Ok, I apologize, then, for mischaracterizing and/or misinterpreting your initial post.
And, for the record, I do believe it would be a positive thing if federal funding were available for all novel, promising research, such as embryonic stem cell research (including on new lines).
I simply believe there are some serious ethical questions that should be addressed in tandem with, and possibly before, such funding. The problem is that debate on this ends up being charged with religion and abortion - from camps on both sides - derailing any meaningful discussion on the merits, value, or implications of such research.
As a side note, I meant to thank you for responding reasonably to a previous post of mine. But you forgot to continue it!;-) Not necessary, however, as I understood the drive of what you were saying, and appreciated a reasoned response.
Like I said, there do exist a bare handful of labs that can run without federal funding. The vast majority of labs, however, don't have this luxury. There are only so many facilities like the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery in the country, after all. Don't try call me on something I didn't claim.
When you said:
There exist only a bare handful of labs who can afford to lose government funding. When the government says "Do this or you'll lose your federal funding", a PI can either do what the government says or close up shop--which means losing years of research, losing his livelihood, and firing a group of highly trained, carefully sought-after and brilliant scientists.
...you indisputably implied that something like, e.g., an academic institution would lose all of its federal funding if it or any of its researchers wanted to pursue embryonic stem cell research, in the same vein that a state would lose federal highway money if it had a drinking age lower than 21. Don't worry, your point about highway money isn't lost on me.
But the analogy doesn't transfer. The University of Wisconsin and its star stem cell researchers like Jamie Thompson are indeed pursuing this research, by working around the restrictions. Will the research technically be "private", and, technically and legally, not associated with the "University of Wisconsin"? Sure. But everyone knows this is being done to keep the University of Wisconsin on the forefront of this type of research, and keep researchers like Thompson around. Creating a private "institute" is as simple as some legal wrangling and some declarations by the University and state.
If your argument is that it would be easier, more readily possible, etc., if federal funding were simply allowed, of course I'd agree. Further, if your argument is that there are few institutions that can afford to do the screwing around to do embryonic stem cell research - and secure non-federal money for it - sure, again, I obviously would agree.
But that's not what you said. Like many others, you implied that any entity with federal funding that wished to pursue embryonic stem cell research would lose all of its federal funding if it did so, akin to the drinking age/highway money argument, and therefore was tantamount to a "ban". That is simply not true, and I demonstrated with an example of how it's being done at the University of Wisconsin. The fact that part of the "Wisconsin Institute for Discovery" won't *technically* be a part of the University is beside the point and a legal technicality at that. The fact of the matter is that it will be hosted by the University, staffed with University researchers, and will generate discoveries under the clear auspices of the University of Wisconsin. There is no equivalent in the highway money argument. Further, this type of research is only being done at large research universities and institutes anyway - the same ones who are ready and willing to work around funding restrictions to make it happen. To reiterate, yes, embryonic stem cell research would ostensibly be much better funded and easier to pursue if direct federal funding for research with new lines was allowed. I agree. But that's not what your point was. (And no, I'm not putting words into your mouth. That's really not what you wrote.)
I just find it funny that FOX News is the pariah when, to my eye, it seems like they have a better record of accuracy and honesty than most.
I agree with you, because I find that true as well (aside from the opinion/editorial shows/segments, which I wasn't including in my post on this topic. Note that the replies reference FOX inaccuracies, which are apparently myriad, at mediamatters.org).
It sounds like you're doing an awful lot of speculating here. What woefully incorrect stories are you talking about?
I'm talking about things like "Proof the election was hacked!" or "Proof exit poll numbers were doctored!" or "Proof that Bush administration will secretly reinstate draft if reelected; plans already in the works!" Things like that.
In fact, this might be a good time to pause. When I think of political blogs, that's what I think of. That might perhaps be what colors my view of blogs. I will freely admit that I do not regularly follow blogs, but it is for that reason. I know bloggers stayed on the CBS story until CBS rolled. A great example of how blogs can work.
As for agendas, yes, sure, everyone's got an agenda of some sort. My implication was that news, ideally, shouldn't have an agenda; perhaps that's just a pipe dream, and yes, I can certainly broaden the definition of agenda and agree that everyone but everyone has one. When I see a blog and see a subtitle like "BECAUSE A GREAT NATION DESERVES THE TRUTH", that doesn't indicate a political agenda to me. That indicates that the blog believes it has the correct, unadulterated truth on a topic. Perhaps I'm just really looking at this the wrong way, but it seems that many of these blogs aren't really interested in the truth, or a thorough examination of multiple possibilities and points of view on topics such as, e.g., the Iraq war.
Technically, it's true--technically, states were free to set the drinking age to whatever they saw fit, and technically, research labs are free to conduct embryonic stem cell research on new cell lines.
[...]
There exist only a bare handful of labs who can afford to lose government funding. When the government says "Do this or you'll lose your federal funding", a PI can either do what the government says or close up shop--which means losing years of research, losing his livelihood, and firing a group of highly trained, carefully sought-after and brilliant scientists.
