First, I believe stem cell research holds incredible promise for human health, and that it is a worthy target for federal science funding. I also believe in evolution and think anyone who doesnt is rather silly.
However, I can understand why some people have an aversion to embryonic stem cell research. After all, in Germany (about as secular a state as exists today) all such research is completely banned. In july 2006 the German government tried to get EU-level funding for ESCR banned. This is not due to german ignorance or religious fervor, its due to that nation's painful memories of scientific research on humans. I happen to think the germans are wrong here, but i can empathize with their point of view and do not believe they arrived at it as a result of national ignorance.
I dont think there's a large constituency in the US that would want a complete ban a la Germany, where even privately funded research is banned. I dont think there are many people who oppose all government stem cell research funding whatsoever. I dont even recall any republicans proposing we reduce funding for stem cell research to the levels seen in the Clinton administration. Its simply a question of using tax dollars to fund a particular subset of research that bothers many people. I happen to disagree with those people, but I dont think its because Im smarter than they are.
On evolution - I live in NYC, where many educated people seem to have an unhealthy obsession with what children in the hinterlands of Kentucky or some other flyover state are being taught. Of course, these people (along with their ideological fellow-travelers in largely collectivist metropolises like LA, San Francisco, and DC) live within a few miles of some of the least educated children in the western world. God forbid some child in West Virginia not get a Washington DC approved science text book, but never mind that the high school completion rate in DC (44%) is worse than every state in the country. Its always a political winner to avoid dealing with tough local problems, instead appealing to popular prejudices against faraway people.
I think the world would be a better place if we as a society did a better job of teaching our children things like evolution, and invested more in cutting edge science like ESCR. But the answer isnt more centralized control, more spending more government.
When I hear about people complaining about 'Fox News' or 'Bob Jones University' or 'Christian Fundamentalists' or how some stupid people are questioning some new Federal spending initiative, I believe I am listening to an elitist , a statist, and maybe a sectionalist, but certainly not someone seriously concerned about the advancement of science.
Obscurantism (from the Latin obscurans, "darkening") is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known. There are two common senses of this: (1) opposition to the spread of knowledge--a policy of withholding knowledge from the general public; and (2) a style (as in literature or art) characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstruseness.
One serious problem is scientists (and policy makers) deliberately misleading people with pseudo-science.
Scientists regularly use their credentials and objective observers to try to promote their own political or ideological agendas.
The solution to this part of the problem isnt just better education for the public - its the scientific community doing a better job of policing itself.
For example, anyone claiming "the debate is over" on an area of active scientific dispute should be ignored. Same goes for anyone claiming consensus=science.
http://tinyurl.com/23p4la
Not surprisingly, these ostensibly credentialed snake oil salesmen are most often found at the intersection of public policy.
From Scalia's dissent:
The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.
From Roberts' dissent:
The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land...The mismatch suggests that petitioners' true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases--not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) ("[Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action")...The limitation of the judicial power to cases and controversies "is crucial in maintaining the tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution."
http://tinyurl.com/yttruw
From Scalia's dissent:
The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.
From Roberts' dissent:
The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land...The mismatch suggests that petitioners' true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases--not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) ("[Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action")...The limitation of the judicial power to cases and controversies "is crucial in maintaining the tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution."
eldavojohn wrote - "His article only mentions a professor from MIT but not what his criticisms are."
The MIT professor is Richard Lindzen. He is a physicist and Professor of Meteorology at MIT. Google him to learn more.
-----
misleb wrote "Depends on what was done about it, but I can't help thinking better safe than sorry."
The problem with this logic is that it assumes there is no cost to "doing something." "Doing something" in this case means slowing the world economy, dooming billions to continued poverty, granting arbitrary power to foreign and domestic bureaucracies, and slowing the very engine that makes innovation possible.
"Doing something" just to be "better safe than sorry" in the 1960s meant stopping the expansion of nuclear energy in the US - if we hadn't done that, and had instead moved forward with France and Japan (generating 80% of electricity from nuclear now) the US would now be generating 40% less CO2.
