Slashdot Mirror
Politicizing Science
An anonymous reader writes: "The Washington Post has a story about the government's efforts to remove independent scientific review boards and replace them with officials that match the views of administration. This includes careless elimination of life-saving safety regulations in gene-therapy to help specific business interests and hiring based on political views such as stem cell research and cloning. Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?
What is the point of power if you can't wield it from time to time. If we don't like the way the education system is being run we vote em out of office and get someone new.
Much better than an unelected quango situation where the public can do nothing!
I know! Let's have Michael Simms moderate science papers just like he moderated that physics article yesterday!
michael can post whatever he wants... case in point.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Of course, research has to be political, even many ppl here on slashdot won't agree.
By political, you mean for example the fact that some things are not agreeable to work on such as human cloning.
And I think the budget decisions on how much money is granted to a research branch is political
The main question, here, is how much should it be politized and if you trust yourpoliticians.
The right way to fix the problem may not be to give them less power, but to have politicians you trust.
I am a European, but is the real question : do you trust Bush government on defining Science ? Would you trust Nader ?
But in the long run, it will make no difference at all. Think about it, will the public really trust these stacked "review" boards anyway. Appearently, the general public is mostly ignorant of their existence to begin with. People are beginning to see that everything is just "spin". Anyone with enough money/power/influence can produce any study to show anything, this is hardly new, and I doubt anyone is really fooled. They can destroy the legitimacy of their own processes as much as they want, but ultimately the government "of the people, by the people, for the people" will answer to the people, if they piss everyone off.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Its all fine and dandy to say you can vote out the Government if you don't like the way they're running things... but with the truth being that governments are often the puppets of the large corporate lobby groups and their funding, having the governments interests running scientific research means that your getting McDonald's (fast food), Phillip Morris (tobacco / entertainment) Pfiezer (drugs) interests being served by the scientific community. Not science for the sake of science. Funnily enough these large corporations aren't interested in curing cancer, but rather selling product and making a profit. These prime directives interfere and oppose the Scientific communities general urges to do research for the good of society.
Fast answer is Bzzzt. WRONG
I disagree. People have extremely short memories when it comes to these issues. Very few people will pay any attention come elections time to a "well, he stacked those review boards back then" argument. Better to have formal regulations in place to begin with.
Is this wrong? Yes. Or do those with power get to do whatever they want? Cool.
THis is my signature bah: That's ridiculous, someone registered 'fullstar' so I had to choose 'fullstarplus'!!!
Sometime I wonder that if Bush is such a big friend of coroporations, howcome that the American economy is not doing better?? I mean that guy has tried everything to help those corporations, from replecing memebers in these commities to bloacking Kyoto. Why then does he need this facade of war against Iraq to divert the attentions of the Americans from their economy.
But hey, he is a smart chap. His dad one a war and then lost an election....the reason was that the war ended... The son learned from his father's mistakes...
What's under yellowstone?
Sounds nice, eh? But think... It is in the citizens power to vote and elect... is that ever used judicially. Until the number of votes depend upon the size of the car the guy is in, this will happen
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Then it isn't science. Review by independent scientists is a fundamental part of science. Unfortunately the vast majority of people have no understanding of science or its principles.
"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." --George W. Bush, May 5, 2000
With statements like that from their leader I'd hate to see what US govt officials have to say about embryo cell research and cloning...
- you are sofa king weed todd did
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
What do you mean or? The answer to both question is yes. It is wrong, but whose in power do what they want.
The danish government did a similiar thing back in the spring, they even admited openly they have cut down on review-boards that they considered too "lefty". This is the problem with government with a too stable majority; noone to oppose them.
"..help specific business interests and hiring based on political views such as stem cell research and cloning."
Now, if we could only get off our asses and get some scientists into political office, we can get back to playing scientist while the religious ridiculous right gets back to screaming about us playing imaginary friend.
This is pretty scary. Perhaps the illustrious President Bush should do a little reading about one Mr. Vannevar Bush. His dream of a government with a commitment to basic and practical sciences has slowly, with many fluctuations, become closer to a reality. More actions like this to destroy government research would put us back 30 years.
4 5.htm
Riding the wave of unprecedented collaboration between academia and the government during World War II, Vannevar Bush released a well-known (but not well read) report, Science: The Endless Frontier, outlining a new role for the federal government in research. He foresaw the need to replace the minimal government science policy with one that would supply the US with human resources for science, a research infrastructure between Government and universities, and a balance between fundamental research and national goals.
Vannevar helped set science policy in the US that has lasted for 60 years, and this administration's actions flies right in the face of that policy. Maybe Gdub should go do some reading:
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush19
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
Hmm.. I sense a rhetorical question ... ;) Yes, those elected get to do what they want with tax money. You like it, when they're dems, so don't pretend to oppose it generally.
Call me when they start pushing aquired heredity or a flat earth. Until then, yawn.
Basically, they want people who will look at the scientific data, and tell them the result they want to hear? Putting people from industrial companies on a review body to investigate the effects of industrial companies is going to give you a biased report (equally if you staff the board entirely with environmental activists) If these bodies aren't impartial, they'll be useless.
Admittedly, independent review boards are not perfect - they can & will be influenced, as with any other real world review system (juries, anyone?).
This type of board-packing, however, is completely shameless, and unfortunately is also perfectly consistent with the administration's "top-down" approach to everything.
When Bush & Co. ran for office, they were forthright about wanting to run the country like a business; however, everyone thought he meant "efficiently, with less waste", not "as a way to make money for the people at the top as quickly as possible, ignoring the actual accepted methods of governance, including listening to anyone, whenever possible".
I'm actually beginning to miss Clinton's disingenuity; he at least had the shame to try and cover up his malfeasance and two-facedness.
I guess we can only hope that Bush + Cheney are infected with one of the diseases that gov't stem cell research was working on. Ah...
As if the committees weren't biased before.
'"It's very frustrating," said Paul Gelsinger, who became a member of the committee after his son, Jesse, died in a Pennsylania gene therapy experiment that was later found to have broken basic saftey rules.'
Bet that guy's impartial.
Um, the article actually talks about regulation of genetic tests...
3 cases
1 Kennewick man. A twenty thousand year old skeleton found in Washington state. He's white, which means the "native american casino indian" is just another dammed invader like Columbus. Quickly buried by the Clinton administration under tons of concrete on a military base. He may yet see the light of day.
2 Some 50 studies showing women who aborted their first pregnancy have a breast cancer rate in excess of 10%, all other women are still around 3%. Planned Parenthood has shelled out big bucks to the Democratic Party to smother these studies.
3 Domestic violence studies. It turns out women are just as murderous as men, but instead of fists they use guns and knives. I guess some domestic violence is OK to the women's studies and NOW crowds.
Creation Science, anyone?
It might not be such an issue if it's just a relaxation of rules for the benefit of the economy in general (excepting the potential for problems caused by untested organisms and products appearing in the wild), but I personally would not like to see science budgets overseen by the Witchfinder General and his strange Christian fundamentalist friends.
But I'm in the UK, so I don't mind what happens on your side of the pond...
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
As far as I am concerned, I beleive it is the role of scientists to produce informed, well-researched and above all unbiased work. The best scientists in the world are the ones who are not afraid to quote their critics. A well-rounded scientific report should list all the pros and cons of any particular technology, thoery or practice.
Once all the available knowledge has been pulled together by scientists, then it is the role of politicians to choose their own apporach or bias from this work and run for election based on those principles. Of course, most politicians would need scientific advisors but the role there is predominantly political rather than scientific - kind of like a political knowledge worker rather than a political scientist.
Putting a political bias into scientific research from the start can only hider the quality of the research.
This is my ideal case. In the real world, most scientific research these days is bankrolled by people with an agenda - either to make money, win votes or both.
Correct me if I'm wrong but if an administration's chance of being re-elected is mainly made up of the amount of contributions they get from companies, isn't it to be expected that the administration will make policies favoring these companies. This is not a political statement, just an observation.
beauty is only a light switch away
You seem to be ceasing to be a democratic nation and are becoming a corporate oligarchy (and before anybody accuses me of being anti-American, the same thing is happening here in the UK).
It would be more honest if you renamed members of the administration, Fritz Hollings already seems to be nominated as the senator for Disney, presumably now you need senators for Xerox, Pfizer, General Motors etc. This would give people an idea of who these people really represent.
As the article also states that this has been going on for a long time. Of course it's in the Presidents best intrest to help thos who have helped him! It's politicaly correct. Just imagine the money spent on making these changes, no think about two years from now when we have elections again. So what good use is all this money doing-beside filling someone elses pockets?
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
This sort of thing has been insidiously increasing in recent years, all over the public service (and these science committees fall into that category I think). There've been a number of political discussions in the media about it over here.
It used to be that senior public servants here in Australia would more or less have tenure, and maintain there positions regardless of what party was in office; their long-term expertise in running their particular department or committee was held to be of greater value than their own personal political views. they were, for practical purposes, politically neutral.
Over the last 20 years or so though, there has been an increasing trend toward making political appointments to cronies of the party in goverment. When the party changes, the whole upper level of the public service gets purged, to be replaced by another crop of short-term political appointees. The problems of this should be obvious, since there is no medium to long term continuity in how things are run.
I cannot help but think that the we were better off the old way.
SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.
My point was that with Bush's track record to date, it won't matter if he stacks the review boards or not. People have their own ideas about things, and when either a "scientifically sound" Bush policy fails, or some unacceptable policy is suggested, whatever authority these review boards are presumed to have is going out the window.
Ultimately, democracy requires a lot of faith in the individual. That a single person can decide for him/herself what is good and bad. The average person may not understand science, but they can understand that when a "scientific review board" advocates more greenhouse gasses to improve the economy, and their house ends up underwater, that something went wrong. The only question here is how much damage can be done in the time it takes for people to recognize it.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
I didn't vote for them, it's not my goverment. I wish mine was that consistent about where they do stand. You could say that the governing body believes in something..!
In any case, if the people don't like this kind of thing, there's always the next election. Someone want those committees run themselves free of any external pressure whatsoever? Jack Valenti anyone?
Ever since the first rich landowner sponsored a pet scientist to work on projects there has been a political and social element to science.
Science is a powerful political and social tool. Especially in times of crisis and war. Look at the amount of science that was funded/pushed aside during the second world war. Or even the politicising of areas such as healthcare research and genetics.
Back in teh day it was the church that used science, not it's governments.
Rivals provides a great insight into this (michael white) as does chomsky and koestler in more depth.
Or even the work that has gone into SSK and contestation and dissemination of controversial or sensitive knowledge and research.
Working for the (other) man
Bush Junior and Bush Senior were relaxing on a Florida beach one summer afternoon..
"Look dad", says Junior, "a big boat"..
"That's not a boat son, that's a yacht.."
"Huh, how do you write that father ?"
Small pause, ... "No, you're right son, that's a boat."
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
A proper scientific report should clearly explain what and how the new information was found.
All the pros and cons should NOT be included.
For instance a report on the use of the "Morning After Pill" shouldn't contain the entire abortion arguement. It should as clearly and consisely as possible explain what new information was found.
When is the last time you voted for a politician because of his views on stem cell research? Before I'm shot down by a simple "Yes I have," I just want you to ask your average american voter that question.
...if you're non-American. Think about it:
- US economy is shot to hell
- weakening dollar
- hugely indebted on every important measure
- imperial delusions
- global overstretch
- unelected President
- Plutocracy
- repressive laws
- governed by religious fundamentalists
- slow unravelling of scientific culture
The Europeans must be loving it.
If you think we live in a democracy you're decieving yourself. We are CAPITALISTS. Under our system of government the corporations should rule. Right or wrong thats capitalism.
Hehe... looks like States will gone the same way that Soviets did. Be aware of this ficking goverment monster! It will eat itself sooner or later. Your country now looks absolutely the same as Soviets 20 years ago.
All that's being done is replacing the previous administration's political hacks with the new administration's. Do you think anybody appointed by Clinton wasn't part of a political agenda? Do you think scientists are pure and virtuous if the left picks them, but not the ones the right picks?