I'm sorry, but you're completely and utterly wrong.
Research institutions with federal funding are already easily working around the federal funding restrictions.
For example, the University of Wisconsin - currently the number one recipient of federal research grant money in general, and recipient of the greatest number of R01 NIH grants - launched the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, a private research institute, in part to work around these restrictions. The institute can pursue embryonic stem cell research without affecting federal funding at the University of Wisconsin in any way. The NIH even has guidelines and recommendations about how institutions can work around federal funding guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, so as not to jeopardize other funding. California is doing the same sort of thing.
"Acknowledge the reality of the situation," indeed.
I didn't copy a "canned" response. I wrote that response myself. You'll find no previous references to that response anywhere else, because I wrote it. (Yes, I realize I can't prove that, and since some people seem more interested in duplicate posts than in actually talking about the content of the post, I initially posted a couple of responses as AC, so the rest of my morning wouldn't devolve into me justifying why I was trying to correct the utterly irrelevant references to Bush policy, since the Indian research is, as you say, unrelated to embryonic stem cells; and further, you - and everyone else - seem content to gloss over the questions I asked toward the end of my post, which are relevant to the original poster's points.)
You're completely wrong. Universities and other institutions can and do already work around this. For example, the University of Wisconsin, where I'm located, is launching the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, a partly private research institute, which will allow it to get around this issue. This is well known and is being done at dozens of sites around the country.
Um. I thought I made it clear, but let me spell it out: I posted both. No plagiarism. And there's actually one or two more that I believe got moderated down to -1; they were all posted in DIRECT RESPONSE to what I initially thought were going to be a couple of idiots drawing unrelated conclusions about US embryonic stem cell policy in an article that had NOTHING TO DO with embryonic stem cells. Unfortunately, it appears that the entire article has been taken over with idiotic Bush bashing on an utterly unrelated topic. If you want to address the CONTENT of my posts, I'd be happy to entertain discussion.
If the only thing of value is that more lives were saved than lost, then the same argument can be applied to therapies derived from embryonic stem cells.
Um, yes, that's kind of the converse of the point I was making.
I don't have any problems with my own logical consistency, here, as I support both, for the reasons you (and I) stated.
If more lives are saved than lost, what do you care if a few embryos were harvested for this treatment.
I don't. Did I ever say I was opposed to embryonic stem cell research or federal funding for it? No? Ok then.
It's too bad that the majority of the replies to this article on novel Indian research revolve about Bush embryonic stem cell policy, which is completely and utterly unrelated to the Indian research, which is using adult and umbilical stem cells, neither of which are restricted in any way in the US.
It's not plagiarism. It's my feeble and futile attempt to address this completely irrelevant and unrelated issue in an article that is about adult stem cell research, on which there are no restrictions of any kind in the US.
But I guess I should know better.
And yeah, two responses posted to something in a slashdot thread? Wow, sure is fishy! That must invalidate the argument!
I thought about specifically addressing this in my reply, because I thought it almost certain that you'd say this. First of all, the sanctions were imposed by the UN proper. And I don't really have time to write a dissertation here on slashdot on this topic, but let's just shorten it up and say that continuing sanctions and keeping with the status quo was presented as the desirable option by opponents of the Iraq action. Therefore, the sanctions would have continued, and it's fair to believe - even moreso in the light of the oil-for-food administration abuses both that have come to light since - that the same level of death would have continued as a result.
And how is the rest of my post attacking a straw man? I asked whether or not a person who might agree with the thesis that Bush values an embryo more than, e.g., an Iraqi civilian (arguments about intent again aside) could grasp the concept that the effort might result in the preservation of more Iraqi lives in the future. What does that have to do with a straw man? In fact, it's intensely relevant: both positions inherently value life, and therefore are not logically inconsistent.
I have news for you: Most biomedical research funding for basic science comes from the Federal government and is taxpayer supported. Thus, elimination of funding is a tacit ban.
Being at a large public research university, I'm more than aware of the status of federal funding.
But to say it's "banned" is still inaccurate, number one, and number two, this article wasn't talking about anything related to embryonic stem cell research. (Yes, I realize the detached effect it can still have on the establishment of new labs, but again, just because it's ok somewhere else doesn't necessarily mean anything. There are lots of things "ok" somewhere else that aren't "ok" in the US.)
People are dying today and living compromised lives because of diseases that may be helped by stem cell research. And no, embryonic stem cell research is not about killing babies or farming developed humans.
No, that's not what embryonic stem cell research is about. But why is it any different, in the context of a life? What's the cutoff that makes it ok? Or do we just ignore that question because of the potential benefit and the lack of development of an embryo? That's what I'm getting at.