"Doing something" for Nobel-Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen means pumping millions of tons of Sulfur into the atmosphere (to help reflect sunlight). The US has spent the last 40 years reducing the emission of this powerful pollutant (creates acid rain), but when Al Gore calls climate change "the greatest spiritual challenge mankind has ever confronted" anything is on the table.
http://tinyurl.com/3xkxf2
"Doing something" about Global Cooling in the 1970s meant "melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers".
http://tinyurl.com/yqzd4a
-----
The greatest threat to humanity is not human-induced climate change, it is abuse of power by grasping bureaucrats. Add up all the fatalities of all the natural disasters of the 20th century and you will have a fraction of the number killed by abuse Marxist governments. Like the Marxists in the 20th century, climate alarmists favor central control over individual liberty, claim scientific support for their harebrained schemes, and command sympathy from many among American academia, celebrities, and trustifarians.
http://tinyurl.com/22hy4u
"We're talking about very small odds, but very huge consequences. Each year that you don't look for them is a year that you're taking an unjustified (economically) risk."
This reasoning is sound. Unfortunately, if added up all the costs of every probability-adjusted world threatening disasters like this we would very soon have no money left.
Scientists have unfortunately low credibility among the public in providing an honest assessment of the importance of their work. University basements are full of bright people who think their own projects are the most important things on earth and everyone should pay attention to them. Too many scientists knowing exaggerate the consequences of their work in an effort to promote their own careers.
The result is a public growing increasingly jaded to claims of global catastrophe - a boy who cried wolf problem. Shame on the scientists.
http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?p=81
Last October two Frenchmen were prosecuted for criticizing a blatantly fraudulent TV segment produced by France 2 TV. The segment ostensibly showed a Palestinian boy being killed by Israeli gunfire - further analysis showed the video to be almost certainly staged.
http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?p=182
Slashdot Mirror
In response to philspear:
First, I believe stem cell research holds incredible promise for human health, and that it is a worthy target for federal science funding. I also believe in evolution and think anyone who doesnt is rather silly.
However, I can understand why some people have an aversion to embryonic stem cell research. After all, in Germany (about as secular a state as exists today) all such research is completely banned. In july 2006 the German government tried to get EU-level funding for ESCR banned. This is not due to german ignorance or religious fervor, its due to that nation's painful memories of scientific research on humans. I happen to think the germans are wrong here, but i can empathize with their point of view and do not believe they arrived at it as a result of national ignorance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/20/genetics.europeanunion
I dont think there's a large constituency in the US that would want a complete ban a la Germany, where even privately funded research is banned. I dont think there are many people who oppose all government stem cell research funding whatsoever. I dont even recall any republicans proposing we reduce funding for stem cell research to the levels seen in the Clinton administration. Its simply a question of using tax dollars to fund a particular subset of research that bothers many people. I happen to disagree with those people, but I dont think its because Im smarter than they are.
On evolution - I live in NYC, where many educated people seem to have an unhealthy obsession with what children in the hinterlands of Kentucky or some other flyover state are being taught. Of course, these people (along with their ideological fellow-travelers in largely collectivist metropolises like LA, San Francisco, and DC) live within a few miles of some of the least educated children in the western world. God forbid some child in West Virginia not get a Washington DC approved science text book, but never mind that the high school completion rate in DC (44%) is worse than every state in the country. Its always a political winner to avoid dealing with tough local problems, instead appealing to popular prejudices against faraway people.
http://ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/onethird.pdf
I think the world would be a better place if we as a society did a better job of teaching our children things like evolution, and invested more in cutting edge science like ESCR. But the answer isnt more centralized control, more spending more government.