In the last few years there have been a number of "government" scientists discovered planting evidence that "proves" endangered species existed in certain areas in order to prevent logging or housing development, etc. As far as I'm concerned, any scientist or engineer working for the government is either actively or unwittingly pursuing a political agenda. And the most conspicuosly egregious example of this has been the agenda of the leftist religion of environmentalism.
gkc
Bill Clinton fired every federal prosecutor and most every administrator when he took power. They have practically the same power as judges, so yes, the current US president not only should but does.
Speaking of junk science, let's talk about environmentalism and the Green Religion. The "global warming" so often cited took place in the 30s and 40s, before the industrialization of the country. And the stupid Roadless Initiative and the bans on logging sure caused nice shows in AZ and CO this summer, didn't they?
Science has always been politicized. Today's environmentalists are no better and no different than the Pope persecuting Gallileo, and no more intelligent.
Sigh...
This is well known since the time of Aristotelis. Scientists are troublemakers.
However, the actions mentioned in the article seem like the result of a very naïve political agenda. Is the president a documented retard or any any other way seriously mentally handicapped? Does he have some genetic disorder, mental illness, or any infectuous disease which may have clouded his vision? Has anyone checked out of there has been some inbreeding in his family line? Does he stem from the Appalachians?
Does anyone know if can spell to potato in plural?
Did they trust Clinton's stacked boards? The Dems get a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Tree Huggers, so they put Tree Huggers on the boards. The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards. No matter which party is in power, it's a foolish to assume that a goverment "science review" board is unbiased. They exist to endorse administration policy, not to give unbiased advice.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
"Independent Review" boards have never been all that independent. Sometimes I think people believe that independence means the board has "people that agree with me" and not "this person will make just decisions." Just ask anyone who has applied for a grant or worked with a regulatory agency if the independent review board was political...
-- $G
This is somewhat off-topic, but it's something everyone should keep in mind.
I'm a lifelong resident of the Washington DC area, and a longtime reader of the Post. This paper is well known as being very liberal - consistently painting republicans and republican administrations in a bad light.
I know from the views expressed here on Slashdot that many people here have liberal views themselves. I tend towards conservatism. Everyone has a right to their viewpoint, but as a "newspaper of record" the Post has a responsibility for presenting its information in a balanced, non-biased way. It very frequently does not.
If you want the whole truth on any subject, don't just get your information from the Post.
Is it a proper thing for government to force morality in research? Yes it is. What if researchers where taking three year old kids off the street, killing them, and then expirmenting? Would you be arguing then that the government shouldn't be interfering with science because of morale issues? It's government's job to do this. That's why they are there... to inforce the morality standards set by its citizens.
Do all citizens agreee it is immoral to do stem cell research? No, not at all. A lot of people think it is immoral. Should the research continue without there being a public discussion and somewhat of a consensus on the subject? Absolutely not.
If a public is not given the opportunity to have a moral discussion on public policy, then you get situations where later generations look down apon the immoral practice of it's earlier government. For example, the genocide of the American Indian and African slavery. (If these would have been abolished until the morality issue was resolved, they wouldn't have happened.) In the case of stem cell research, we can stop it before it even gets started, have the morality debate, and then continue working on it if there is a consensus that it is moral.)
This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
Yeah, Phillip Morris really gets its money worth from the government... considering it was almost sued into bankruptcy.
This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
So the President wants to change scientific advisory committees so that they more closely represent his views...
Advisor: Mr. President, we need some guideance about our policies about stem cell research.
Bush: Ok! Fine. Um. Just remind me what stem cell research is for again?
Advisor: Well, Sir, stem cell research can be helpful in lots of fields, such as the search for cancer cures.
Bush: Great! Well that's a good thing then. Curing cancer, yes, I approve of that.
Advisor: But what about the religious viewpoint sir?
Bush: What? They don't approve of curing cancer?
Advisor The issue is that stem cells come from human foetuses, Sir.
Bush: Oh, well, that's obviously bad! It's obviously a bad thing! I can't approve of that!
Advisor But Mr President, many of the pharmaceutical companies say they could produce some very profitable drugs if they could perform research with stem cells.
Bush: Oh, damn, then that makes it good. Now I'm confused! This science stuff is very frustrating! Can I take a rest for a minute?
Interestly enough, there is a Guardian inteview with Christoper Reeve in todays issue in which he makes a number of passionate and obviously, very personal, points about stem cell research and the need for separation between Church and State. The interview can be read here
3 585,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,79
One of many excellent quotes is,
"We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology. Imagine if developing a polio vaccine had been a controversial issue," he says. "There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. What if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research? Where would we be with blood transfusions?"
It's an interesting read, not only for his political comments but also to see his determination to fight back when many would have given up.
When the next Democrat president is elected, there will be a Stalinist purge of these Bush folks.
And that Erin Brockovitch connection -- do we want science by industry, or science by Hollywood? Science by people who do science for a living, or science by Julia Roberts?
When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant...
Quot erat demostratum.
When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant...
Quot erat demostratum.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
You smoke wayyyy too much dope! Capitalism is NOT the country's creed. You failed elementary government in school, didn't ya? Probably want to run for political office too...
More than you can imagine.
Whoops! Contradicting yourself there ol' son. /.
EITHER the truth is just not clear OR scientists can reasonably be chosen based on your already knowing what conclusion they'll reach.
Can't have both.
Let's face it folks, this administration is fundamentally oposed to public review of *any* issue.
Bottom line, we leave them there long enough and they'll start going after
Don't believe me? Look at what happened to the SPIE (Society of PhotoInstrumentation Engineers) under Reagan. They started being threatened with arrest on treason charges if they released research that contradicted SDI (The "Star Wars" program).
As somebody who worked on a few SDI proposals and was doing fiber optics work at the time (mostly for defense applications) I don't intend to be quiet this time.
So, are you ready to "hang separately"?
Rustin H. Wright
Founder, Reed and Wright
F.O. patent 4,808,204 (drawings done on a Mac Plus!)
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
From an August 27, 1999 report by CNN reporter Bruce Morton (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/27 /president.2000/evolution.create/):
Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP front-runner, believes both evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects.
"He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught," a spokeswoman said.
It seems to me that every time I see a story like this, or pretty much any other US Political news at the moment it marks the corporate industrial power base entrenching itself more deeply in the mechanism of the state. That means stagnation, it means the suppression of innovation by vested interests and ultimately it means that the US has had its time as Top Nation and just like every previous empire it is slowly slipping down to the after show party with all of the "We were once great, you know" nations of Western Europe.
It won't happen immediately, but it is looking increasingly as though the energy and vitality that once defined the United States' global profile is being slowly washed away, or perhaps caged by those who fear innovation.
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?
Does might make right?
Think about it and the answer should be clear.
In a very timely interview Christopher Reeves blames a breakdown in the separation between church and state, namely Bushes dependence and appreciation of right wing Christian groups, for him still being paralysed
"We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology. Imagine if developing a polio vaccine had been a controversial issue," he says. "There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. What if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research? Where would we be with blood transfusions?"
Whether it's right for the separation of the church from deciding what's right and wrong in science experiments could be argued till the cows come home. What's not arguable is that any intrusion of politics into scientific debate won't be to the benefit of some special interest group.
A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members will be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the industries that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.
Ugh, can you imagine that scientist being totally objective ? At the moment US politics is completely dominated by companies trying to screw as much as they can out of the world. Putting them in charge of any advisory committees that help determine federal policy is going to be good for business and terrible for the US public.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Since the government already funds 97% of the scientific research in the country, I'd say it's pretty politicized already.
Plus, I know that 90% of tenured astronomers in the US come from six schools, so there is politics at that level, too. (The "one of us"/old boy network, you know.)
This is yet another case of the liberals trying to usurp God's role, and failing pathetically. It's only natural that a group of borderline-psychopathic thugs and killers would get their epistemology so wrong as to conclude that they are the creators of the universe. They have utterly failed to check their premises, and the results are obvious. Only God can make a stem cell, and only the triumph of Ego in a Free Market can create lead to scientific work. The reason for this is that the dynamics of the Free Market force businesses to concentrate all their efforts on short-term improvements in shareholder value. This is known as "fiduciary responsibility". The excercise of this responsibility prevents scientists from wasting their time and funding on blue-sky garbage and pseudoscience like so-called "evolutionary" biology, and indeed most other forms of biology as well. Astronomy and high-energy physics are two more pseudoscientific jokes which will only everbe funded by a socialist system. The number of "astronomers" and high-energy physicists running around loose in any given nation is an absolutely reliable indicator of the number of death squads they have. The two are inseparable. Both are inevitable results of a socialist system. Free scientists are prevented from squandering their energies on star-gazing and the like, but enslaved scientists can waste their time any way they like, even on things which show little promise of profit in the near future. It's disgusting, and it's only one aspect of the socialist octopus which entangles our world in these benighted times.
My logic is meretricious and my conclusions are indisputably indefensible. My facts stand on firm epistemological ground. You may draw different conclusions if you like, but only if you are insane. You may dispute my facts, but only if you are deluded. If you are rational and in touch with reality to any measurable extent, you will agree with me.
Quoting Washington Post:
At least the Americans seem to be half-aware of what's happening. As a European with an interest in the protection of privacy and human rights I am appalled at how little my fellow EU citizens seem to know about the erosion of their rights and how readily they accept it when they're told about the recent changes. European media doesn't really criticize this process because they can either be silenced (even big news broadcasters like BBC have been under heavy pressure from the UK Home Office) or they censor themselves in fear of appearing sensationalist.
The owls are not what they seem
Just where do you get the idea that scientific communities are researching "for the good of society" any more than other people/entities? Seems to me some scientists are more concerned about their reputations, personal wealth, etc...
Heh, lets all start blaming the other side of the aisle on issues. Its the Demopublicans fault! No, its the Republicrats fault! Get real, as a group, the only real difference is the hot air they belch when they act like they aren't in the back pockets of moneyed interests. Blaming a political philosephy just ignores the issue at hand and turns the whole thing into a mud wrestling match where the people in power buy popcorn and laugh.
I'm in the UK too, but don't try to pretend that the US doesn't affect us here. The UK is in the odd position of being close to both the US and Europe. At the moment we're closer to the US. A lot of our culture is shared (Well, imported at the very least), and you'll be wise to note that a lot of laws are introduced in the UK shortly after the US.
There is a reason I call him "Tony Bush"* these days...
* As a BBC News reporter accidently said, one evening. It sounds about right to me, though.
Problem is knowning the yankee's they will terrorize you into submission later on down the road.
{rant on}
Anyone who objects to moral science on religious grounds needs to find a new line of work. 18 cells that could form a human are not a sentient human being no matter how much your heart-warming christian ideologies want it to be. Condeming science due to fear of God is just as plain ignorant.
And of course the whole matter-splitter for the discussion of gene therapy is at what "stage" do you stop and say "this is a human". For example, are 10^15 carbon atoms a human? They could be used to make a human, etc... So are fossil fuels now religiously forbidden? etc...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
If a scientific review board's findings can be altered or influenced, then it is no longer a scientific review board.
I guess you'd have to call the resulting farce a 'view board', because it doesn't actually REview anything or use scientific methods (i.e. have an open mind on an outcome).
Firstly, I'm not a Christian, and I have no problems with stem cell research. However, I think that any debate should include those who have strong moral views on the subject. Some science should be reviewed on it's ethics.
However, what annoys me, is when people with a moral arguement try to strengthen it but distorting science (such as playing up adult stem cells (which are good, but aren't all that)).
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Umm no we are a represenative republic. I am so sick of people blaming corporations for our problems. The number of average americans outnumber the number of corporate elite about ten thousand to one, if people educated themselves and voted it would not matter how much $$ corporate america had..
Looks like someone got ticked when they found out they had to buff someones pickle to get their submit posted. Welcome to the club. My record is 2 days before, whats yours?
Politics is just the manifestation of your philosophy and morality. It's not possible to separate this from science, or anything else.
Is it OK to experiment on adults? Children? Babies? Pre-babies? Why or why not? At some point, your religion, philosophy, morality, whatever, have to become involved. There is no other basis for making such decisions. The Pete Singer's of the world are at least honest (if repulsive) in admitting what their bias is.
