Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Stunned as Medical Non-Profit Group Abruptly Ends Research Grants (nature.com)
A major US non-profit group focused on improving child health has abruptly terminated US$3 million in research grants -- leaving nearly 40 scientists confused, angry and scrambling to secure new funding. From a report: On 24 July, 37 grant recipients received an e-mail from the March of Dimes Foundation in New York City informing them that their 3-year grants had been cut off, retroactively, starting on 30 June. Many of the researchers were only a year into their projects, and had had just enough time to hire and train staff, purchase supplies and generate preliminary results. Now, several say that they might need to lay off employees, euthanize lab animals and shelve their research projects if they cannot find other funding -- fast. The March of Dimes, which is supported largely by individual donations, made the decision to revoke the grants because of a budget shortfall, says Kelle Moley, the group's chief scientific officer. "I know this is harsh news," Moley says. "As a former grantee, this would be devastating to me as well." That is small consolation to many researchers whom Nature spoke to.
The abruptness suggests that March of Dimes staff is incompetent and couldn't see the shortfall coming, that some major funding source suddenly cut them off, or maybe some insider embezzled a bunch of money. In any case, this doesn't look like a typical, "Gee, we've been having some difficulties raising money" scenario.
Charity Navigator rates the March of Dimes at 2 out of 5 stars, and 1 out of 5 on the financial scale.
Their program expenses, administrative expenses, fundraising expenses, and fundraising efficiency are all pretty good. But they basically ran out of money. Liability to assets should be 10% but it is 113%!!! I can't tell what they did wrong, other than paying their CEO a half a million dollars a year. That wouldn't be unreasonable if that CEO brought in millions of more dollars than a CEO who made $100k/year, but clearly something was mismanaged if it got to this point.
I like it very much how modern day Christians take their notion of what is murder or not from Aristotle
I like it very much when apparent atheistts try to speak for all Christians. In other words, you're making it up.
which clearly states the soul enters the body when the person first breathes
You're good at taking things out of context. Remember that the context of that verse is the creation of the first human being out of clay. Prior to life being breathed into it, the clay was not human. Clay has no soul, and thus the soul could ONLY enter it when it became human.
Every baby since that time has been different. A description of how the first human was created is not a description of how every other human has been created. The fact that the material was clay before the first human became so does not mean that every baby since then is clay until it is born.
and that abortion is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to be paid to the would be father.
You stopped at the first verse of that group. The second clearly says "a life for a life". If taking the "fruit of the woman" followed by "mischief" requires a "life for a life", then clearly the "fruit of the woman" is a "life." Otherwise it would say "a life for a bit of mischief and a blob of clay."
Being a pagan myself, I heartily approve of taking a pagan Philosopher's opinions more seriously than whatever is in the Biblical myths.
You know, "philosophy" covers a wide range of thought, and the fact that both the "bible myth" and a pagan philosopher say an unborn child is a life isn't earth shattering news. Sometimes people of vastly different belief systems and backgrounds come to the same truths despite the different journey. You know, maybe some things are just that obvious.
Be as it may, a paganized Christianity is better than a non-paganized one
I think you meant to say that one of your imagined versions of Christianity is better than another one of your imagined versions. I agree.
even though in this case I myself agree with the Bible!
You agree with the misinterpretation you've created. Not earth shattering news, either. Your bias has you creating the misinterpretation and ignoring the context, and your bias naturally has you agreeing with what you created.
I like it very much when apparent atheistts try to speak for all Christians. In other words, you're making it up.
Not at all. And I'm not an Atheist, I'm a pagan. :-)
You're good at taking things out of context.
No. The Hebrew word we translate as "soul" and "spirit" are "nephesh" for soul, and "ruash" and "neshamah" for spirit, the three of which mean "breathe". Those are the words used in the Old Testament. Similarly, the Greek words used in the New Testament that we translate as "soul" and "spirit" are "psuche" for soul, and "pnoe" and "pneuma" for spirit, the three of which also mean "breathe".
The meaning all thorough the Bible is that soul/spirit are connected to a breathing body. That's the criteria. And anything that isn't breathing has no soul. Including fetuses.
You stopped at the first verse of that group.
No, I didn't. Those verses refer to the death of the would-be mother and/or of the would-be father. The miscarriage caused by the assailant is punished by a fine. It's considered an aggression against the mother, and a loss of property against the father. Search any Biblical dictionary and you'll see this explained in excruciating details.
You agree with the misinterpretation you've created.
No, I agree with the traditional understanding of this topic in multiple cultures. Some take a more careful approach and suggest temperance when it comes to abortion, saying it's better to avoid it than to indulge in it, but very few believed mere conception entailed soul-body linking. In fact, even American evangelicals only began believing this during the 1970's. Before that it was considered by most as a specifically Catholic (and Orthodox) belief, not a proper, general Christian one.
And, guess what? Evangelicals were the correct ones in that debate. Were. Now they aren't anymore.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
No. The Hebrew word we translate as "soul" and "spirit" are "nephesh" for soul, and "ruash" and "neshamah" for spirit, the three of which mean "breathe".
Yes, the source of the first spirit (soul) was from a breath. That does not mean that the source of every other soul is from a breath taken by the baby. The word acknowledges where the first one came from, not requires that every following one come the same way.
No, I didn't. Those verses refer to the death of the would-be mother and/or of the would-be father.
Oh, cool. then murder is just "mischief" according to the Bible. Good to know.
In fact, even American evangelicals only began believing this during the 1970's.
Uhhh, no. I'm old enough to know better. The fact that it became a widely-discussed issue on the 70's doesn't mean that it wasn't believed to be killing before that. It took having laws legitimizing that killing to get to Rowe vs. Wade in 1973.