When I hear about people complaining about 'Fox News' or 'Bob Jones University' or 'Christian Fundamentalists' or how some stupid people are questioning some new Federal spending initiative, I believe I am listening to an elitist , a statist, and maybe a sectionalist, but certainly not someone seriously concerned about the advancement of science.
http://dirckthenoorman.com/
Obscurantism (from the Latin obscurans, "darkening") is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known. There are two common senses of this: (1) opposition to the spread of knowledge--a policy of withholding knowledge from the general public; and (2) a style (as in literature or art) characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstruseness. One serious problem is scientists (and policy makers) deliberately misleading people with pseudo-science. Scientists regularly use their credentials and objective observers to try to promote their own political or ideological agendas. The solution to this part of the problem isnt just better education for the public - its the scientific community doing a better job of policing itself. For example, anyone claiming "the debate is over" on an area of active scientific dispute should be ignored. Same goes for anyone claiming consensus=science. http://tinyurl.com/23p4la Not surprisingly, these ostensibly credentialed snake oil salesmen are most often found at the intersection of public policy.
From Scalia's dissent: The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency. From Roberts' dissent: The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land...The mismatch suggests that petitioners' true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases--not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) ("[Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action")...The limitation of the judicial power to cases and controversies "is crucial in maintaining the tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution." http://tinyurl.com/yttruw
From Scalia's dissent: The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency. From Roberts' dissent: The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land...The mismatch suggests that petitioners' true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases--not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) ("[Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action")...The limitation of the judicial power to cases and controversies "is crucial in maintaining the tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution."
eldavojohn wrote - "His article only mentions a professor from MIT but not what his criticisms are." The MIT professor is Richard Lindzen. He is a physicist and Professor of Meteorology at MIT. Google him to learn more. ----- misleb wrote "Depends on what was done about it, but I can't help thinking better safe than sorry." The problem with this logic is that it assumes there is no cost to "doing something." "Doing something" in this case means slowing the world economy, dooming billions to continued poverty, granting arbitrary power to foreign and domestic bureaucracies, and slowing the very engine that makes innovation possible. "Doing something" just to be "better safe than sorry" in the 1960s meant stopping the expansion of nuclear energy in the US - if we hadn't done that, and had instead moved forward with France and Japan (generating 80% of electricity from nuclear now) the US would now be generating 40% less CO2. "Doing something" for Nobel-Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen means pumping millions of tons of Sulfur into the atmosphere (to help reflect sunlight). The US has spent the last 40 years reducing the emission of this powerful pollutant (creates acid rain), but when Al Gore calls climate change "the greatest spiritual challenge mankind has ever confronted" anything is on the table. http://tinyurl.com/3xkxf2 "Doing something" about Global Cooling in the 1970s meant "melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers". http://tinyurl.com/yqzd4a ----- The greatest threat to humanity is not human-induced climate change, it is abuse of power by grasping bureaucrats. Add up all the fatalities of all the natural disasters of the 20th century and you will have a fraction of the number killed by abuse Marxist governments. Like the Marxists in the 20th century, climate alarmists favor central control over individual liberty, claim scientific support for their harebrained schemes, and command sympathy from many among American academia, celebrities, and trustifarians. http://tinyurl.com/22hy4u
"We're talking about very small odds, but very huge consequences. Each year that you don't look for them is a year that you're taking an unjustified (economically) risk." This reasoning is sound. Unfortunately, if added up all the costs of every probability-adjusted world threatening disasters like this we would very soon have no money left. Scientists have unfortunately low credibility among the public in providing an honest assessment of the importance of their work. University basements are full of bright people who think their own projects are the most important things on earth and everyone should pay attention to them. Too many scientists knowing exaggerate the consequences of their work in an effort to promote their own careers. The result is a public growing increasingly jaded to claims of global catastrophe - a boy who cried wolf problem. Shame on the scientists. http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?p=81
Last October two Frenchmen were prosecuted for criticizing a blatantly fraudulent TV segment produced by France 2 TV. The segment ostensibly showed a Palestinian boy being killed by Israeli gunfire - further analysis showed the video to be almost certainly staged. http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?p=182