Further, and you didn't speak to this, but in another response someone said Bush was inconsistent because he seems to value the "life" of an embryo over, e.g., the life of an Iraqi civilian. Obvious arguments about intent aside, I raise this, specifically, because you brought up the possibility that embryonic stem cell research - even if it is, technically, ending "human life", as undeveloped as it may be - has the potential to save and improve the lives of many more people. We don't know that for sure, but there is a great potential there, yes? I agree! The same argument can be made with regard to the Iraqi civilian life: can no one see that perhaps the Iraqi lives lost during the course of the effort in Iraq will result in an environment where, long term, more life will end up being preserved? Wildly unrelated? Perhaps. But I'm just trying to point out that if it's ok to consider the former - i.e., that "destroying life" might save many more - it's ok to apply that same reasoning to the latter. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with it, just drawing that parallel since no fewer than two other people have now made that comparison elsewhere in this article.
That also means that a baby grown outside of the womb has no protections.
That also means we can farm developed fetuses for destructive research that might yield great benefit. You could even go further and grow them beyond any arbitrary period (e.g., 9 months for example). Since they've never been "born", and have never been wanted by a parent, it's not a "life" by your definition. And if such research could hold untold answers to questions and benefit for mankind, why should we not do it?
I just want to make sure you're being logically consistent here.
he seems to value the `life` of an embryo above the lifes of Iraqi civilians, for instance.
So if the actions in Iraq end up saving Iraqi lives that would have ended (or been miserable) had the status quo been allowed to continue (regardless of our motivations for the war), then what would you say? Remember, various human rights organizations have said that approximately 50,000 Iraqis were dying per year during the previous 12 years as a direct result of sanctions...
In other words, if there ends up being a net preservation of Iraqi lives, then is it acceptable? Or can you not grasp the concept that lives lost in the course of this action might actually result in saving a much greater number? Or is that never ok because we can't know that "for sure", therefore, no action or sacrifice should ever been taken on the part of anyone for the furtherance of a greater good.
Of course, it's no surprise that yet another Bush bashing book might gloss over that little issue.
The Indian research is using adult and umbilical stem cells. Funding of neither is restricted in the US. And embryonic stem cell research is unrestricted, but federal funding is not available for research on new lines that would destroy embryos (though any organization is free to perform such research without federal funding).
And, since you seem to have all the answers, I suppose you can tell us with certainty exactly when and why an embryo is life, and therefore when it's ok to destroy it?
Although the U.S. article identified the applicability of stem cells harvested from (adult) bone marrow and other sources, the Indian article discusses the successes achieved from utilizing umbilical cord stem cells...
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, but the only restrictions in the US are on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Not adult or umbilical. And even embryonic research is still allowed without federal funding.
- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant
But for those who still don't get it:
- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)
- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.
- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being...
Um. No, we don't. It really seems like the only people who are saying that are the people who are doing what you're doing: writing about blogs.
There are plenty of people who have said things along these lines. I'm not saying everyone thinks this. And, I did say that I was about to make "generalizations". But the point is quite a few people (usually in the far political left) think that blogging is the "new media", and it will topple the corporate news establishment. I'm not sure if they really believe it, if it's bravado, or what, but I know you know the exact kind of people I am referring to.
Blogging is a huge thing, okay? People use blogs for different things. Some people write movie reviews. Some people post photos of their pets. Some people post open letters to their year-old children. Blogs are all over the place.
Yes. And I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about political/"news" blogs.
There's one group of bloggers that you're talking about: the news bloggers. These are people who write about news and events and policy and such.
Yes, and, indeed, as you say, that is the group I'm talking about. But it's not so much the "news" blogs, which is why I put it in quotes. It's the political blogs, some of whom present themselves as "news".
They're not trying to take over the job of distributing the news. What they are trying to do -- and an important job it is, too -- is provide a check-and-balance for the existing news outlets.
I will agree with and stipulate to the fact that the web is generally a good medium for getting out information quickly. And blogs, specifically, have become a good mechanism for people to post information to the web, quickly. As well as allowing others to comment.
[...] But now, through blogs, the public has a new way of being made aware of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in their news coverage.
Yes. But where are the checks and balances for some of the popular blogs? The comments? Other blogs? While mainstream media may push forward with false stories - and may have failed to acknowledge and/or correct them in the past - it seems that individual blogs have the same issue. And since everyone seems to be pointing their fingers at everyone else (e.g., FOX News) saying they're lying, it further seems to me that people will simply gravitate to blogs with content that most closely represents and reinfornces their own personal views, even if the information presented is grossly inaccurate or one-sided. I'm still not certain how that's any better. Yes, you or I and many others might be able to sift through the crap, but as blogs appear more like news outlets, many less discriminating among us take the sometimes woefully incorrect stories at face value.
This is a good thing, yes?
Yes. What you said is indeed a good thing. However, I don't see how this corrects other blogs that purport to be "news" sources with extremely one-sided agendas. Perhaps the argument is that they don't need to be corrected, and the best sources of information will naturally bubble to the top. However, I'm not sure I agree with that assessment.
Nobody, but nobody, thinks blogs are going to replace news. It's kind of silly for you to talk about us like we do.
