

    But others, she speculated, may have had darker motivations. “I would bet a lot of these doctors had power reasons for doing this — mental health issues, narcissistic issues — or maybe they were attracted to certain women,” she said.

    Confronted with the test results, Dr. McMorries acknowledged in a letter to Ms. Wiley that he had mixed his sperm with that of other donors in order to improve her mother’s chances of conception. Laws regarding “donor anonymity” prevented him from telling her, he wrote.

    “The thinking at that time was that if the patient got pregnant, there was no way to know which sperm affected the conception,” he wrote.

    Before the doctor’s confession, Ms. Wiley believed she had already found the man who donated the sperm from which she was conceived: Steve Scholl, now 65, a writer and publisher in Los Angeles.

    “We started this beautiful father-daughter relationship — he officiated at my wedding,” she said. “My kids call him Poppa.”

    After learning the truth, she told Mr. Scholl that she wasn’t his biological daughter. He was stunned.

    “It took me a while to process,” he recalled in an interview. “We felt so much like we’d found each other. We didn’t know how the reproductive industry worked. But very quickly, we both decided not to let this change anything for us.”

    Ms. Wiley still calls him Dad.
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

  10. #1405

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    How is this not a form of rape?
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

  11. #1406

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    I wonder if it won't be very difficult to find any willing donors in the future. In the past they normally opted to stay anonymous, but true anonimity is now impossible.

    Agree about doctors using themselves being very creepy at least.
    Roger forever

  12. #1407

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Denis Phillips
    This view of Hurricane Dorian is unlike anything I have ever seen. �� NASA

    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

  13. #1408

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Some questions answered:

    barbara edwards @DrBaBaLynn @DenisPhillips28
    How deep is that hole?
    Wilbur Cutter

    50-60k feet from top to bottom

    Replying to
    That eye is the size of a small island
    The whole system is the size of Ohio.
    fake phony dave

    Replying to
    Rainbow must be photoshopped
    Wilbur Cutter

    No, combinded IR cloud temp overlayed over visible
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

  14. #1409

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Daniel Dale
    Donald Trump on the existence of Category 5 hurricanes, 2017-2019.

    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

  15. #1410

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    NWS Birmingham

    The scattered showers and storms we are expecting across Central AL today are not associated with Dorian.

    Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east.
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

Page 94 of 95 FirstFirst ... 446984909192939495 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts