Michael Bloomberg Defends Science

blonde rser writes "This weeks Scientific American Podcast plays excerpts from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's commencement address at John Hopkins University (text and video can be found online). Once he gets past the standard pomp and circumstance he makes a strong, pro-science speech. It is impressive how he very directly demonizes those that would politicize stem cell research, global warming, Terry Schaivo, and evolution." From the speech: "Hopkins' motto is 'Veritas vos liberabit' - 'the truth shall set you free' - not that 'you shall be free to set the truth!'" Stirring stuff.

Comments

Re:Puzzling.

[RealGrouchy]

Why is this guy a repulican[?]

Because in the US, politics are inherited. Here's how it works:

The dominant Republican gene (though it's name has changed over the years) pushes the carrier to use fear, hatred, "patriotism", and idols (including religious, political, and American Idols) to further their agenda, and propogate those who carry the Republican gene.

Occasionally, two Republicans who both carry the recessive democratic allele will breed, and a political albino will be created.

Scientists have been tracking Ross Perot for many years, trying to identify the source of the mysterious Fringe gene.

This is why Bloomberg, a republican, is so supportive of Science: he wants Science (which he uses rhetorically as an "idol", see above) to learn more about his political opponents, and design them intelligently out of the political ecosystem.

- RG>

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[ultranova]

If talking about Reagan's politics in a positive light is Interesting, then talking about them in negative light can't very well be Offtopic, now can it ? Or is the Ministry of Truth on mod duty again ?

Re:This man is right

[zippthorne]

But why is cloning, "not quite right?"

As a person opposed to embryonic stem cell research, I can state unequivocally the reason for my opposition, and unless you're a sociopath, if you accept the premise, you would oppose it as well. I believe that the harvesting of stem cells involves the murder of a person.

Cloning on the other hand does not involve the murder of a person. It's pretty much the opposite of killing in any way. As such, I really don't see any reason to oppose it* other than the potential philosphical implications depending on the source of the cells used in the cloning. But those are reasons to oppose things other than cloning, and not the cloning itself.

*Once it works that is. The physical problems and low success rate exhibited by the animal tests show we have a long way to go before cloning could make sense for humans

Re:For information

[ceoyoyo]

So what you're saying is that it's a bad idea to take a book compiled from articles written over a period of a thousand years, the youngest more than fifteen hundred years old and let it dictate your actions and the course of your life?

I'm not sure that even WITH cultural context it's a good idea to take the bible too literally. Many of the cultures of the time had some nasty tendencies that I'd prefer not to see make a comeback. Thinking that nailing people to crosses was an acceptable form of execution for example. Believing that execution was a good way of dealing with people who criticize the government for another.

Re:Murder

[sveinungkv]

As already said here: fertilization eggs = another person. (The time of fertilization is the only time that makes sence to claim a human life begins)

Re:Murder

[sveinungkv]

Sure, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells#Embryonic_ stem_cells

Re:Puzzling.

[Luscious868]

You're in idiot. Congress controls the purse strings in Washington. The President proposes a budget but Congress doesn't have to abide by it. Democrats controlled congress when we took on all of that debt. Get the facts straight before you open your idiotic liberal mouth.