Well, people do. And maybe they're just the fringe crazies. But it's been said, in no uncertain terms, many times here in many stories relating to blogs (or political issues). There are plenty of people who believe it. If they don't represent any significant number of sane people, then I'll retract that statement from my original argument.
Why? Homicide and suicide are implicit in the actions of such a bomber. Granted, the common reference is suicide bomber. Other than altering quotes - which I DON'T condone - how is it "creepy" or "inaccurate" or "manipulative" to call a suicide bomber a homicide bomber?
And almost everything I see at that link is Op-Ed shows (O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes).
Hint: those aren't news shows. They're OPINION shows. Like an Op-Ed page in a newspaper. Get it?
Also, try watching FOX News, or visiting the web site. Again, NOT the Op-Ed shows. Further, searching for other news organizations at MediaMatters.org also returns similar results of alleged inaccuracies, which often amount to disagreements about how the wording should have been handled, perceived exaggerations about minutiae like the amount of applause someone really got during a speech.
Sorry to break it to you, but during the non-Op-Ed shows and in the non-Op-Ed parts of the web site, FOX News doesn't have any worse record of inaccurate reporting, much less intentional inaccurate reporting, than any other mainstream news organization.
(And Op-Ed isn't "inaccurate", per se. It's Op-Ed. And I'm not talking about Op-Ed, in case you haven't figured that out by now.)
(Disclaimer: lead in taken from a previous post of mine on a related topic)
In the a recent slashdot story posted on a related topic, I asked the question, "What is a 'journalist'," considering that there are current, in force US law(s) that may have been violated by a 3rd party knowingly revealing information that could reasonably be assumed to be protected by a confidentiality agreement, and in the ensuing insistence that these web sites should be protected as "journalists", I got an array of replies about what constitutes a "journalist":
Now, considering all of these replies that insist that Nick Ciarelli (of Think Secret) and these other websites are "journalists", and anyone who's apparently got any kind of website at all on any topuc should be considered a "journalist", certainly that means that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) is a "journalist" too?
Or does it not work both ways?
I'm not saying he should have been a credentialed member of the White House Press Corp, or should have been in there with no background checks, etc. etc. etc., but if any old blogger is a journalist - indeed, if Kos himself is a "journalist" - then Guckert/Gannon is just the same. And before anyone says "he didn't even use his real name, so he's hiding somethig," well, neither does the proprietor of warblogging.com. Why? Is he afraid of putting his name behind his thoughts? And don't give me any shit about how he's "protecting himself", as if he'd be fucking hauled off to Guantanamo. It either works both ways, or it doesn't. And, again, no, I'm not saying he should necessarily have been in the White House. But it's also not accurate to call him a "fake" journalist.
I should have gone with my gut and included what I was planning on including in my original post, which was something along the lines of "try to respond to this without some tired reference to FOX News".
Go to http://www.foxnews.com/ and, outside of the opinion section, find me a story that is viciously partisan, or inaccurate.
Watch FNC during the day during "hard news" coverage (i.e., FOX & Friends, FOX News Live, Special Report, the FOX Report), NOT op-ed (i.e., Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly Factor) and find any inaccurate or overly one-sided reporting.
FNC broke several of the anti-Bush stories, such as the Bush drunk driving story.
If all you believe about FOX News is what you read in blogs, you're part of the problem I'm talking about.
Caution: this post contains generalizations. Most of which are, unfortunately, true.
Bloggers think they're going to be the revolution of the press, and that they'll take the place of the New York Times and Washinton Post, and Newscorp will crumble at their feet.
Not with the half-assed misinformation and melodrama on the vast majority of the political and "news" blogs I've seen (to say nothing of the wild spitting and sputtering in the comments).
Not as long as they have no problem with their complete and utter lack of accountability of any type, and the vicious, one-sided partisan nature designed solely to incite vitriol in their groupthink audiences.
Not while they do nothing more than constantly pat each other on their virtual backs and reinforce their own worldviews and twisted near-conspiracy theories, ignoring any and all other sides of the story while simultaneously thinking of themselves as "open minded" and the only revealers of "the truth".
Blogs have a place in the world of information. And, like all sources of information, I'll concede that some can, in general, build a reputation for trust and accuracy. But many, particularly political blogs, have no regard for anything but the furtherance of their own agendas, taking things wildly out of context, and going on vindictive missions to build a one-sided case to paint the target of their ire in the worst possible light, without any consideration for any other motivations or other sides of the stories.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I apologize, then, for mischaracterizing and/or misinterpreting your initial post.
;-) Not necessary, however, as I understood the drive of what you were saying, and appreciated a reasoned response.
And, for the record, I do believe it would be a positive thing if federal funding were available for all novel, promising research, such as embryonic stem cell research (including on new lines).
I simply believe there are some serious ethical questions that should be addressed in tandem with, and possibly before, such funding. The problem is that debate on this ends up being charged with religion and abortion - from camps on both sides - derailing any meaningful discussion on the merits, value, or implications of such research.