"Let's just put our differences aside and do what I think is right", seems to be the battle cry here. Nope, sorry. We settle these differences through politics. At least in the western world we do it at the ballot box, ultimately.
Huh ?? "at the moment" ?
it's pretty evident that the UK has always been far closer to the US than it ever was to Europe.
and it fails me to understand why other European community members put up with it.
Johann Kepler (1571-1630) was the founder of physical astronomy. Kepler wrote "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) is credited with being the father of modern chemistry. He also was active in financially supporting the spread of Christianity through missions and Bible translations.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was one of the greatest early mathematicians, laid the foundations for hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, differential calculus, and the theory of probability. To him is attributed the famous Wager of Pascal, paraphrased as follows: "How can anyone lose who chooses to be a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing--in fact, has been happier in life than his nonbelieving friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell!"
John Ray (1627-1705) was the father of English natural history, considered the greatest zoologist and botanist of his day. He also wrote a book, "The wisdom of God Manifested In The Works of Creation."
Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686) was the father of Stratigraphy. He believed that fossils were laid down in the strata as a result of the flood of Noah. He also wrote many theological works and late in his life took up religious orders.
William Petty (1623-1687) helped found the science of statistics and the modern study of economics. He was an active defender of the Christian faith and wrote many papers sharing evidence of God's design in nature.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) invented calculus, discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion, anticipated the law of energy conservation, developed the particle theory of light propagation, and invented the reflecting telescope. He firmly believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior and the Bible as God's word, and wrote many books on these topics.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) was the father of biological taxonomy. His system of classification is still in use today. One of his main goals in systematizing the varieties of living creatures was an attempt to delineate the original Genesis "kinds." He firmly believed in the Genesis account as literal history.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was one of the greatest physicists of all time, developed foundational concepts in electricity and magnetism, invented the electrical generator, and made many contributions to the field of chemistry. He was active in the various ministries of his church, both private and public, and had an abiding faith in the Bible and in prayer.
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was the founder of the science of comparative anatomy and one of the chief architects of paleontology as a separate scientific discipline. He was a firm creationist, participating in some of the important creation/evolution debates of his time.
Charles Babbage (1792-1871) was the founder of computer science. He developed information storage and retrieval systems, and used punched cards for instruction sets and data sets in automated industrial controls. He was also a Christian with strong convictions and wrote an important book defending the Bible and miracles.
John Dalton (1766-1844) was the father of atomic theory, which revolutionized chemistry. He was an orthodox, Bible-believing Christian.
Matthew Maury (1806-1873) was the founder of oceanography. He believed that when Psalm 8:8 in the Bible talked about "paths in the seas," that there must therefore be paths in the seas. He dedicated his life to charting the winds and currents of the Atlantic and was able to confirm that the sea did indeed have paths, just as spoken of in the Bible.
James Simpson (1811-1879) discovered chloroform and laid the foundation for anesthesiology. He said his motivation to perform the research leading to this discovery was a fascination in the book of Genesis with Adam's deep sleep during the time in which Eve was fashioned from his side. He said his biggest discovery was finding Jesus Christ as Savior.
James Joule (1818-1889) discovered the mechanical equivalent of heat, laying the foundation for the field of thermodynamics. Joule also had a strong Christian faith.
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) was the father of glacial geology and a great paleontologist. He believed in God and in His special creation of every kind of organism. When Darwin's Origin began to gain favor, Agassiz spoke out strongly against it.
Gregory Mendel (1822-1884) was the father of genetics. He had strong religious convictions and chose the life of a monk. He was a creationist and rejected Darwins's ideas, even though he was familiar with them.
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the father of bacteriology. He established the germ theory of disease. His persistent objections to the theory of spontaneous generation and to Darwinism made him unpopular with the scientific establishment of his day. He was a Christian with extremely strong religious convictions.
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) is considered one of the all-time great physicists. He established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis, providing a precise statement of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was a strong Christian, opposing both Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution. In 1903, shortly before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, "With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power."
Joseph Lister (1827-1912) founded antiseptic surgical methods. Lister's contributions have probably led to more lives being saved through modern medicine than the contributions of any one else except Pasteur. Like Pasteur, Lister was also a Christian and wrote, "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."
Joseph Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed a comprehensive theoretical and mathematical framework for electromagnetic field theory. Einstein called Maxwell's contributions "the most profound and most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton." Maxwell rejected the theory of evolution and wrote that God's command to man to subdue the earth, found in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible, provided the personal motivation to him for pursuing his scientific work. He acknowledged a personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) developed the concept of non-Euclidian geometry, which was used by Einstein in his development of the theory of relativity. Riemann was also a Christian and had hoped to go into the ministry until he got sidetracked by his interest in mathematics. He apparently made several efforts to prove the validity of the book of Genesis using mathematical principles.
Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901) was a chemist who developed the use of nitrogen and superphosphate fertilizers for farm crops and co-developed the world's first agricultural experimental station. He thus laid the foundations for the advances in agricultural science which have provided the means for farmers to feed the large populations in the world today. Gilbert is yet another scientist with a strong faith and demonstrated this by signing the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the Bible as the Word of God and expressed his disbelief in and opposition to Darwin's theories.
Thomas Anderson (1819-1874) was one of the initial workers in the field of organic chemistry, discovering pyridine and other organic bases. Like Gilbert, he also signed the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the scientific accuracy of the Bible and the validity of the Christian faith.
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was among the greatest of all archeologists. He acquired "liberal" theological beliefs during his days as a university student. However, as he began to make various archaeological discoveries in Asia Minor, he began to see that archaeology confirmed the accuracy of the Bible and as a result he became converted to Christianity.
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) was the inventor of the Fleming valve which provided the foundation for subsequent advances in electronics. He studied under Maxwell, was a consultant to Thomas Edison, and also for Marconi. He also had very strong Christian beliefs and acted on those beliefs by helping found an organization called the "Evolution Protest Movement." He wrote a major book against the theory of evolution.
Werner Von Braun (1912-1977) was the father of space science. He wrote,"'..the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), formulator of the theory of relativity, which is one of the single greatest intellectual accomplishments in the history of man. Einstein was Jewish and thus did not follow in the Christian tradition of Newton or Faraday. He did not believe in a personal God, such as is revealed even in the Jewish Bible. Yet, he was overwhelmed by the order and organization of the universe and believed this demonstrated that there was a Creator. (text from Great Scientists Who Were Also Creationists
The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
Being outside the US but inside government-funded sicence I recognise this issue albeit on another scale. At times directions for where reserach should be heading will sometimes come down from "the top", leading to strcutural changes in the way research units are put together.
Mostly there is a wish for scientists to mark themselves internationally as well as conducting the government's research, which leaves the scientist with excellent opportunities to participate in international programmes in whatever type of research he/she wants to do. If sudden media attention arises on a certain topic, which was previously denied funding, will all of a sudden find funding ocmming flooding in, so that officials can turn around and say "see we ARE doing something about it...."
However, the construct in many european countries are somewhat different in that we have a separate ethical board which deals with the really touchy subject. These boards are composed of researchers from all sectors, as well as government officials. Having a bunch of government officials having absolute power over decision making of where science is going would most likely lead to ever-changing direction without any commitment to any kind of research that are likely to last any longer than the current election period
-.sig sauer-
Since the failure and fall of communism people have been tempted by the false reasoning: "since communism failed, capitalism must work".
Well, it doesn't and now we're starting to see why.
Christopher Reeve has been mentioned several times lately here.
I think it would be worth while to set up an interview on Slashdot with him.
Any one else agree?
What did they call this practise back in the 30's ... Aryan Science?
This is far from surprising, having worked for an office of a federal agency that oversees committees under FACA I know firsthand that these can and will be politicized. There were levels mainly of "interference" from the administration. The three highest orders of course would come straight from the Administrator of the Agency itself. A recommendation of somebody for a particular committee, not an order mind you just a kindly suggestion of course!
Independent boards staffed by volunteers are often biased as well. Boards dealing with medical science are often staffed with self-styled "medical ethicists", and like to propose bans on stem cell research, genetics research, and so on. Proponents of such research usually cannot be bothered to volunteer for such boards. Similarly, environmental boards are staffed mostly with scientists who are also environmentalists. In my country at least, these boards make biased and rather conservative recommendations, conservative being "opposed to new things" rather than "right wing".
Funny, over here the tendency is to ban things, while it seems these boards in the US seem to swing the other way and take a rather laissez-faire attitude. You'd expect real scientists to choose to research, then regulate.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The interesting thing is that this belief is actually a hangover from the Soviet era when the Communist government believed that it could reconstruct reality to suit dogma.
Of course, this belief fouled up Soviet science. Now it looks like Bush and co. are going to repeat the process. Instead of communist apparatchiks deciding what is science and what isn't, capitalist apparatchiks do the job.
Forget the separation of Church and State for a moment, anyone sufficiently badly educated or stupid to believe Creationism for a microsecond shouldn't be left in charge of a potato chip, let alone a school board or a government.
Ah well, I don't expect European bioresearch and pharmaceuticals companies are too worried. The day Bush needs a stem cell based treatment for Alzheimer's, or whatever, he'll have a sudden conversion to science.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
of course it's wrong!
> But I'm in the UK, so I don't mind what happens on your side of the pond...
Unfortunately with the world increasingly moving towards a more globalized paradigm of economic and political organization, what happens on this side of the pond can have tremendous impact on your side. No man (or country) is an island (metaphorically speaking of course).
well naturally I think everyone agrees that science has limits. e.g. mass murdering 75 people to see how brain activity changes as they die is obviously "unethical"
But playing with a non-sentient bunch of organic cells?
Anyways... I was just ranting into the wind, not really targetting the parent post.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I'm amused - how many of you think these review panels were created politically clean and are only now becoming "tainted"? Are you really so naive as to think that Reagan/Bush I/Clinton or whoever first set up a given panel didn't stack them in the first place?
Did this post have a point aside from bashing the President?
Dont get pissed a corporate america because many dont vote or always vote their pary line..
The church fucked up many many countries goverments for a very long time. This had to stop, now more and more countries cut their goverments loose from religion. The goverments are better, more fair, and serve their people better without religious madmen imposing their own screwed up ideals (apparently you can't have normal sex with a woman as a priest, but banging little boys is ok...).
So why do we not understand that science has to be separated from goverment. The goverment can fund science by funding universities etc, and the goverment can set political goals such as "we need science to help us clean up the environment" or "We need research about alternatives to oil and nuclear power". But what the goverment can not do is to evaluate the results, nor can they decide how the research should be done (with the obvious rules of not violating laws, but this does not mean that the goverment can put their greasy fingers into the science).
Democracy is failing more and more for every day that goes, and this is just one more example.
For anyone who's worked for the government or on-site as a federal contractor, you know that there's, shall we say, a certain political bent much in evidence among ordinary government workers. According to the article, the committees that are being revamped are advisory committees reporting to HHS, which is a huge federal agency. In particular, notice how the very first claim made by the HHS employee interviewed in the article is that they haven't seen anything like this since ...Reagan. I'll guarantee you they have. The large agency I work with has undergone several such shuffles in the past 12 months and only slightly less in the preceding year. Putting some right-leaning public figures or even industry insiders on those committees will more likely add balance to the final product, not take it away.
*** ***
I believe that science is not only a method of understanding, but that it is a religion. Think about it, science woreships knowlege. It has it's deciples, or scientists. It has it's religious cerimonies, or research. It has it's own missionaries, those that spread the knowlege.
So, in light of all that, hands off my religion you government clods!
Of course they are. To suggest that scientists have somehow transcended above the human experience is ludicrous. EVERY scientist has an agenda.
Case in point, when Carl Sagan says that there are probably billions of other life forms in the universe, is this based on scientific analysis of the factual evidence, or because of an eager, heartfelt desire to prove their existence?
I hope an editor sees this. Reeve has a very personal view on the use of advances such as stem cell research. However, I would also like to hear his answers to the nay-sayers that have messed his chances up.
The government has been conducting back to front "scientific research" for years.
Take, for example, the "research" that proved that marijuana kills brain cells. They paraded it around like it was the holy grail, but no other facility could duplicate the results of their "research".
