[Basic] Skills of the week: Bioengineering and Biology

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by johndallman

What have you done with them? How do we centre a campaign on them?

They were essential to a plot to make the staff of a hotel ill so that one of the PCs could get work at the place at the same time that there was an "interesting" meeting there:

http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/67484.html
http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/68582.html
http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/69289.html
http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/70328.html
http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/70806.html
http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/72386.html

They were also instrumental in an elaborate faked death, the infamous "meat bomb":

http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/115956.html
http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/116344.html

Off-screen, they proved useful for developing advanced surgical techniques to alter the PCs' appearance.

All of this stuff is relevant more than in part because the PCs' only known backer is a Darmstadt-based bio-tech company, "Darmatech." At one point, they had three medics on the team!

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

[winking face]

Bless you for using a format my brain can decipher!

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I never said that it wouldn't be mass produced, just that it would only be fully vetted after at least one full life span.

One full lifespan is enough to make it obsolete. One does not waste a whole lifespan to test something only to throw it away.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

One full lifespan is enough to make it obsolete. One does not waste a whole lifespan to test something only to throw it away.

There's a simple fix to that, in the spirit of the engineer who says, "That's the problem—your glass is too big!"

Bill Stoddard

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

One full lifespan is enough to make it obsolete. One does not waste a whole lifespan to test something only to throw it away.

Which means in such a setting bioengineering will only be applied to things worth the time, at least for commercial/society building ventures.

The setting will determine what a "reasonable testing time" is; if the state controls the people, then it will be a matter of the state's actual policy towards the peoples' well-being, in addition to the collective competency of the state. In a relatively free society, it will depend on how shrewd the consumers are. If I did that right, I set up two opposites... that can justify either extreme for testing.

A nanny state may keep upgrades in testing for a generation between a desire to ensure the welfare of the people and because of internal inefficiencies... or it may rush things into use because the people are expendable. In a free market setting, shrewd consumers may lead to extensive biomod testing because no one would accept it for free, let alone buy it, without such safety assurances. On the other hand, people may be incredibly foolish and as soon as a biomod is available, flock to it if it suits their fancy.

Additionally, the better technology you have for producing biomods, likely the better tech you have for testing it. A true longitudinal study may be a mere formality.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Otaku

A nanny state may keep upgrades in testing for a generation between a desire to ensure the welfare of the people and because of internal inefficiencies... or it may rush things into use because the people are expendable. In a free market setting, shrewd consumers may lead to extensive biomod testing because no one would accept it for free, let alone buy it, without such safety assurances. On the other hand, people may be incredibly foolish and as soon as a biomod is available, flock to it if it suits their fancy.

Kind of down on risk-tolerance, hmm?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Kind of down on risk-tolerance, hmm?

Both ends of that spectrum have their problems. As Alexander Pope put it, "Be not the first by whom the new are tried,/Nor yet the last to set the old aside."

Bill Stoddard

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Kind of down on risk-tolerance, hmm?

Originally Posted by whswhs

Both ends of that spectrum have their problems. As Alexander Pope put it, "Be not the first by whom the new are tried,/Nor yet the last to set the old aside."

Bill Stoddard

Plus I tend to end up obfuscating my own points with unnecessary details, so I thought including the counterexamples of a nanny state actually harming its populace by keeping a "good" product off the market with too much regulation or the individual harming his or herself by demanding an unreasonable amount of research and documentation (thus preventing him enjoying it sooner or possibly at all) excessive. There are probably a few more angles I left out as well.

So... was it really necessary? I have a tendency to need things to be spelled out and given definitive "boundaries" myself so I would really like to know.

[Rocket Man]

My Supers campaign has made heavy use of these skills, in tandem with Physician, since the PC is a gadgeteer medical researcher. This has included racing the clock on an engineered "metavirus," helping a teenage relative better control her powers, and trying to improve her bodyguard's cancer treatment.

[Vynticator]

Seems a bit strange that there are no defaults from Biology to any medical skills, given that is the core academic subject which all medics need.

I would think Biology gives some knowledge of the following (for an investigators campaign):-
-human and animal anatomies
-what does and doesn't occur in nature (eg. death, mutation, unusual species/traits/behaviours)
-scientific method: keeping samples pure, handling apparatus, the
process of investigation and deduction, extrapolation from results
-knowledge of current theories, historical theories, current and past
eminent Biologists
-dealing with infection, disease control, all the 'World War Z' side
of things...

I'd be inclined to give defaults to Physiology and Surgery, albeit at quite severe levels (-5/-8).