As a side note, I meant to thank you for responding reasonably to a previous post of mine. But you forgot to continue it!
When you said:
There exist only a bare handful of labs who can afford to lose government funding. When the government says "Do this or you'll lose your federal funding", a PI can either do what the government says or close up shop--which means losing years of research, losing his livelihood, and firing a group of highly trained, carefully sought-after and brilliant scientists.
...you indisputably implied that something like, e.g., an academic institution would lose all of its federal funding if it or any of its researchers wanted to pursue embryonic stem cell research, in the same vein that a state would lose federal highway money if it had a drinking age lower than 21. Don't worry, your point about highway money isn't lost on me.
But the analogy doesn't transfer. The University of Wisconsin and its star stem cell researchers like Jamie Thompson are indeed pursuing this research, by working around the restrictions. Will the research technically be "private", and, technically and legally, not associated with the "University of Wisconsin"? Sure. But everyone knows this is being done to keep the University of Wisconsin on the forefront of this type of research, and keep researchers like Thompson around. Creating a private "institute" is as simple as some legal wrangling and some declarations by the University and state.
If your argument is that it would be easier, more readily possible, etc., if federal funding were simply allowed, of course I'd agree. Further, if your argument is that there are few institutions that can afford to do the screwing around to do embryonic stem cell research - and secure non-federal money for it - sure, again, I obviously would agree.
But that's not what you said. Like many others, you implied that any entity with federal funding that wished to pursue embryonic stem cell research would lose all of its federal funding if it did so, akin to the drinking age/highway money argument, and therefore was tantamount to a "ban". That is simply not true, and I demonstrated with an example of how it's being done at the University of Wisconsin. The fact that part of the "Wisconsin Institute for Discovery" won't *technically* be a part of the University is beside the point and a legal technicality at that. The fact of the matter is that it will be hosted by the University, staffed with University researchers, and will generate discoveries under the clear auspices of the University of Wisconsin. There is no equivalent in the highway money argument. Further, this type of research is only being done at large research universities and institutes anyway - the same ones who are ready and willing to work around funding restrictions to make it happen. To reiterate, yes, embryonic stem cell research would ostensibly be much better funded and easier to pursue if direct federal funding for research with new lines was allowed. I agree. But that's not what your point was. (And no, I'm not putting words into your mouth. That's really not what you wrote.)
I just find it funny that FOX News is the pariah when, to my eye, it seems like they have a better record of accuracy and honesty than most.
I agree with you, because I find that true as well (aside from the opinion/editorial shows/segments, which I wasn't including in my post on this topic. Note that the replies reference FOX inaccuracies, which are apparently myriad, at mediamatters.org).
It sounds like you're doing an awful lot of speculating here. What woefully incorrect stories are you talking about?
I'm talking about things like "Proof the election was hacked!" or "Proof exit poll numbers were doctored!" or "Proof that Bush administration will secretly reinstate draft if reelected; plans already in the works!" Things like that.
In fact, this might be a good time to pause. When I think of political blogs, that's what I think of. That might perhaps be what colors my view of blogs. I will freely admit that I do not regularly follow blogs, but it is for that reason. I know bloggers stayed on the CBS story until CBS rolled. A great example of how blogs can work.
As for agendas, yes, sure, everyone's got an agenda of some sort. My implication was that news, ideally, shouldn't have an agenda; perhaps that's just a pipe dream, and yes, I can certainly broaden the definition of agenda and agree that everyone but everyone has one. When I see a blog and see a subtitle like "BECAUSE A GREAT NATION DESERVES THE TRUTH", that doesn't indicate a political agenda to me. That indicates that the blog believes it has the correct, unadulterated truth on a topic. Perhaps I'm just really looking at this the wrong way, but it seems that many of these blogs aren't really interested in the truth, or a thorough examination of multiple possibilities and points of view on topics such as, e.g., the Iraq war.
Technically, it's true--technically, states were free to set the drinking age to whatever they saw fit, and technically, research labs are free to conduct embryonic stem cell research on new cell lines.
[...]
There exist only a bare handful of labs who can afford to lose government funding. When the government says "Do this or you'll lose your federal funding", a PI can either do what the government says or close up shop--which means losing years of research, losing his livelihood, and firing a group of highly trained, carefully sought-after and brilliant scientists.
I'm sorry, but you're completely and utterly wrong.
Research institutions with federal funding are already easily working around the federal funding restrictions.
For example, the University of Wisconsin - currently the number one recipient of federal research grant money in general, and recipient of the greatest number of R01 NIH grants - launched the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, a private research institute, in part to work around these restrictions. The institute can pursue embryonic stem cell research without affecting federal funding at the University of Wisconsin in any way. The NIH even has guidelines and recommendations about how institutions can work around federal funding guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, so as not to jeopardize other funding. California is doing the same sort of thing.