That's just one example of government funded "science" with validity somewhere between cold fusion and Scientology "discoveries".
Cool, I suspected that our viewpoints weren't that fair apart.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Science sold its objectivity long ago. Politically incorrect science seldom gets funded and when it does, politically correct peers doom it. A study a few years ago seemed to show pretty conclusively that a well-run orphanage is much better for children than the current foster care system. Anybody seen any followup studies? Me neither. The "science" promoting the "gay gene" was hilariously bad. Anybody seen it refuted?
Most modern scientists are whores looking for evidence to support their preconceived notions.
That is the offical view of our government. Any disenting opionions can be taken up with jailor at their leisure.
I think we have seen this before. Do we really learn nothing from our past.
Presidents since Jackson replaced the encumbent bureaucrats with their supporters and favorites, and it's not like Bush is acting any different than any other Democrat or Republican president. As far as I'm concerned, such politicians are all scum. They obviously don't have the best interests of the nation in mind. Instead, they prefer to cater to whatever block of voters got them into power. The irony is that we are the ones who confirm this by actually voting them in!
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
This has been a common theme throughout the past several years. George Bush Sr. had been in office for less than six months when the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) censored James E. Hansen of the Goddard Institute. Hansen was to make many predictions about environmental damage due to intensifying greenhouse gasses but was forced by the OMB to state that his scientific evidence was inconclusive.
As another example, George W. Bush has, as critics attest, violated the Freedom of Information Act in enabling the censorship EPA environmental information.
The point of the matter is that Government has been censoring and manipulating scientific opinion to serve its political needs. Anyone who thinks this is a new concept is mistaken. As scientific issues grow in complexity and clash with current procedures and legislature, we can surely expect more of such behavior. This action comes as no surprise.
Here we go again, I just know they are going to try and bring back that "Earth is Flat" theory back!
Science is just another subject he flunked before he found out about majoring in business administration.
as to the real intent of the post. Either trolling or deliberately flame
baiting. Your response is dead on though. Im so tired of people who believe
that because they are uninformed enough to make an objective decision that
all scientists are. Yes scientists are human and have biases but the better
ones try real hard to put those biases aside when doing research. The ones
like the AC from above simply state all research is biased so research that
favours their views is just as good as any.
These independent review boards were not doing peer review of other scinetists work they are little think tanks that give policy advice. They were never (if such a thing is even possible when giving policy advice) giving their advice from some pure knowledge-for-it's-own-sake scientific stance. They have always been staffed by scientists and academicians and LAWYERS who are activists or politically biased.
The only thing happening here is that a group of (who are very influential because they can set the initial terms of debate) policy advisors that agreed with the views of the last administration is being replaced by a group of policy advisors that agree with the views of the current administration.
get to do pretty much whatever they want. If you want more socially responsible government, then vote Socialist. And there's more to it than just voting once every few years. Be politically active. Call and write your representatives and express your views. Get involved in local politics. If all you do is sit on your ass and watch your TiVo, don't be suprised when you've found your political power gone.
No matter which party is in power, it's a foolish to assume that a goverment "science review" board is unbiased. They exist to endorse administration policy, not to give unbiased advice
And it's peoples willingness to accept this, that is the real problem.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.
Well, OK then. If Holywood has peer reviewed his work and found it wanting he MUST be a bad scientist.
The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards.
Actually it is the Fundies who are upset because the bio-research board has been stacked with bio-research company scientists.
He is not the current president. That he had some flaws does not give
the current President the right to do stupid things. The line of logic
"They all do it" is flawed and doesn't address the real problem. If
a conservative litmus test is required before appointment to a review
board that should be objective, why bother to have the board at all.
Clinton is not the current president and can't run again so brining
him into this debate is pointless. Either the current administrations
policy is good or it is, as I believe, flawed. That is the issue.
Well, it would make sense that if you want total control you remove the existance/relevance of a Free and Independant Academia.
All aboard the Totalitarianism Train, next stop: Fascism! TOOT! TOOT!
Did they trust Clinton's stacked boards? The Dems get a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Tree Huggers, so they put Tree Huggers on the boards. The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards. No matter which party is in power, it's a foolish to assume that a goverment "science review" board is unbiased. They exist to endorse administration policy, not to give unbiased advice.
Ayup, thus another reason for a third party.
Gee, could you state this in a more biased, loaded and patronizing manner? Hell, why not just make up my mind for me, and relieve me of the burden of thinking.
BH
Fools! They laughed at me at the Sorbonne...!
Except that it's total bullshit. He's not throwing grenades into boxes of kittens. He's trying to help people recover from debilitating injuries and diseases. And the church is trying to prevent it in order to further their political campaign against abortion.
If the church was really after humanitarian causes rather than trying to make sure new disciples spawn as quickly as possible, they would have objected to embryo-juggling in fertility clinics, which had been going on for years before stem cell research got big. But no, they only got the ball rolling now. So transparent.
There is nothing inhumane about embryonic stem cell research, and everything inhuman about hindering it. Similarly with abortion - the church doesn't care about suffering and crime and the ruined lives of young mothers, rape victims, etc. They care about pumping out more believers. And our parents might remember from a few years ago when the church was still campaigning against birth control.
They don't campaign for things for fun, and if they were great moral crusaders, we'd see church-backed demonstrations and "nuremberg files" websites on the environment or corruption in government or colonialism, or any of the other big causes of the poverty they make such a show of "ministering to." Of course, if ministering happens to be recruitment too, hey, who was using those poor people anyway?
Let me spell it out for you.
80% of the world's Catholics live below the poverty line.
Catholicism is a disease that preys on the poor and ignorant.
Or perhaps it's more like a paraiste. It attaches, sucks out money and work, changes behavior to further propagate itself... "You wouldn't like the world without the church." I'll take it any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Some time from now, when we can look back on it with the illumination of hindsight, the anti-birth-control,anti-stem-cell,anti-abortion campaign will look as evil and cynical as the crusades, or their unwillingness to institute zero-tolerance against pedophile priests, or the church's policital struggles to control Europe (still being fought today, for instance, in Ireland!). Especially on the eve of a Malthusian population nightmare.
What's that, you ask? There are over six billion people on earth. The last billion of which were born in the last ten years. Do the math. Or maybe you went to catholic school, and they taught you some of that new math?
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Well you obviously missed it. But the voters didn't.
Sucker.
... hiring based on political views such as stem cell research and cloning. Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?
Part of the problem is that technology issues fall more and more under the category of moral issues. As we increase our ability to *do* anything, the question becomes *should* we do it. At which point, scientists (as scientists) become largely useless, as they are often blinded by thier often ill-thought out moral positions. ("We *can* do it. This is a *possible* benefit. Therefore we *must* do it.")
Scientists, for better or for worse, are accepted by the large part of the american public as oracles. Politicians, who should (scary thought) be our moral arbitors, realise this, and know that a scientist who agrees morally with them is worth his weight in gold. Ergo, hiring based on moral thoughts. Perhaps it is wrong when government boards are investigating what we *can* do, but perhaps not when they are investigating what we *should* do.
Cheers,
prat
Question: how do you vote? It's a serious, not a rhetorical, question.
I agree with you... up to a point. It's hard to ignore the steady increase in the amount of money being spent on elections and the consistent pulling of the teeth of any attempt at campaign finance reform (golly, remember way back before the "world changed..." you know, back before everybody learned that a)airplanes are flammable, b)tall buildings are easy targets, and c)there are a lot of people out there that really hate the USA? Remember way back before that, when we Americans were all so oblivious to the danger of somebody flying an airplane into us that we were actually getting a little tiny bit worked up about "campaign finance reform" for a little tiny while? Vaguely? No? Yeah, well it was a long time ago...)
Despite this almost everyone I know falls to the thinking that "if I don't vote for corporate sponsored candidate X corporate sponsored candidate Y will get eleceted... and that will mean the end of the world!" When I tell my friends that I've lost the belief that there is a substantive difference between DFLer and GOPers, (a SUBSTANTIVE difference, mind you... yes they have very different rhetorical platforms and will tend to split on certain key issues... abortion, for example...) they ger VERY ANGRY.
I had "liberal" friends who got VERY ANGRY at me for voting for Ralph Nader in the presdidential election... despite the fact that it was a sheerly strategic vote, to help increase minor party power in Minnesota, because I KNEW Gore would carry MN (freaking Mondale carried MN, okay? Dukakis carried MN) and so my vote had no impact on the outcome of the national election. They got ANGRY at me.
So, how do you vote? I vote strategically. Because the sad fact is that I can't find anyone to vote for that I think has a snowball's chance of getting elected who I would actually like to see elected. To be honest, most of the people I vote for would probably be lousy or at best inneffectual if they actually got elected. But at least a little tiny bit of federal cash gets put somewhere besides the epic battle of "Business as Usual" versus "Same Old Same Old."
I look at Bush the younger, who took his "he believes in the Federal government and I believe in the People" rhetoric to Washington and has proceeded to orchestrate the biggest Federal land grab for power at the expense of individual liberty (read the stinking P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, okay... and remember that only 1 Democrat, 1 Independent and Three conservative Republicans had the grapes to stand up for the constitution in the face of terrorism...) that has occurred in my lifetime. Like smaller government? Well you'll like the huge consolidation of federal power that will occur under the flag of "Homeland Security" (would someone please tell me when I started living in a homeland? I was certain I lived in nation...)
Or I look at Clinton and the Democrats... As dirty on Enron as any Republican, soft as warm butter on the environment, civil liberty, corporate reform. I love the way my friends who enjoy the occasional "mind altered" experience vote Dem because Democrats are Liberal and Liberals are more "Enlightened" in drug law reform... despite the fact that the most draconian anti-drug legislation of the last two decades was written by Democrats in a mad dash to prove they were "tough on crime..." and despite the fact that Bill Clinton signed legislation that, had it been in effect when his OWN BROTHER was convicted for cocaine posession, would have put him away for TWENTY YEARS. Jeezus, what the hell kind of people ARE these?
So, I continue to vote as strategically as I can to facilitate some foothold of independent action agains the corporate-sponsored "divide and conquer" strategy which has so effectively dismantled the relevance of representative democracy in this nation. Honestly, I'd like a better option, I really would. How do YOU vote?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Based on actual science, adult stem cells show results, and as great potential as the embryonic cells that this debate is stuck on.
Let's focus our attention on the cells that are show practical application.
Let's not distort science to show that "embryonic cells are the only hope," either.
Why not make additional investments in the areas of research that are already bearing fruit, rather than get enmired in a debate about whether using those cells is efficient & effective, or if it is killing people.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
No matter which party is in power, it's a foolish to assume that a goverment "science review" board is unbiased. They exist to endorse administration policy, not to give unbiased advice
And it's peoples willingness to accept this, that is the real problem.
Nobody is 'accepting' anything. It's his board, and he can do with it as he pleases. If you don't like their conclusions, feel free to start your own board and publish whatever results you like. Everyone gets to make their own decisions here.
I'ts important to recognize that the only authority these boards have is advising the president -- they don't make policy, they don't enforce policy, they don't legislate and their conclusions aren't binding.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Of course it is wrong. The purpose of science is to confirm what is politically correct, and bush policies are *not* politically correct. This is the opposite of science.
Ah yes, the powerful, Tree Hugging Illuminati. No wonder all the tree huggers I know are lower middle class or poor, they're funneling all their money to remake the world into a green paradise that is more suitable to the alien invaders. I'm amazed that the kind hearted PG&E reps have been so successful in their resistance since the Tree Huggers have so totally outspent them. I guess it's because Bush is more principled than Clinton and is looking beyond the mountains of cash the Tree Huggers have shoveld on Washington.
Most universities and their researchers are rabid left-wing ideologues. Of course they could put aside *their* political and Gaia-worship (without the terms dogma and heresy) biases, but I expect it is easier for an industry insider to put aside the profit motive than a zealot his faith.
When the existing group bring to the table their biases and have their reports shaded one way, they should expect to be removed.
Part of the problem involves the intellectual property stuff often discussed here at slashdot.
