I'm pretty sure the university is paid to be useful to the student. The student is paid to be useful to society when they get a job.
Also you're blaming them for "screwing up" by not magically deriving useful knowledge from a rushed and poorly run exercise? By not having a natural talent for it rather than expecting to actually be taught something of value?
The dissection for that matter did nothing to prevent someone from becoming a biologist or surgeon as you claim. They didn't throw up their hands and say "This is not for me!" immediately afterward. They even gave an example of something related to the subject they would have liked to have learned if given the chance. Your argument smacks of elitism more than anything.
Honestly I think a number of the comments here genuinely were attempting to claim that computer simulations are not useful.
For that matter, is a sudden unexpected variation that only physical models can provide really that useful when trying to teach a novice student basic anatomy?
I find it amazing that on Slashdot of all places so many people are questioning the very premise of computer simulated training and whether it's a viable analogue of the physical world.
Automobile students, squeamish about getting grease on their fingers, are clamoring to have their hands-on experience replaced by computer simulations. Heaven help us when the airplane industry does the same.
I know right? Designing airplanes and training pilots using computer simulations is unthinkable.
If a government agency is caught abusing its power, it should be completely shut down (e.g. DOJ - search for fast and furious, as it relates to gunwalking) and for a government employee caught doing so, especially when trying to cover it up, it should be a capital offense (search for Eric Holder as it relates to the previous example).
Do you realize just how easy that would make it for anyone with a grudge or conflicting viewpoint to engineer the shutdown of an entire agency?
I don't disagree though that an individual abusing the power their government granted to them should be the end of their political career.
Obama is dealing with a legacy of toxic economics and disastrous foreign policy that was years/decades in the making.
As for compulsory voting: I'd say [citation needed] on the higher percentage of apathy voting. I'd also say that Australian ticking boxes randomly which are randomly ordered causes no upset in the competition because the apathetic votes will be evenly distributed.
Not to mention I'd kill for the instant runoffs you guys have.
Put a disclaimer on the photo and provide links to the source images used. If you're interested you can look it up.
A few years ago in the UK they ran a Dove soap advert with real women. They ran it just about everywhere. After a week of looking at those real women on my morning commute, I longed for the fake photo shopped lie. I don't expect pictures of beer gut real men on the cover of men's health either. Real is grim, lets live the lie:)
There's a big difference here. Practically no one is objecting to the use of attractive people to pitch products. Photoshopping models selling cosmetics is problematic though because:
It is disingenuous about the effects the product would have in real life (which is false advertising).
It creates expectations of perfection that are unrealistic, to the point they almost dip back into the uncanny valley.
It narrows the definition of what is attractive to the industry standard supermodel look, which is both frustrating for people trying to improve their body image, and boring from an aesthetic standpoint
But what is the alternative? Stop developing communications or information technology?
Don't forget that there are rapidly diminishing returns, which levels the playing field to some degree. A secret spy satellite network is much more advanced/thorough/organized than any surveillance technology the public has access to, and yet in most urban contexts a bunch of people with camera phones + internet access could easily acquire data that is comparably informative (or superior in some cases).
But ethics are not the same as politics. When science is not dictated by ethics all of humanity tends to lose. That's why we're having a debate on where the line should be drawn.
Even the argument to cut off funding for stem cell research is slightly different than this since that tends to be religiously motivated, rather than based on morals arrived at through rational debate. Also I don't think you should feel a need to lump anything in with anything, these are separate arguments for separate issues which are not directly analogous and so they should be evaluated individually.
For example; I support stem cell research because I have seen no compelling evidence that stem cells have an inherent value as living beings, because there is no alternative to the knowledge research on them provides, and because I have no religious affiliation that commands me to unquestioningly accept a given viewpoint on the matter.
I don't support animal testing because I have seen compelling evidence that animals have inherent value as living beings, and because there are alternatives to the cruel testing methods currently in place. Apples and oranges.
So your friends hated the monkeys because they got aggressive when locked in a tiny box and tortured for reasons they don't understand? Imagine that.