"Acknowledge the reality of the situation," indeed.
I didn't copy a "canned" response. I wrote that response myself. You'll find no previous references to that response anywhere else, because I wrote it. (Yes, I realize I can't prove that, and since some people seem more interested in duplicate posts than in actually talking about the content of the post, I initially posted a couple of responses as AC, so the rest of my morning wouldn't devolve into me justifying why I was trying to correct the utterly irrelevant references to Bush policy, since the Indian research is, as you say, unrelated to embryonic stem cells; and further, you - and everyone else - seem content to gloss over the questions I asked toward the end of my post, which are relevant to the original poster's points.)
You're completely wrong. Universities and other institutions can and do already work around this. For example, the University of Wisconsin, where I'm located, is launching the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, a partly private research institute, which will allow it to get around this issue. This is well known and is being done at dozens of sites around the country.
Um. I thought I made it clear, but let me spell it out: I posted both. No plagiarism. And there's actually one or two more that I believe got moderated down to -1; they were all posted in DIRECT RESPONSE to what I initially thought were going to be a couple of idiots drawing unrelated conclusions about US embryonic stem cell policy in an article that had NOTHING TO DO with embryonic stem cells. Unfortunately, it appears that the entire article has been taken over with idiotic Bush bashing on an utterly unrelated topic. If you want to address the CONTENT of my posts, I'd be happy to entertain discussion.
If the only thing of value is that more lives were saved than lost, then the same argument can be applied to therapies derived from embryonic stem cells.
Um, yes, that's kind of the converse of the point I was making.
I don't have any problems with my own logical consistency, here, as I support both, for the reasons you (and I) stated.
If more lives are saved than lost, what do you care if a few embryos were harvested for this treatment.
I don't. Did I ever say I was opposed to embryonic stem cell research or federal funding for it? No? Ok then.
It's too bad that the majority of the replies to this article on novel Indian research revolve about Bush embryonic stem cell policy, which is completely and utterly unrelated to the Indian research, which is using adult and umbilical stem cells, neither of which are restricted in any way in the US.
But I guess I should know better.
And yeah, two responses posted to something in a slashdot thread? Wow, sure is fishy! That must invalidate the argument!
...
Well, the sanctions were imposed by the US/UN.
I thought about specifically addressing this in my reply, because I thought it almost certain that you'd say this. First of all, the sanctions were imposed by the UN proper. And I don't really have time to write a dissertation here on slashdot on this topic, but let's just shorten it up and say that continuing sanctions and keeping with the status quo was presented as the desirable option by opponents of the Iraq action. Therefore, the sanctions would have continued, and it's fair to believe - even moreso in the light of the oil-for-food administration abuses both that have come to light since - that the same level of death would have continued as a result.
And how is the rest of my post attacking a straw man? I asked whether or not a person who might agree with the thesis that Bush values an embryo more than, e.g., an Iraqi civilian (arguments about intent again aside) could grasp the concept that the effort might result in the preservation of more Iraqi lives in the future. What does that have to do with a straw man? In fact, it's intensely relevant: both positions inherently value life, and therefore are not logically inconsistent.
I have news for you: Most biomedical research funding for basic science comes from the Federal government and is taxpayer supported. Thus, elimination of funding is a tacit ban.
Being at a large public research university, I'm more than aware of the status of federal funding.
But to say it's "banned" is still inaccurate, number one, and number two, this article wasn't talking about anything related to embryonic stem cell research. (Yes, I realize the detached effect it can still have on the establishment of new labs, but again, just because it's ok somewhere else doesn't necessarily mean anything. There are lots of things "ok" somewhere else that aren't "ok" in the US.)
People are dying today and living compromised lives because of diseases that may be helped by stem cell research. And no, embryonic stem cell research is not about killing babies or farming developed humans.
No, that's not what embryonic stem cell research is about. But why is it any different, in the context of a life? What's the cutoff that makes it ok? Or do we just ignore that question because of the potential benefit and the lack of development of an embryo? That's what I'm getting at.
Further, and you didn't speak to this, but in another response someone said Bush was inconsistent because he seems to value the "life" of an embryo over, e.g., the life of an Iraqi civilian. Obvious arguments about intent aside, I raise this, specifically, because you brought up the possibility that embryonic stem cell research - even if it is, technically, ending "human life", as undeveloped as it may be - has the potential to save and improve the lives of many more people. We don't know that for sure, but there is a great potential there, yes? I agree! The same argument can be made with regard to the Iraqi civilian life: can no one see that perhaps the Iraqi lives lost during the course of the effort in Iraq will result in an environment where, long term, more life will end up being preserved? Wildly unrelated? Perhaps. But I'm just trying to point out that if it's ok to consider the former - i.e., that "destroying life" might save many more - it's ok to apply that same reasoning to the latter. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with it, just drawing that parallel since no fewer than two other people have now made that comparison elsewhere in this article.
I just want to make sure we're clear.
That also means that a baby grown outside of the womb has no protections.