When you are studying something that won't immediately be profitable, you can do so much more cleanly than something with immediate use, especially if you can get a patent, and insure it won't be heavily regulated. Even so, there are rivalries, the story of the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA is such an example.
Even in the article and about ethics, there was an interesting note about how a board wanted to increase protection for the mentally ill but not the unborn. Such a question right now is only political - "When do people have rights?" can be discussed by philosophers, theologians, and politicians. But it is not a scientific question.
Only bad policy can come when politics masquerades as science - Were Galileo around today, these boards would not approve funding for his research because it would probably contradict the current scientific dogmas. Another example is plate tectonics and continental drift - it was proposed and laughed at in 1905, back then continents didn't move. I forgot the name of the person who came up with the theory, but he would not have been funded either. Then there was Lamark v.s. Lysenko in Russia.
At least now the masquerade is ended - these boards were always political.
And maybe we can go to a different form. Instead of everyone going to the government for funds ("I want to be free except when I want something for free" seems to be the motto), foundations, 501c3s, trusts and others could be set up with tax deductions or credits to fund research, so you can shop for one that agrees with your biases.
But check out today's New York Times. Turns out the unbiased, left-leaning scientists at our elite universities are also biased:
l /1 7PINK.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/17/science/socia
Bias is everywhere. Let's not overreact, ok?
I disagree with this assessment. In order for most people to actually get upset about this something will have to affect them in a directly negative way. And I don't think that's going to happen (at least not in the short term). The problems introduced by these biased review boards will be so latent as to be unnoticed in the relevant future (i.e. more global warming won't mean the ice caps melt next year). By the time people start to see negative effects it will be way too late and they won't even connect them with this policy.
The whole point of this is to silence the voices of those who offer opposing views. If the public only gets one side of the story, it won't occur to most of them that there's another side.
Of course those with power get to do whatever they want. That is why people strive to gain power. This is the way it has always been, and likely will always be. Every once in a while you have a "revolution" where one group rests power from another, but it is just an exchange. You still have those with power and those without.
In the United States, we have a lot of niave people. They have yet to realize that corporations run the world, and that those corporations exercise their power by buying and selling political officials. It's not a democracy. It's a system of government whereby the party with the most cash dictates the rules. As a private individual (a "consumer"), you only have as much power as they deem to give you, which is to say, next to none.
Why does this work? Because Americans don't care. As long as we can get our Big Macs and our DVDs and our TiVo and our Internet porn and drive our fuel-sucking SUVs, we're happy. Sure, we might make a little token gesture of protest every once in a while to protect some petty personal interest (like keeping that rehap clinic from being built in your neighborhood). But other than that, we're cattle. Moo.
Power goes to those with the balls to take it and the balls to keep it, and there are a lot of nutless people in the world. Huxley had it dead on the money. Brave New World, here we are.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Life might be a lot simpler if you believe something like this, but the fact is that in our system of goverment, we elect people to act as our representives in government.
Since democracy = government by the popular, to run for office, one needs to use the media. Since our democracy is capitalist and media outlets are not state-run, this costs money.
Corporations understand this. If MegaCorp X* (* insert your particular corporate villain here, or labor group, or environmental group, or any lobby or PAC) likes the policies one endorses, they will give that individual (their campaign, their party, etc) money to access the media outlets more successfully.
Do I think that there is some implied quid pro quo involved? Certainly in some cases at least, it would be naive to believe otherwise. Do I think Greenpeace hands Barbara Boxer a check for $50,000 and says "now you must vote to do what we say!" Hardly. To believe THAT is equally naive. Entities support the politicians that align with their interests. Companies that give to BOTH sides are simply arming themselves for both eventualities, and hoping that the implied quid pro quo is enough to maintain that politician's favor.
The question is, what do you think is so much better - a totally state-controlled scientific system in which companies have NO say in what gets research funding/focus? Or perhaps a totally free-market system where the government gives NO money for scientific research, and companies/foundations can follow whatever they want.
Is our system perfect? No. But the statement "Government is owned by Corporate America" is as banal as it is naive.
-Styopa
A distubing parallel to this is the story of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, who almost singlehandedly destroyed Soviet biological science fron the 1940's to the 1960's. In Lysenko's view, plants and animals (and by extension people) had to be infinitely pliable by changes in their environment and Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution must be simply the result of sick capitalist propaganda. This fit in quite well with Stalin's beliefs, and so Lysenko and his cronies took over Russian genetics and agriculture, exiled or put to death the best Soviet scientists, and caused an econmic catastrophe which contributed to the fall of the USSR.
Time Magazine blurb about Lysenko
The issue is not conservative vs. liberal, Democratic vs. Republican, or Western vs. Soviet. It is ideology vs. facts. It is a bad idea to only listen to the facts that support your preconceived notions. And any kind of ideological litmus test to these positions of governmental authority and review is another really bad idea. We could very well have another Lysenko offstage, ready to pounce.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
What is the difference really? if a big corp funds research,they damn sure want results that furthers their products,viewpoints and agendas.If this doesnt occur,funding dries up.So with this in mind. what do you think that prof. or head of research is gonna do? Hes got a $250,000 house to pay for.All research runs the risk of bias. We're all screwed.So with that in mind, how about we start a /. research fund into the benefits of marijuana?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Capitalism is an *economic system*, not a political one. You can be capitalist and still have any political system in place.
Despite comments to the effect that these boards have little actual significance, or that everything is relative and so it makes no difference who's "on board", in point of fact the scientific expertise contributed by members is quite important. For example, balancing vaccine safety vs. vaccine risk and indeed the entire regimen of vaccination of children is largely the output of unpaid boards of experts. If these boards are stacked with industry representatives, the output of recommendations is likely to be affected, and probably in way that favors industry to the detriment of consumers.
My SO is on several scientific advisory boards, and of late has noticed that the composition of the boards is changing, as is the manner in which board members are selected. We should be nervous when we see too many non-PhD industry flacks suddenly appearing on SABs, as in the cases I can see via observation by my SO.
Imagine the frustration and risk of "compromising" with people who don't have the fundamental conceptual grounding to understand the topic under discussion. Imagine further that these people don't pursue "truth" as close as we can approximate it based on the scientific method but instead arrive at the discussion with a preconceived set of notions supporting an agenda having to do with enhancing profit. It's a bad combination, because not only do we end up with poor decisions, we also end up in a deathspiral as SABs are no longer able to enroll scientific talent.
Hey, you guys elected them. Oops, no you didn't!
One thousand votes are useless when the only people who get onto the ballot are owned by the corporations due to the amount of money they got for their campaigns. Either way you vote, you are still putting the people with money into power.
So I do not trust the people with power in the USA, because it is not as democratic as it could be...
In an ideal situation, the most wealthy would also pay the most taxes. It could be argued that that would entitle them to more influence on how government money is spent.
The point is, the leader needs an overview. That's why the general stands on the hill over the battle; why the CEO has a corner office high on the tower; why the pharoah is symbolized by the pyramid, and the pyramid crowned by the eye.
Instead, in Bush, we have someone who wants to lead not from a high perspective that folds into itself the partial perspectives from those with lower vantages, but from the trenches, convinced that the only higher perspective he needs is that of the God who put him there - a God at whose right hand, if you trace the money, was Enron.
From the article:
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
(I'm a graduate student at a state-run university, so I'm posting anonymously.)
Politics have always been an issue in science. Galileo wasn't allowed to work on his heliocentric universe; Einstein was brilliant but Jewish, and would have been executed if he stayed in Europe; stem cells could provide great advances for genetic disorders, but are controversial.
It depends on your funding. I'd wager that the US government, in one form or another (FDA, NIH, EPA, DoE, etc.), provides the bulk of funding for projects at universities and companies alike.
Say you're doing a pesticide project and it's funded by the DoD (that's the Dept. of Defense). First, the EPA had to, first, approve your project (so they picked it for you, really). Once you report your findings, your statistics can be molded to their liking. They can also pick and choose who knows about your findings, whether you keep any patents or they do (I'm pretty sure you won't), and whether you'll continue more work for them or not.
In short, to keep your money coming, you need to keep on someone's good side. Ugly, but the truth.
You mean the scientists?
The FDA's death toll from too-expensive, delayed or never-developed drugs far exceeds the lives it saves via regulations and enforcement.
E.g., everyone who has died within the last 50 years of a smoking-related illness has died from the FDA's control of alternative means (lollipops, inhalers) of delivering nicotine. Nicotine itself kills few people, rather the tar and carbon monoxide from smoking. Nicotine has great benefits, much like ritalin.
The FDA's own studies have reached this conclusion for 30+ years.
This result is inevitable: You can't program for an open system; You can't optimize huge systems without equations, initial conditions and vast-beyond-belief processor power; you can't prescribe for futures you cannot predict, and you can't predict chaotic systems.
www.FDAReview.org if you want to know more about this.
Lew
He's created a real bond with the American people. Unlike Clinton, who created a morbid fascination with his goings on, people really try Pres. Bush. While your self-appointed intellectuals may hate him (because Clinton was a brilliant man, however flawed, and Bush is simply above-average), the American people have a leader that they believe it. This is the first President since Reagan that the people really believe in.
If he said that they were going to make decisions without turning it over to "eggheads", they'd get a lot of support.
The republican base LOVES this president. And the swing voters in middle America love this president.
He will be reelected regardless of what the urban intellectual elites think.
Alex
Amazing. My post has gone from 5 (with three funny mods) to 1 (various troll, overrated and flamebate mods).
Seems that some people don't have much of a sense of humor. It's a sad situation when people get upset about jokes about the President.
"Global warming" has been around as long as there's been an atmosphere.
If you're referring to warming caused by *humans* then it's been around at least since the Industrial Revolution kicked off in the late 18th century. This was counterbalanced somewhat by what climatologists call the "Little Ice Age" (or the latest thereof), which ended around 1850.
But naturally-occurring global warming has always been with us thanks to cyclical changes in the Earth. The Jurassic period was, in all likelihood, warmer than we are now, for example. There is also evidence to suggest that the ancient Mediterranean world, from Mycenean Greece through the Roman Empire, was also a warmer clime than the current residents enjoy.
As for politicizing, there's a lot of that going on at both ends of the scientific theory spectrum. One of the worst offenders is the UN's IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which first caused a major flap in their 1995 report by rewriting the scientists' findings (by one Dr. Benjamin Santer) to exaggerate the dangers, but leaving those scientists' names on the report. In Chapter 8 of said report, those scientists specifically said that their projections were models, and that we didn't know enough about global climate to make any certain predictions; but Dr. Santer altered or eliminated any passages that cast doubt on the conclusions the IPCC was forwarding.
More recently, their 2000 report not only altered its own findings to portray Antarctic ice cores they sampled as being 95 years younger than they were (thus "increasing" their carbon dioxide content) and ignored the "Urban Heat Island Effect"--the established fact that the air around cities generally is warmer--but they also based their projections based on a uniform planetwide model of warming--even though there is little evidence to suggest a warming trend in the Southern Hemisphere.
Sounds pretty damning. Have any proof that Clinton stacked the boards with hacky-sack playing tree huggers? As if they had any money to fund an oligarchy after shopping at the local co-op. Organic food isn't cheap, you know.
Face it. Bush stuffing a scientific board with paid corporate shills is a fact. The neo-conservative defense that "everybody does it" is based on faith.
The blurring of these in a 'faith-based' administration is sad, but not surprising.
Guess our first MBA President sees scientists as nothing more than marketing consultants.
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?
Who says only one of these can be true? Sounds to me like the answer to both is "Yes."
> At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an
> administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee,
> disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official
> asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and
> physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer
> told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else
> because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.
> Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said
> of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
Well, technically that's true, they didn't measure the pH of the candidate.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
I don't want to have scientists or politicians controlling where my tax dollars go when it comes to funding research. Both groups have their agendas and I don't trust either one all that much. How about a check list of topics on the tax form the says which research your money can go to and which it can't.
"Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing"
ACGT
Cool!
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
In my humble opinion, pretty simple:
If your research is funded by tax dollars, then you should be subject to "politics." Honestly, if you take public dollars to fund your project, then you should be answerable to the public (i.e. politicians or some public leadership).