You can't reasonably imply that anyone using anything which is a product of animal testing is a hypocrite, because it is far too ingrained in society to be avoidable. That'd be like saying anyone who ethically opposes slavery or stealing from native Americans should leave North America, because so much of what we have is a direct result of the advantages those practices gave us.
The point is that this is 2011 and we have more modern methods for many things which don't require testing on animals. When alternatives exist, it's unethical to not use them. That's what the NIH themselves are saying, and they're not exactly a bleeding-heart animal welfare society.
I wonder how many people there are living in ivory towers that criticize this type of research whilst being oblivious on how many millions of lives have been saved because of it? How many drugs and other medical break troughs could only only have happened by using animal testing? What are people proposing, we go back to the days of using prisoners and societies undesirables? Do these people propose that we go without testing and hope for the best with live humans (which is really just going back to the question of who becomes the test subjects)?
/i lump such people in with global warming deniers and their like
I think there are two issues with what you said:
Firstly, "this type" of research, meaning the research which will no longer receive grant money, by definition includes only the research projects which were unnecessary for human health, or have another viable avenue by which the same knowledge can be achieved. This is presumably meant to discourage the rampancy of cruel research methods currently being used simply because they're more cost effective, or because they're the status quo and the industry hasn't bothered to adapt. TFA even mentions the impetus being that "new methods and technologies developed by the biomedical community have provided alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in several areas of research", and so nothing is actually being sacrificed here.
Secondly, in what way is this at all related to denying global warming? One is an argument of ethics versus pragmatism, and the other could be framed as an argument of business versus global interests, religion versus science, or a plain lack of consensus within the scientific community (depending on who you talk to). They're complete apples and oranges, the only connection I see is that you disagree with both. Lumping every opposing viewpoint into a single, easy to villainize group is a dangerous way of thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure the university is paid to be useful to the student. The student is paid to be useful to society when they get a job.
Also you're blaming them for "screwing up" by not magically deriving useful knowledge from a rushed and poorly run exercise? By not having a natural talent for it rather than expecting to actually be taught something of value?
The dissection for that matter did nothing to prevent someone from becoming a biologist or surgeon as you claim. They didn't throw up their hands and say "This is not for me!" immediately afterward. They even gave an example of something related to the subject they would have liked to have learned if given the chance. Your argument smacks of elitism more than anything.
India's UGC was not suggesting that biologists should only perform research on simulations.
Honestly I think a number of the comments here genuinely were attempting to claim that computer simulations are not useful.
For that matter, is a sudden unexpected variation that only physical models can provide really that useful when trying to teach a novice student basic anatomy?
"India Curries Favour of Local Chefs"
"India Kills New Murder Bill"
"India Pins Down and Rapes the Sex Offender Registration List Until It Bleeds and Is Permanently Traumatized"
I find it amazing that on Slashdot of all places so many people are questioning the very premise of computer simulated training and whether it's a viable analogue of the physical world.
Automobile students, squeamish about getting grease on their fingers, are clamoring to have their hands-on experience replaced by computer simulations. Heaven help us when the airplane industry does the same.
I know right? Designing airplanes and training pilots using computer simulations is unthinkable.
I feel obligated to point out how offensive and insulting that one suggestion of yours is.
I mean seriously, PETA?
If a government agency is caught abusing its power, it should be completely shut down (e.g. DOJ - search for fast and furious, as it relates to gunwalking) and for a government employee caught doing so, especially when trying to cover it up, it should be a capital offense (search for Eric Holder as it relates to the previous example).
Do you realize just how easy that would make it for anyone with a grudge or conflicting viewpoint to engineer the shutdown of an entire agency?
I don't disagree though that an individual abusing the power their government granted to them should be the end of their political career.
Plus they won't print 1,000,000,000,000 of them this year.
They sure won't. They've printed all they needed to get rich and cash out already.
Obama is dealing with a legacy of toxic economics and disastrous foreign policy that was years/decades in the making.