That also means we can farm developed fetuses for destructive research that might yield great benefit. You could even go further and grow them beyond any arbitrary period (e.g., 9 months for example). Since they've never been "born", and have never been wanted by a parent, it's not a "life" by your definition. And if such research could hold untold answers to questions and benefit for mankind, why should we not do it?
I just want to make sure you're being logically consistent here.
he seems to value the `life` of an embryo above the lifes of Iraqi civilians, for instance.
So if the actions in Iraq end up saving Iraqi lives that would have ended (or been miserable) had the status quo been allowed to continue (regardless of our motivations for the war), then what would you say? Remember, various human rights organizations have said that approximately 50,000 Iraqis were dying per year during the previous 12 years as a direct result of sanctions...
In other words, if there ends up being a net preservation of Iraqi lives, then is it acceptable? Or can you not grasp the concept that lives lost in the course of this action might actually result in saving a much greater number? Or is that never ok because we can't know that "for sure", therefore, no action or sacrifice should ever been taken on the part of anyone for the furtherance of a greater good.
Of course, it's no surprise that yet another Bush bashing book might gloss over that little issue.
The Indian research is using adult and umbilical stem cells. Funding of neither is restricted in the US. And embryonic stem cell research is unrestricted, but federal funding is not available for research on new lines that would destroy embryos (though any organization is free to perform such research without federal funding).
And, since you seem to have all the answers, I suppose you can tell us with certainty exactly when and why an embryo is life, and therefore when it's ok to destroy it?
I await your reply.
Although the U.S. article identified the applicability of stem cells harvested from (adult) bone marrow and other sources, the Indian article discusses the successes achieved from utilizing umbilical cord stem cells...
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, but the only restrictions in the US are on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Not adult or umbilical. And even embryonic research is still allowed without federal funding.
- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant
But for those who still don't get it:
- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)
- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.
- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being...
See this post.
Um. No, we don't. It really seems like the only people who are saying that are the people who are doing what you're doing: writing about blogs.
There are plenty of people who have said things along these lines. I'm not saying everyone thinks this. And, I did say that I was about to make "generalizations". But the point is quite a few people (usually in the far political left) think that blogging is the "new media", and it will topple the corporate news establishment. I'm not sure if they really believe it, if it's bravado, or what, but I know you know the exact kind of people I am referring to.
Blogging is a huge thing, okay? People use blogs for different things. Some people write movie reviews. Some people post photos of their pets. Some people post open letters to their year-old children. Blogs are all over the place.
Yes. And I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about political/"news" blogs.
There's one group of bloggers that you're talking about: the news bloggers. These are people who write about news and events and policy and such.
Yes, and, indeed, as you say, that is the group I'm talking about. But it's not so much the "news" blogs, which is why I put it in quotes. It's the political blogs, some of whom present themselves as "news".
They're not trying to take over the job of distributing the news. What they are trying to do -- and an important job it is, too -- is provide a check-and-balance for the existing news outlets.
I will agree with and stipulate to the fact that the web is generally a good medium for getting out information quickly. And blogs, specifically, have become a good mechanism for people to post information to the web, quickly. As well as allowing others to comment.
[...] But now, through blogs, the public has a new way of being made aware of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in their news coverage.
Yes. But where are the checks and balances for some of the popular blogs? The comments? Other blogs? While mainstream media may push forward with false stories - and may have failed to acknowledge and/or correct them in the past - it seems that individual blogs have the same issue. And since everyone seems to be pointing their fingers at everyone else (e.g., FOX News) saying they're lying, it further seems to me that people will simply gravitate to blogs with content that most closely represents and reinfornces their own personal views, even if the information presented is grossly inaccurate or one-sided. I'm still not certain how that's any better. Yes, you or I and many others might be able to sift through the crap, but as blogs appear more like news outlets, many less discriminating among us take the sometimes woefully incorrect stories at face value.
This is a good thing, yes?
Yes. What you said is indeed a good thing. However, I don't see how this corrects other blogs that purport to be "news" sources with extremely one-sided agendas. Perhaps the argument is that they don't need to be corrected, and the best sources of information will naturally bubble to the top. However, I'm not sure I agree with that assessment.
Nobody, but nobody, thinks blogs are going to replace news. It's kind of silly for you to talk about us like we do.
Well, people do. And maybe they're just the fringe crazies. But it's been said, in no uncertain terms, many times here in many stories relating to blogs (or political issues). There are plenty of people who believe it. If they don't represent any significant number of sane people, then I'll retract that statement from my original argument.
Why? Homicide and suicide are implicit in the actions of such a bomber. Granted, the common reference is suicide bomber. Other than altering quotes - which I DON'T condone - how is it "creepy" or "inaccurate" or "manipulative" to call a suicide bomber a homicide bomber?
And almost everything I see at that link is Op-Ed shows (O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes).
Hint: those aren't news shows. They're OPINION shows. Like an Op-Ed page in a newspaper. Get it?
