No, while I understand the propensity of shallow people (ala Wired) to turn this into a subject with which they can make conveniently trendy political attacks on an unpopular administration, the fact is that we've been turning into a litigiously-driven culture of fear for decades.
As I mentioned -- in the article. I may be shallow, but I try. To wit:
"Restrictions on hands-on chemical experience is 'a problem that has been building for 10 or 15 years, driven by liability and safety concerns,' says John Moore, editor in chief of the JCE."
dsci, I'm the author of the article, and in it I make the point that many of the substances that are now being considered for regulation or watchlists when sold by online chemical vendors are in wide use already. As the host of Sciencemadness.org says in the piece: "Amateur chemists become compulsive label readers... Many compounds are available if the chemist is willing to split his shopping between the paint store, hardware store, ceramics supplier, gardening center, welding supplier, feed store, and metal recycler."
Sulfur, for example -- one of the chemicals that the CPSC is trying to regulate because it can be used to make dangerous things, they say -- is currently available by the five-pound bag in garden supply shops. One of the points of the article (made in the final section) is that the same chemicals that are sold for industrial purposes suddenly become items of government interest when sold by online suppliers who cater to amateur scientists and pyrochemists. Nowhere in the article do I mention a statute specifically to regulate sulphuric acid.
Sorry I'm a little late on this, but Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen -- whose important work is the subject of the primary link in this thread -- is launching a new study of parents in tech, science, and other related fields, including parents of kids with autism, language delay, dyslexia, and other differently-wired conditions, as well as parents of gifted children. In Baron-Cohen's words, "We want to test whether, if both parents are 'systemizers,' the rate of autism among their children is higher than if only one parent is a systemizer."
Interested parents can enroll in this study by answering a brief questionnaire here:
Slashdot Mirror
ah, understood.
As I mentioned -- in the article. I may be shallow, but I try. To wit:
"Restrictions on hands-on chemical experience is 'a problem that has been building for 10 or 15 years, driven by liability and safety concerns,' says John Moore, editor in chief of the JCE."
dsci, I'm the author of the article, and in it I make the point that many of the substances that are now being considered for regulation or watchlists when sold by online chemical vendors are in wide use already. As the host of Sciencemadness.org says in the piece: "Amateur chemists become compulsive label readers... Many compounds are available if the chemist is willing to split his shopping between the paint store, hardware store, ceramics supplier, gardening center, welding supplier, feed store, and metal recycler." Sulfur, for example -- one of the chemicals that the CPSC is trying to regulate because it can be used to make dangerous things, they say -- is currently available by the five-pound bag in garden supply shops. One of the points of the article (made in the final section) is that the same chemicals that are sold for industrial purposes suddenly become items of government interest when sold by online suppliers who cater to amateur scientists and pyrochemists. Nowhere in the article do I mention a statute specifically to regulate sulphuric acid.
Interested parents can enroll in this study by answering a brief questionnaire here:
http://www.cambridgepsychology.com/parents/