If you don't take public funds, then you should only be answerable to the law and your conscience.
Of course, that is in a perfect world...
"Those are not litmus tests."
Riiiiiiiggghhht. I'm thinking he's relying on a very precise, Clintonesque definition of what is meant by "litmus test". While it is true that the candidates were not having their pH tested, perhaps some other test was administered, which yielded a clear result, which resulted in an acceptance/rejection of each candidate based on that test result?
It's not bad enough that they stack committees to yield a desired viewpoint/pronouncement/guideline/regulation, so they also need to lie about doing it?
The politicization of science lies not only in committee packing, but in a public that will pick and choose what science it accepts and what science it rejects based on whether or not the results support their political, religious, and economic interests.> The ones like the AC from above simply state all research is biased so research that favours their views is just as good as any.
This brings to mind something I read on talk.origins over the summer. Paraphrasing from memory:
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Interesting enough the scientist who made the discovers about adult stem cells verstility was recently touring Australia promoting embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because contary to popular belief, her research is being badly distorted.
How many scientists are saying "embryonic cells are the only hope"? Most see adult and embryonic stem cell research to be complimentry technologies.
As for focusing attention on technolgies with demonstrated practical application, this isn't how science is done. It would be the equilivent of our ancestors stopping research into the automobile, because the horse and buggy has immediate practical applications.
Why not make additional investments in the areas of research that are already bearing fruit, rather than get enmired in a debate about whether using those cells is efficient & effective, or if it is killing people.
Why not invest in both technologies, and if their is a moral arguement against one, make the moral arguement, not sidestep it by distorting science.
And on a sidenote, thank you for kind offer, but I'm really not looking for any form of salvation.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Likewise, determining who gets public money to perform what scientific research is a political decision; performing and reviewing that research is science.
The Washington Post is writing about the issues of those who make policy from science, not those who discover new things. They're talking about advisory boards to politicians. How is advising the executive branch of US Government on science policy anything but a political function?
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
We get the dumbest person in the White House since Dan Quayle making science decisions? Ugh, this is really depressing. Just wait until he starts replacing other boards with ones that reflect 'his views'. Are we a dictatorship yet?
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
If the review boards only exist to parrot the current administration's views, as everyone here seems to agree, what's the point of having them? The tax dollars spent there might be put to better use.
The extreme and growing politicization of science we have observed over the past ~50 years is the direct result of the rapid growth of government funding of science during the same period. He that pays the piper calls the tune.
The only fundamental solution to this problem is the complete separation of science (and, as a corollary, economics) from the state, for the same reasons we should maintain a complete separation of church and state: To compel a man to pay for the support of ideas which he finds abhorrent is immoral. The state is force; science requires reason. Force and reason do not mix.
To those that say that ALL science is political, since it is practiced by humans: This is in essence an argument that discovering objective truth is impossible. It is pointless to argue with such a self-refuting contention. Suffice it to say that this argument does in fact lead logically to a constant state of pressure-group warfare, exactly as we observe today in Washington and state capitols throughout the country.
The scientific method - exposing hypotheses to repeatable experiments in an atmosphere of free and unfettered inquiry - has succeeded enormously in advancing the search for truth and improving lives since the enlightenment. Most of this advancement occurred without coercive funding. While it is possible to promote progress in certain areas with targetted government funding, the systemic cost to freedom, truth, and overall progress is unacceptable.
Real scientists should just say no to grants.
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
Sure, Pad're and while we're at it lets vote PI=3 just ta keep things easy ...
Greens, Libertarians, Conservatives, Constitution whatever...
Tell me something new, then tell me why there is a need for a Creator anyway.
As William of Occam had it, Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate (Plurality should not be posited unnecessarily).
If an explanation that removes the need for a supernatural being exists, I'll take that one over faith any day.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Stephen Wolfram? He has already shown his disdain for the peer review system and is just as dogmatic about his own ideas as Bush's fundamentalist yahoos are about their's.
If I were a violent man, I would say that we should just start taking such representatives out to some cornfield somewhere and lynching them.
Or even a few strategic assasinations.
Or maybe some 'random muggings' that happen to include 'accidental gunfire'.
I'm not really violent, and I don't really condone the killing of people, but sometimes people are just so stupid, it makes me wish there were a 'stupid' law (the topic below is from an actual conversation I've had with my GF and a mutual friend).
What happens is that this is a 6-strikes law. If you're being above and beyond the standard stupid (such as the legislation that our 'politicians' are working on), you get a letter stamped (tattooed) on your forehead and a beating. Not severe, but enough to be quite painful for a week (shitting blood is all right, it's part of the beating). We expect that everyone would likely have 'stu' or less. These are the people in society. People who don't learn by 14 or so that being THAT stupid is punishable by beatings will likely go through their stupid by the time they reach 18. At the point they get the full 'stupid', beatings are no longer normal, they get chalked up a notch. Ribs are broken, hands are broken, feet are broken. If you're stupid enough to get your full stupid on, you deserve to be beaten like that. As well, it's expected that while the majority of people will have up to 'stu', there will be very few with more, as some people really don't learn and likely will die very quickly from the repeated beatings of being a complete dumbass.
Of course deciding who has been really stupid would be a challenge...maybe a board of 5-7 people, who really know what's going on. I'm sure I could choose a few hundred such individuals that I know that would be up for the job, and I know that a few of you geeks out there could do the same.
I'm really not violent...
- Josiah
Without being too specific, I'm relatively close to someone who works for the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. As such I know a little about the politics there and who has been filling what position, etc.
Generally in government departments there is a rapid change in the people running things when a new President takes office, especially ones as politically charged as those dealing with health and genetics. However, the Bush Administration seemed to ignore the health departments for the longest time. Clinton appointees stayed in positions for well over a year, long past the time a more aggressive administration would have replaced them. A simple example is the head of the CDC, who was not replaced until after the anthrax scare.
That administrations like their advisory committees to reflect their own views should not be a surprise. The unfortunate thing is the tone of the article suggested that this trend extended to the level of scientific *review*, which it does not. They are not replacing people who determine the actual merits of a particular bit of science, they're filling posts that advise on what to do with the science ex post facto.
Last months wired magazine 10.09 had a large article about the researchers who are trying to restore sight to the blind. One guy who has been blind for years has had electrodes implanted into his head which allowed him to see well enough to drive a car around a parking lot. But although the work looks very promising, the medical procedures have to be carried out in Lisbon because they would be illegal in the states.
This is one of those contentious issues where the politicians say, "no experiments on humans", yet the blind guy(or the quadraplegic, take your pic from the range of disabilities and illnesses) cannot get the treatment, however experimental it amy be.
In the past there were relaxations of federal rules to allow AIDS patients to get experimental drugs, why should other medical problems be treated any differently?
And before I am modded off-topic, what difference does it make whether the reasons are political or ethical if a sick person cannot get the treatment they need?
I do not understand the Republican Party at all. First: "GOP". What the fuck is with that? The current Democratic party was founded way before the Republicans, so why the hell are they the
"Grand Old Party"? Whatever. More importantly, I wonder how they've managed to stay coherent so long. Both of them get a lot from just hating eachother, but the GOP is made up of rich CEO's and religious (well, christian) fundamentalists (yes, there's normal people in there, but they don't make nearly as much noise, and so don't have as much influence) who have absolutely nothing in common. The CEO's want lower rich-guy taxes, the CF's are tax exempt, and the CF's look for government grants, even! The only thing that I could see them agree on is the socially conservative end of things. CEO's want to keep people sheepish to spend their money, CF's want to keep people sheepish so they'll come to church. Do they really get that much from eachother?
This is precisely why I hate that "one nation, under god" was added in the 50's to the pledge, and also the mottos on our money. Many people these days don't realize that it wasn't always that way and use that as an argument for thinking we are a nation built on religion. Even if our forefathers had faith, they realized how important it is to be left up the individual instead of dictating who's right and who's wrong.
Badly distorted research? I don't know anything of the researcher you mentioned, but the second link that I posted is a list of *dozens* of documented applications of adult stem cells.
As far as making the moral argument, I belive that is what is happening with this debate. What frustrates me is that the conventional wisdom within the "community" at slashdot appears to be that "those religious types oppose science" and "who are they to define morality?"
Their statements about the moral/ethical value of embryonic stem cell research require a statement of a moral standard. That statement being that the pursuit of knowledge/potential benefit to humanity is of greater moral value than the cost to humanity in general or the cost to the embryo in particular.
Science is not unbiased and separated from morality, much as the crowd here would tend to assert.
I would argue that we should not invest in embryonic stem cell research because of the cost to humanity as a result of the destruction of those human beings. You may disagree, and that is your right. Distorting science is irrational and foolish - no matter which side of the debate you are on.
Thanks for your thoughtful and respectful reply.
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
People like you in Florida -- with your *strategic* voting for Nader -- cost Al Gore the election. Your strategy is as assinine as it is irresponsible. D
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
This is what things were like already 500 years ago, with the Holy Church agreeing or disagreeing with the finds of science. The finds that were Christian enough were good, those which were not were... flogged or burnt or take your pick.
:-/
Nothing is new under the sun. Tell you what, I even think that "Christian enough" still holds.
Yikes!
Looks like Katherine Harris et al settled out of court rather regarding fraud allegations.. That is after a judge threw out ol Kathy's request to get the charges dismissed. Great.. so they steal office by fraud then get rid of anyone who disagrees with them.. Kinda like the FERC and Enron connection, scientific advisers... Nice banana republic, americans.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Ever since the 1970's, the US government has been recommending a diet high in grains and low in fat. Up until then, they were recommending things like beef and eggs a lot. The New York Times Magazine about 2 months ago did a really good story (all your free reg are belong to us) about how nutritionists questioning the low-fat diet - most prominently Dr. Atkins of the famous Atkins Diet - have been denied government funding, even though they have a pretty good case.
I seriously recommend that NY Times story, though. If they're right, it's beyond a scandal.
grep -ri 'should work'
This is the most disgusting thing I have read in ages. Am I ever glad that I'm Canadian.
Yeah, and Al Gore would have saved us all! LOL! Ideological dumbass! I love how he's the front runner again. Is that all that crackhead Party can come up with? Geezus! Dumbasses to the left and dumbasses to the right. And what's the alternative? Nader? Are you f*cking kidding me?!??! Nader? What sort of brain injury would you need to make Nader Commander In Chief?
The article quotes people as complaining that it wasn't this bad since the Reagan administration. That was a whole 3 presidents ago. This is business as usual.
The Math Maestro Tutoring Services in Seattle
...and so the Bush dictatorship starts...
scary, very scary.
.
.
.
It's a lot better to keep an independant board with their own political agenda who has no accountability to the people, instead of replacing it with a review board whose political agenda matches those of the officials elected by the people?
Does anyone see that maybe this isn't such a horrible idea?
I'm all for impartiality. I just don't think it exists.
Despite what slashdotters will tell you, they aren't going to put oil tycoons on review boards for hospital ethics. But they also might not put people in those review boards who have political agendas that few people want -- like (for instance) the governmentalization of health care.
Doesn't it make some sense to put people in boards who are going to look for solutions inside of the bounds of what the American voting population will tolerate?
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
So therefore . . . what? It's OK if a gaggle of Ashcroftian Flat_Earthers decide which scientific truths are acceptable for the nation? How many of the fine gentlemen mentioned in your roster would poo-poo the callous manipulation of scientific research for political and religious ends? Would Einstein, do you think, have just shrugged it off? And Newton, do you think he would have sat quietly while the pea-brained President and his Lysenkoist handlers nudged science down a "faith-based"path? Lysenko, of course, who didn't believe in God, would have been right at home with the dweebs of Shrub's administration. The issue is not -- and ought not to be -- whether a person believes in a Creator. The issue is, and ought to be, whether a person has the integrity to be objective in matters of science. Granted there are a lot of atheists who wouldn't pass that test. (And among them may be some of the corporate profiteers that Bush is putting on these boards.)
Actually, if you do much reading of the American "Founding Fathers", it becomes clear that all of these ideas were alive and well at the time. Many people thought that such separation was needed to prevent the development of a theocracy. Others argued that separation was needed so that the state wouldn't play favorites, and would protect various sects from each other. Still others argued for the need of state protection from the followers of religions.