Also, try watching FOX News, or visiting the web site. Again, NOT the Op-Ed shows. Further, searching for other news organizations at MediaMatters.org also returns similar results of alleged inaccuracies, which often amount to disagreements about how the wording should have been handled, perceived exaggerations about minutiae like the amount of applause someone really got during a speech.
Sorry to break it to you, but during the non-Op-Ed shows and in the non-Op-Ed parts of the web site, FOX News doesn't have any worse record of inaccurate reporting, much less intentional inaccurate reporting, than any other mainstream news organization.
(And Op-Ed isn't "inaccurate", per se. It's Op-Ed. And I'm not talking about Op-Ed, in case you haven't figured that out by now.)
In the a recent slashdot story posted on a related topic, I asked the question, "What is a 'journalist'," considering that there are current, in force US law(s) that may have been violated by a 3rd party knowingly revealing information that could reasonably be assumed to be protected by a confidentiality agreement, and in the ensuing insistence that these web sites should be protected as "journalists", I got an array of replies about what constitutes a "journalist":
"A person is acting in a journalist capacity when they provide non fiction information about contemporary events to an audience [via a medium other than direct speech]. Those are the criteria."
"I don't see why bloggers can't be considered journalists."
"...anyone can be a journalist if by journalist you mean someone who distributes information (regardless of accuracy) to a public audience (regardless of size). Bloggers? They're journalists. Editor of your high school newspaper? Yep, journalist, too."
"I think that many websites constitute being called a 'journal'
"...a journalist is anyone who can get their documented beliefs published."
"Even the lamest 'blog is a "journal" unarguably. So yes, anyone with a web site is a "journalist". The government should not get into the business of determining who's a "legitimate journalist" and who's a "illegitimate journalist not worthy of the protections of freedom of the press". To do so would amount to licensing journalists, which I think is very much the wrong idea."
"It's 2005. "Journalism" means everything and everything."
"A journalist is anyone reporting news to the public. That could be by handbill, newspaper, broadside, web site, word of mouth, by scribbling on a piece of paper. It should be as broad as possible. Spreading of information == good."
Now, considering all of these replies that insist that Nick Ciarelli (of Think Secret) and these other websites are "journalists", and anyone who's apparently got any kind of website at all on any topuc should be considered a "journalist", certainly that means that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) is a "journalist" too?
Or does it not work both ways?
I'm not saying he should have been a credentialed member of the White House Press Corp, or should have been in there with no background checks, etc. etc. etc., but if any old blogger is a journalist - indeed, if Kos himself is a "journalist" - then Guckert/Gannon is just the same. And before anyone says "he didn't even use his real name, so he's hiding somethig," well, neither does the proprietor of warblogging.com. Why? Is he afraid of putting his name behind his thoughts? And don't give me any shit about how he's "protecting himself", as if he'd be fucking hauled off to Guantanamo. It either works both ways, or it doesn't. And, again, no, I'm not saying he should necessarily have been in the White House. But it's also not accurate to call him a "fake" journalist.
Christ.
I should have gone with my gut and included what I was planning on including in my original post, which was something along the lines of "try to respond to this without some tired reference to FOX News".
In any case, see this post.
Go to http://www.foxnews.com/ and, outside of the opinion section, find me a story that is viciously partisan, or inaccurate.
Watch FNC during the day during "hard news" coverage (i.e., FOX & Friends, FOX News Live, Special Report, the FOX Report), NOT op-ed (i.e., Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly Factor) and find any inaccurate or overly one-sided reporting.
FNC broke several of the anti-Bush stories, such as the Bush drunk driving story.
If all you believe about FOX News is what you read in blogs, you're part of the problem I'm talking about.
Caution: this post contains generalizations. Most of which are, unfortunately, true.
Bloggers think they're going to be the revolution of the press, and that they'll take the place of the New York Times and Washinton Post, and Newscorp will crumble at their feet.
Not with the half-assed misinformation and melodrama on the vast majority of the political and "news" blogs I've seen (to say nothing of the wild spitting and sputtering in the comments).
Not as long as they have no problem with their complete and utter lack of accountability of any type, and the vicious, one-sided partisan nature designed solely to incite vitriol in their groupthink audiences.
Not while they do nothing more than constantly pat each other on their virtual backs and reinforce their own worldviews and twisted near-conspiracy theories, ignoring any and all other sides of the story while simultaneously thinking of themselves as "open minded" and the only revealers of "the truth".
Blogs have a place in the world of information. And, like all sources of information, I'll concede that some can, in general, build a reputation for trust and accuracy. But many, particularly political blogs, have no regard for anything but the furtherance of their own agendas, taking things wildly out of context, and going on vindictive missions to build a one-sided case to paint the target of their ire in the worst possible light, without any consideration for any other motivations or other sides of the stories.
And they think they're the future of the media?
No fucking thanks.
I'll remember to follow your rules on when it's ok to comment on something on slashdot in the future. Thanks!