As for compulsory voting: I'd say [citation needed] on the higher percentage of apathy voting. I'd also say that Australian ticking boxes randomly which are randomly ordered causes no upset in the competition because the apathetic votes will be evenly distributed.
Not to mention I'd kill for the instant runoffs you guys have.
You do know that "walking on the water" is a misstranslation and the idiom in fact means walking at the beach?
You do know that modern Christianity is largely based on taking loose translations literally right?
Put a disclaimer on the photo and provide links to the source images used. If you're interested you can look it up. A few years ago in the UK they ran a Dove soap advert with real women. They ran it just about everywhere. After a week of looking at those real women on my morning commute, I longed for the fake photo shopped lie. I don't expect pictures of beer gut real men on the cover of men's health either. Real is grim, lets live the lie :)
There's a big difference here. Practically no one is objecting to the use of attractive people to pitch products. Photoshopping models selling cosmetics is problematic though because:
But what is the alternative? Stop developing communications or information technology?
Don't forget that there are rapidly diminishing returns, which levels the playing field to some degree. A secret spy satellite network is much more advanced/thorough/organized than any surveillance technology the public has access to, and yet in most urban contexts a bunch of people with camera phones + internet access could easily acquire data that is comparably informative (or superior in some cases).
Typically they're killed by IEDs, another low tech weapon fired from a remote distance.
But ethics are not the same as politics. When science is not dictated by ethics all of humanity tends to lose. That's why we're having a debate on where the line should be drawn.
Even the argument to cut off funding for stem cell research is slightly different than this since that tends to be religiously motivated, rather than based on morals arrived at through rational debate. Also I don't think you should feel a need to lump anything in with anything, these are separate arguments for separate issues which are not directly analogous and so they should be evaluated individually.
For example; I support stem cell research because I have seen no compelling evidence that stem cells have an inherent value as living beings, because there is no alternative to the knowledge research on them provides, and because I have no religious affiliation that commands me to unquestioningly accept a given viewpoint on the matter.
I don't support animal testing because I have seen compelling evidence that animals have inherent value as living beings, and because there are alternatives to the cruel testing methods currently in place. Apples and oranges.
So your friends hated the monkeys because they got aggressive when locked in a tiny box and tortured for reasons they don't understand? Imagine that. You can't reasonably imply that anyone using anything which is a product of animal testing is a hypocrite, because it is far too ingrained in society to be avoidable. That'd be like saying anyone who ethically opposes slavery or stealing from native Americans should leave North America, because so much of what we have is a direct result of the advantages those practices gave us. The point is that this is 2011 and we have more modern methods for many things which don't require testing on animals. When alternatives exist, it's unethical to not use them. That's what the NIH themselves are saying, and they're not exactly a bleeding-heart animal welfare society.
I wonder how many people there are living in ivory towers that criticize this type of research whilst being oblivious on how many millions of lives have been saved because of it? How many drugs and other medical break troughs could only only have happened by using animal testing? What are people proposing, we go back to the days of using prisoners and societies undesirables? Do these people propose that we go without testing and hope for the best with live humans (which is really just going back to the question of who becomes the test subjects)?
I think there are two issues with what you said:
Firstly, "this type" of research, meaning the research which will no longer receive grant money, by definition includes only the research projects which were unnecessary for human health, or have another viable avenue by which the same knowledge can be achieved. This is presumably meant to discourage the rampancy of cruel research methods currently being used simply because they're more cost effective, or because they're the status quo and the industry hasn't bothered to adapt. TFA even mentions the impetus being that "new methods and technologies developed by the biomedical community have provided alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in several areas of research", and so nothing is actually being sacrificed here.
Secondly, in what way is this at all related to denying global warming? One is an argument of ethics versus pragmatism, and the other could be framed as an argument of business versus global interests, religion versus science, or a plain lack of consensus within the scientific community (depending on who you talk to). They're complete apples and oranges, the only connection I see is that you disagree with both. Lumping every opposing viewpoint into a single, easy to villainize group is a dangerous way of thinking.