;-)
None of these are new ideas at all. The American First Ammendment was clearly intended to provide all of these protections.
And no, the US was not the first government to institute such religious protections. Not by a long shot.
One of my favorite quotes was from George Washington, who supposedly said that a single lighthouse is worth a hundred church steeples.
(Of course, we're now phasing out lighthouses. We need a new metaphor. "A single wireless relay tower is worth a hundred churge steeples"? Nah; it just doesn't work. Especially since a lot of wireless relays are installed inside church steeples to hide the ugly things from view.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
"an unelected quango situation where the public can do nothing!"
However, the idea of the review boards was to provide a more objective opinion than politicians are capable of (kind of like the idea of the USSC).
Of course, like the once and future ideal of democracy, when folks stop believing, it pretty much is just words on paper or bytes on disk...
On the bright side, the defeat of democracy by capitalism means it just not our fault anymore!
Well, lets all tap a keg and say "Woo Hoo" really loud!
The Repubs and the Democs have both been the party of big government for many years; certainly as long as I've been voting. One substantive distinction between them, which kept the Repubs out of power for many years, has been that the Repubs have been the ``me too, but less'' party. Their rhetoric ran along the lines of ``Your proposal is plainly immoral and unacceptable. We'll meet you half-way.'' Had Hitler's opposition in Nazi Germany followed this principle, they would have bravely stood up to Hitler, and compromised on killing only 3 million Jews (with an option for more later). Unsurprisingly, this has been ineffective. If you don't like the Democ's bad ideas, you couldn't be enthusiastic about the Repub's compromise, and if you did like the Democ's ideas, you couldn't be enthusiastic about the Repub's compromise.
Another substantive difference has been that the Repubs have been identified as ``conservatives'', and thus have been much more successful at pushing through socialist measures, and at conducting power grabs. Bush's homeland security fiasco is a current example of that.
The two halves of the big government party will never be able to represent those of us who value our freedom, and thus want less taxes, less government spending and fewer (and more carefully thought-out) regulations.
You identfied the big government partys as corporate sponsored, and there is some truth to that. The extremely rich, and the big corporations and trust funds which they control, see government as a way to plunder the rest of us, and they naturally see more government as more opportunity for plunder.
Since it really doesn't matter which representative of the big government party gets elected (they both champion the cause of ``business as usual''), I normally vote Libertarian (in the National Elections), or Independence Party (in some of the State elections).
See what I've been reading.
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?
Both! It's wrong, AND those with power get to do whatever they want!
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
In The Salmon of Doubt they have a speech Douglas Adams made to an AI confrence of some kind (don't remember exactly), but he had a great explaination for God. He said people are like water in a pothole. We fit our environment so well, we conclude that it must have been designed for us.
He also has some stuff about how people are tool-makers, so it's reasonable that we'd start questioning the posibility of someone having made the world. If you have no concept of evolution, the way we're so adapted to our environment gives you pretty good evidence that somebody built all this for us. So, in whatever BC, God was a good scientific explaination for everything, which is why everybody has one. Then he went on with some stuff about how this ingrained God theory makes us reflexivly dismiss the possibility of something bad happening, like global warming, extinctions of endangered species, asteroids hitting the earth...
So, the wretched crime and injustice that is rape can be atoned by killing a third party that had nothing to do with the rape?
Just like the abortion/breast cancer research, another branch of research has been suppressed.
There have been repeated studies of rape survivors, tracking their recovery. Those women who carried these babies to term do much better 5 years down the road than those who aborted their unwanted babies, always.
A subsequent injustice does not ameliorate a previous injustice. The amount of junk science a lies propounded by Planned Parenthood is breath taking. "Breath the gas, it is healthful."
Well, yes, and sorta no. As a guy with asthma living in upper Manhattan I've taken the time to talk to quite a few doctors about this and they all agree (most emphatically the pediatricians) that it mostly comes down to *three* interrelated issues.
/.ers keep demanding of open-source projects. It's pretty much the same stuff. For A and D think of the bitching when a major project stops giving status reports. For B think of the furor when someone like Perens moves. And so on and so on. So if the /. community demands these things (and it does and should) for things like video card drivers then I think that it's pretty justified that gene-testing be held to the same standard.
First of all there's stuff like roach droppings and rat dander (and the lice and other parasites that come with them) that are themselves reaction-inducing.
Then there's the seriously disproportionate amounts of toxins in poverty-stricken areas. This comes about because undesirable facilities like bus depots, factories, sewage treatment plants, etc. tend to both get sited there and be less subject to inspection since poor people are less capable (on average) at raising a ruckus and getting things like OSHA regs enforced.
And perhaps most importantly, residents of such areas tend to be eating worse food, smoking more (and subject to more second hand-smoke), sleeping worse hours, encountering more stress both conscious (muggings, a cousin sleeping on the sofa for three months, etc.) and unconscious (more street noise, more variable environment, etc.). This trashes their immune response, which makes them more vulnerable to immune disorders from asthma to AIDS.
So, what does this all add up to?
Looks to me like it shows the how a key issue frequently involves a tangle of money, science, and politics. This tangle can best be effectively addressed by a sizable group of scientists and other experts whose:
a.) data collection and review methods must be transparent (can you hear me, Mr. "you don't need to know who I met with" Cheney?)
b.) terms should ideally be staggered and long term to provide continuity and institutional memory
c.) continuing service must be resistant to political pressure as they inevitably will have to make judgements that will cost *somebody* a lot of money
d.) whose status and final reports must be made freely available and readable on a predictable schedule for which the member will be held accountable.
and e.) viewpoints should be chosen for diversity to decrease the risk of groupthink and excess reverence for authority (think of Feynman's role in the Challenger investigation).
Boy, sounds to me (but what would I know?) like the exact opposite of the decisions to date of the Bush administration.
BTW, if this sounds like a lot of irrelevant political jargon to you, just think about what
Rustin
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
Well, you think critcizing the President is moronic...
Please re-read my post. I said that what's moronic is criticizing jokes and witicisms as if they were meant to be serious statements. I certainly don't mind people criticizing the President.
Evil is the money of root.
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?
Both are true. Duh.
Whoever has the gold makes the rules. Sorry, had to say it.
Danish != nationality
Each panel has spent months or years becoming experts on a topic. Replacing all or a majority of scientists on the panels means a significant loss of knowledge. If you fear what a group of scientists will say, then peer-review their results *and come up with better explanations of their findings!* Don't simply prevent the results from being published. I hope that the former members can take some time to publish a summary of the data and possible explanations for the data that they were seeing.
When your product is the direct cause of most of the leading causes of death in the country, you are bound to have a rough ride from time to time, even if you do own the government.
The only thing that I could see them agree on is the socially conservative end of things. CEO's want to keep people sheepish to spend their money, CF's want to keep people sheepish so they'll come to church. Do they really get that much from eachother?
Sure, they get to have a chance to stay in power. As I understand it, main reason the 'fiscal conservatives' and 'moral conservatives' haven't split into separate parties yet is that both sides figure if they do that, the Democrats will be unbeatable. They can use as evidence the Progressive Conservative/Alliance split in Canada that has helped lead to three consecutive Liberal majorities...
-- Bryan Feir
It is utterly and completely wrong. Politics overruling science is wrong in exactly the same way that religion overruling science is. Worse still, politicians have the use of force at their disposal. Politicians are also a lot easier to buy. They are more interested in votes and power than in science. Having them oversee scientific research and review and filter for business and political reasons effectively ends free scinetific enquiry as it impinges on national policy. It allows them to not only hide what they are doing but also overrule any objective facts they find inconvenient.
We don't like the fact of global warming so we will just put our people on the evaluation committee. We don't like evolution so we will put a "fair" number of creationist on board. Our drilling policy will not pass a fair environmental review so we'll stack that one too.
What fun!
First they refuse to honor FOIA. Then they override normal checks and balances. Then they ignore congressional requests for information. Now they want to put a gag on science itself? People, wake up! It doesn't get much more blatant than this.
Your social studies book may have said that our elected representatives represent us, but the person with the most campaign money has won every presidential election since Truman, and over 85% of congressional elections. The evolution of modern advertising in the 1950's convered American politics into a fundraising competition. Our representatives get elected on the basis of how well they convince us they are representing us, and they get the money to do that from the various money sources whose interests they actually represent.
Voting strategically is always a wise choice. Because of my political beliefs, I tend to make my strategic choices in the primaries (there have only been a handful of occasions in my life where I've voted, or seriously considered voting, or would have voted, for a Democrat; all involved hopeless morons running as Republicans, or were from the strongly religious-right wing of the party). Nonetheless, you're right that the major parties are close to each other on many issues; this is a direct consequence of the winner-take-all nature of our political system, which forces parties to follow the wishes of the people very closely or lose their influence.
If you want to influence politics, find a close race. Get together a group of voters - call yourself anything you like, just have several thousand members - and shop yourself to the candidates. If you can show that you have organization, and that your members care enough about the issue to get out and vote for the candidate, you're an effective political force. Forget corporations; they may foot the bill for political campaigns, but people pulling levers and punching cards elect politicians.
Campaign finance reform was one of those issues that few in the public really understood well enough to fear as much as they should - because if people and corporations and trade unions and all those other PACs can't provide the money to get a political message out, all the power winds up in in the hands of the media, who have the only means to get a message to a lot of people. (This isn't a black-helicopter rant, nor one about liberal bias; it's much more about the danger of letting a tiny handful of companies decide what political speech will be permitted to be effective. Take a look at the blustering over the New Hampshire presidential primary to see how nuanced their coverage would be.)
ON TOPIC: the administration has stacked the deck on these things. So did Clinton's, and Bush I's, and Reagan's, and...
It's not good science, but it's politics. It's only scary when they start making rules that really should be legislative decisions; at least you can vote for or against a member of Congress.
but the GOP is made up of rich CEO's and religious... fundamentalists... who have absolutely nothing in common.
Two reasons: first off the core issues to each group are largely irrelevant to the other. Social conservatives are largely unconcerned with fiscal policy and fiscal conservatives are largely unconcerned with social issues. There are certainly many individuals that are part of the GOP for one but oppose it on the other. But an even larger group is supportive of both positions. As you say CEO's want "rich-guy" tax cuts, well most CF's want "middle-class guy" tax cuts so they can agree on tax-cuts that affect all income levels. Businessmen want honest employees, so acknowledment or at least an absense of official hostility towards a christian morality that says "thou shalt not steal" is not something they are fired up to oppose.
The second reason is that both agendas do have a point of commonality. They are both opposed to government, particularly federal government, control. You may scoff and say that CF's want increased government control in issues like abortion. But that is ignoring their argument against it which if you accept is no more pro-government regulation than being for antihomocide laws. In other instances where CF's are supporting government it is long-standing existing laws or practices of local & state governments that are being invalidated by increased federal control. They don't see how an amendment explicitly forbidding only congress from doing something can after 200 years suddenly be found to be binding on their town council. In general though CF's are very distrustful of government control especially in issues related to families. They homeschool or send their kids to private schools they don't like social security numbers, they distrust social workers, etc. etc. etc. Both fiscal and social conservatives are part of what Grover Norquist famously termed "the leave us alone coalition"
Also in both instances they are conservative - as in not liking change, or at least not liking the change being offered. In the past taxes (at all income levels) were significantly lower, there was far less government regulations & intrusion into personal lives and yet a far greater acknowledgement by government of the religious beliefs of those governed - public prayer was common, public education had a decidedly protestant religious cast, laws generally reflected the christian morality & wasn't afraid to say so. Both businessmen and CF's are bound to want to return to (at least some aspects of)that previous social consensus and to oppose increasing change away from it.
CF's are tax exempt, and the CF's look for government grants, even!
While churches are tax exempt most CF's are parishoners and are taxed plenty. Very few CF's have any interest in government grants. While there is certainly some interest in government support of faith based charities most CF's are VERY cautious to downright hostile to them. The more Fundamentalist they are in theology the more distrustful they are of initiatives such as vouchers or grants to faith based charities. They view them as trojan horses for government regulation.
