From what statement of mine did you infer that? I'm not allowed a principled disagreement on something based on the fact that my taxpayer dollars fund other things I disagree with? Why don't we just shut down this board all together?
Politicizing science
- Thread starter 6thGen
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
From what statement of mine did you infer that? I'm not allowed a principled disagreement on something based on the fact that my taxpayer dollars fund other things I disagree with? Why don't we just shut down this board all together?
You stated that you have an ethical dilemma w/ your tax dollars being spent on this research. Given what I know of you/your stated opinions, I find it VERY hard to believe that you don't have an ethical dilemma with many other things your tax dollars are being spent on - so why should this topic get special treatment?
Tit for tat, AFAICT. Getting bent out of shape over something like this is wasted energy. The Dems are in control and there's really nothing that can be done about it. The positive side of this is that federally funded basic research is free to persue avenues that were restricted under Bush. If some great discovery ultimately comes out of this, I'd bet the religious right will find a way to come to terms with it. If not, they can ban it again in eight years.
Last edited:
I am pleased we are moving forward with federal funding of stem cell research. I agree with 6th Gen regarding Obama's use of language, whereas our previous President had (arguably) a lack of use of language. 
There is something deep, yet subtle about the way Obama communicates his opinions/moves to the citizens of the US as well as to the world. I've noticed it, too. And, I am not touting this as right, wrong or indifferent....he is very popular right now. An unpopular president might take a tongue lashing for some of the strong (seemingly opinionated) language.....just an observation. Since he is very influential, this strong confidence feeds off of that and vs.
There is something deep, yet subtle about the way Obama communicates his opinions/moves to the citizens of the US as well as to the world. I've noticed it, too. And, I am not touting this as right, wrong or indifferent....he is very popular right now. An unpopular president might take a tongue lashing for some of the strong (seemingly opinionated) language.....just an observation. Since he is very influential, this strong confidence feeds off of that and vs.
Can you give a couple of examples of this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?_r=1&fta=y
Now with the new technique, which involves adding just four genes to ordinary adult skin cells, it will not be long, he says, before the stem cell wars are a distant memory. ?A decade from now, this will be just a funny historical footnote,? Dr. Thomson said in the interview.
?Isn?t it great to start a field and then to end it,? he said.
As you know, it wasn't restricted. If it was as promising as John Edwards would have me to believe, at least one private company would have funded it.
It started and never stopped-
This is from The Union of Concerned Scientists
December 11, 2006
10,600 Scientists Condemn Political Interference in Science
New Guide Documents Ongoing Federal Abuse of Science; 110th Congress Must Act
SAN FRANCISCO?A statement by Nobel laureates and other leading scientists calling for the restoration of scientific integrity to federal policy making has now been signed by 10,600 scientists from all 50 states, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) announced today at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. The announcement came as the scientists group released an "A to Z" guide that documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science.
"From airborne bacteria to Ground Zero, science continues to be misrepresented for political gain," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program. "The new Congress should enact meaningful reforms so decisions within federal scientific agencies and advisory committees are based on objective and unbiased science."
The integrity of science statement has grown steadily since it was first released in February 2004. Signatories now include 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and almost 200 members of the National Academies of Science. Meanwhile, the new UCS compendium details censorship and political interference in federal science on issues as diverse as air quality, childhood lead poisoning, and prescription drug safety. For example, in late October UCS released documents tying high-level political appointees at the Department of Interior to the manipulation and distortion of numerous scientific documents to prevent the protection of six different species under the Endangered Species Act.
"The scientist statement makes clear that while science is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be objective and impartial," said Dr. Grifo. "Sustained protest from scientists, individual Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and the nation's leading editorial pages has not been enough to make the abuse of science stop."
TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
There actually has been privately-funded research on embryonic stem cells in this country. However, I have read that the scientific community was very frustrated that collaboration on research --- which is very important -- was made difficult and in some cases impossible because of the ban. ie people working on private research could not collaborate with those working with federally funded cell lines. Even some scientists had some equipment they could only use for federal research while others could be used for private research. To me the "collaboration" aspect is the biggest argument for lifting the ban.
TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
There actually has been privately-funded research on embryonic stem cells in this country. However, I have read that the scientific community was very frustrated that collaboration on research --- which is very important -- was made difficult and in some cases impossible because of the ban. ie people working on private research could not collaborate with those working with federally funded cell lines. Even some scientists had some equipment they could only use for federal research while other equipment was strictly for private research. To me the "collaboration" aspect is the biggest argument for lifting the ban.