First off, Greens in Florida did not in any way shape or form "cost Al Gore the election." Your statement assumes that AL Gore "deserved" these people's votes, that they "denied" him the votes he somehow had a "right" to, which is patently absurd. Sure, you can argue that Greens SHOULD have voted for Al Gore, hell, you can argue that Republicans and Libertarians should have voted for Al Gore. You could argue that vast numbers of Floridian fogeys should have figured out how to work their damn ballot instead of accidentally voting for Pat Buchannan, that Florida Democrats should have realized the Ballot was confusing and blocked it before it was approved, or that Jeb Bush should have been eaten alive by wild dingos at birth. You could argue that the Supreme Court shouldn't have called the election how and when they did, you could argue that our country should apply the popular rather than the electoral vote count for choosing its leader, or that Al Gore really should have been able to take Tennessee, all things considered. You could argue that while the Republican party has coddled its lunatic fringe by keeping pressure on wack religious issues and such, the Democratic party has essentially alienated it's own lefty wackos by drifting more and more consistently to the center.
But no, you blame a tiny percentage of voters who chose to vote their consciences rather than their fear. It's their fault! Ignore the whole point I made that I voted in the firm (and may I point out wholly correct) knowledge that there were not enough Greens in MN to tip the balance against Gore (what with our modern optical voting machines and all...). Just ignore my explanation of strategic voting... namely, that my vote accomplished something (major party status for Greens in MN) while your vote for Gore, my fine little friend, accomplished dick. That's D-I-C-K. Didn't matter. You threw it away.
You also seem to be missing the fact that what I'm essentially arguing is that, aside from a few "hot-button" issues that keep dips like you on the hook, the DFL and the GOP have become indistinguishable corporate-funded power-trading PR machines, and the only solution to this is to vote against corporate funded candidates. This is called a long-range approach. If you haven't twigged to the fact yet, your knee-jerk fear-based short-term approached is having the impact that EVERY SINGLE YEAR it takes more and more money to get elected and therefor every year the wealthy minority of individuals have more and more influence on American politics. It gets worse and worse and pinhead little yappers like you keep DOING THE SAME THING, saying "yes I approve of wealthy individuals and corporations defining the two viable choices for me in representing my interests in every government position through direct investment and I will demonstrate this by voting for one of these two choices under all circumstances," and then, so help me, getting self righteous about it to boot!
If this is your definition of "assinine" and "irresponsible" I shudder to imagine what your political philosophy sounds like. Oh, and if yer gonna use them big words like "asinine"
ya might wanna learn to spell it, you idiot.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
As I get older, I continue to become more pragmatic - but I refuse to give up all my idealism. But in this last presidential (I refuse to capitalize it for our current office holder) election, it was very, very, very, very obvious that junior was, is and always will be an utter moron . Thus it was clear that I needed to vote for Gore to keep braino out of the White House. Unfortunately, junior and his family are as crooked as they are stupid. But normally I will vote based on my conscience AND on what my research tells me. Party be damned - I'm unafilliated.
(R-Ill.), a tobacco industry defender. At his behest, Glantz's NCI funding became the
first National Institutes of Health grant ever targeted for cutoff by a congressional
committee." ref
There is no dirtier example than tobacco
industry pressure to shut down science it
doesn't like. It's a precedent for just
how ugly this could get.
The fallacy of the strawman is being used here. There are not regulating what is or what is not science. They are regulating the "Health and Human Services" not the "Academy of Sciences".
...the last remaining religion that atheism can bash with impunity. Anything else would be antisemitic, or a hate crime. Even Islam sees more politically correct protection these days ("mustn't incite the people to war, you know...").
There are good, sound, moral reasons for opposing embryonic stem cell research, if you have any respect for life or the living that a belief in a Deity has nothing to do with. But, rather than address the arguments logically, Reeves has instead chosen the Ad Hominem. Swell.
...-.-
Fuck the NAACP.
Those in power don't have to do anything to earn respect. Their power alone should command it. Grabbing a tiger by the tail is a recipe for disaster, even if the tiger hasn't done anything to earn your "respect".
Those people who have no power, on the other hand, have to earn the respect.
It's a simple power dynamic. Violate it at your own peril.
how the hell much did they pay you?
sell outs!!!
first bush circumvents the elections process, and now slashdot decides to accept anal rape from m$.
what's next? the pope turns to humanism?!?
NIV Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"
Here is your NT/christianity. it's out of context you say?
It's a parable spoken by jesus, comparing himself/his father/etc to a human king who after returning punishes that slave which complained about having to be a slave by instructing OTHER SLAVES(that would be you) to kill the 'offender'.
You think your chosen dellusion is exempt from the acts of hate and violence it propagates? Think again.
religious tolerance as dictated by the bible:
------
KJV 2 Chronicles 15:13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
Thank you.
Dunno. Didn't have a lot of fear of the outcome, frankly. I voted for the sake of major party status for greens in MN, spreading out the campaign finance wealth a tiny tiny bit (better than nothing? Hard to say, but...) Cynical voting but there it is, my other options seemed to be Gore (supporting forgone conclusion in MN), Bush (not in this lifetime baby) or Pat Buchanan ('nuff said and his "party" already has major status in MN thanks to "I ain't got time to bleed" who I didn't vote for either, incidentally). All throwaways basically. I stand by my choice but I certainly would prefer to have better options.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
And I would agree this was a strategically reasonable vote in some places. I was 100% confidant Gore would take MN even if the Greens had totally unprecedented success... I also knew the Greens had a pretty fair chance at getting major party status in that race. I didn't have to make a difficult decision on Gore, so I didn't.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Of course, technically, he's right. Unless those questions were meant to determine the candidate's acidity, they were not litmus test of any kind.
Albert Einstein most absolutely was not a creationist nor did he believe that some deity had constructed the universe.
He stated this very clearly on numerous occasions.
This is nothing new. See all the recent posturing from the drug czar over medical marijuana? It's not medicine, he says, (forgetting that the federal government supplies a handful of people substandard medicinal cannabis) and it's dangerous (for specific values of "dangerous") -- forgetting of course that just about ever other country (including Canada) has drawn the exact opposite conclusion.
Yet, if it is restricted to US research, he could argue (at least in the Clintonian sense) that it is a truthful statement. See, every study on cannabis has to pass through NIDA, and only studies that have a presupposed negative hypothesis are approved by NIDA. Those approved studies are then given legal access to the herb to study it.
To an intelligent and open-minded individual, an intelligent true believer is like a good punching bag. You can whack them as hard as you want, but they always bounce back, and they never really know how to hit back.
You will find this hard to believe, I'm sure, since you've painted me as your enemy, but I appreciate the sincerity and tenor of your response. However, I'm sure you will understand, I am not writing for you. Just as a true believer must be sure that I will go to hell (with all its notorious accoutrements) for dying unrepentant with my beliefs, I have, though not a corresponding faith, a reasonable assumption that you are in no danger of questioning yours. I write for those others who are still capable of thinking for themselves.
Your painting of my writing as "baited" with "anti-Catholic hysteria" is, of course, a weak position to start from, since you have not-so-subtly failed to answer almost all of my points, while attempting to fall back on "victim" mentality; what many believers consider to be a kind of or "inherent" moral superiority. Furthermore, the insincerity of this retort is also fairly obvious, as, had you really believed this claim, you actually wouldn't have responded, rather than responding to point out that you couldn't be bothered to respond.
Religion is a game with words. Understand this thoroughly, and the entire tawdry mass of it becomes transparent. Out here, in the rational world, we use words as they are described in a dictionary. To the sophists of the church, this is nothing more than a weakness to be exploited.
Church opposition to fertility clinics was conducted with beautifully worded position papers and public speeches. Church opposition to abortion and stem-cell research was conducted with systematic violence, expansive and carte blanche political lobbying (or call it by its real name, "subversion"), and domestic terrorism. Yet to you, the Church's position is consistent on both. Until the next round of the argument, where you will, oh, who knows, deny the Church's involvement in politics, or sanction of violence, or claim that their opposition of fertility clinics was just as vehement and organized as their opposition to abortion or embryonic stem cell research. Or surprise me. Come up with something new. The Catholic Church officially condemns Usury, as well, but there is no "Jerusalem Files" website for bankers. Here, fair is fair, I've got something nice for you to read as well: it's called Doublethink.
You made no response to my mention of the Nuremburg Files, or the church's campaign against birth control (despite it being plastered all over that citation of yours), and you admit you are unwilling to engage in what would undoubtedly be an interesting debate over the status of the embryo - typical for someone who arrives at their beliefs by means other than facts and reason. You didn't comment on the church's undisputed and venerable history as a machiavellian political machine - you could learn a lot by having an open-minded discussion of history, you know. Say what you like of me, but don't say I'm not willing to discuss my points in a rational and honest setting. Now that God seems to be out of the bush burning business, that's how most people get their ideas, you see.
You elected not to discuss the peculiarities of the Church's humanitarian priorities, especially their unwillingness to become involved with environmental problems, problems of corruption, or colonialism, some of the chief sources of poverty, especially in the third world, where the Church claims to be so active. Yet you know, I think, your claims that such discussions are "hysterical" or otherwise out of bounds ring decisively false.
The Church rarely recruits adults. It knows it can only breed believers, or (perhaps) recruit them through indoctrination ("Catholic School") while they're still young. The vigor with the church encourages its followers to marry and produce children (your other responder, for instance, had clearly received his opinion about this "requirement" from church sources), and the inherent conflict between this and the duties of a moral person, clearly weight heavily on the minds of your text's author. You claim this is a matter of "hysteria." I much prefer the modern Catholic Church, because such criticism of the church policies in earlier times would have earned me a choice seat at a church barbeque. It makes "hysteria" sound like a real party. But really, I know what you'll say. Actually, you're the most predictable at the weakest juncture of your argument. If you want to surprise me, enter into an honest discussion of Church policy. If you analyze them the way you analyze say, North Korea (who is not nearly as well represented in world politics, I assure you), the conclusions are difficult to avoid. They want what most large bodies want. Survival. Growth. Or dispute me. But don't comfort yourself by thinking that your "hysteria" arguments, or the several other stock "I'm being baited by a Catholic hater" responses make very convincing rebuttal.
Your response to your other poster claims "the church doesn't require you to have children." How charitable. Would you care to comment on the paper referenced in that which you kindly provided for me, "Gaudium Et Spes"
"...married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family..."
You have the audacity to misdirect about the Church's blatant propagandizing of the procreative act? Please, don't neglect to comment also on the very paper you cited, HUMANAE VITAE, which follows, "Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life..." Your beautiful paper is in fact a pitiful compromise with the rhythm method (skimmers, point 16 is the good part). From point 30, to its own administrators, regarding its strict no-effective-birth-control-allowed policy, your paper says, "Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time." How many ways should we dance around it, hoeferbe? The Church is in the baby business! Just a hint, trying to minimize or deny it at this point just massacres your credibility...
The overlap between charity and recruitment. The objective analysis of religion in the context of information science, cellular automata or semiotic phenomenon. The church's role in the violence in Northern Ireland. Yes, even their unwillingness to institute zero-tolerance against pedophiles. All hysteria? You have a different definition of hysteria than the dictionary.
Did the end at any time justify the means, hoeferbe? Did it justify beheading Galileo? Or persecution of gays and lesbians? Did it justify what the church did in Yugoslavia in World War II? Am I hysterical, hoeferbe? Or, truthfully, is my honest and sober talk about the church's behavior rather sedate, in fact downright lazy, when anti-abortion terrorists, whom the church "officially" distances themselves from but unofficially provides the moral (and sometimes financial and logistical) support for (much like Osama bin Laden and the WTC bombers?), are carrying on an active and public murder campaign against Americans? I urge you, read your own side's literature, before you form any premature opinions about what hysteria really is.
I'm hysterical, indeed.
I guess that's the only thing you can tell yourself. Your alternatives would be to start really cranking up the Doublethink - try to bury all this under a deeper bed of lies. Or perhaps you could simply run away, and look for an easier (a more ignorant, pliable) conversational partner. That's the playbook, after all. May God have mercy on your soul.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!