Can the hold up on research stop now?
- Thread starter GROUCHO MARX
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I can't help but suspect there's another anti-science argument waiting to be deployed. Many among the parties of God will never yield to progress.
That would be disappointing. I'd have to consult with my physician, Pablo Kevorkian.
I can't help but suspect there's another anti-science argument waiting to be deployed. Many among the parties of God will never yield to progress.
That would be disappointing. I'd have to consult with my physician, Pablo Kevorkian.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I can't help but suspect there's another anti-science argument waiting to be deployed. Many among the parties of God will never yield to progress.
I have not even decided what side of the fence I'm on......If I was given a choice I think I would side with a creator rather than scientist people. I think sometimes they feel like they know everything. Not even close.
If you are saying science running amok is the answer to everything then you are in dreamland........ There is a lot getting screwed up in the name of science as well.
I can't help but suspect there's another anti-science argument waiting to be deployed. Many among the parties of God will never yield to progress.
I have not even decided what side of the fence I'm on......If I was given a choice I think I would side with a creator rather than scientist people. I think sometimes they feel like they know everything. Not even close.
If you are saying science running amok is the answer to everything then you are in dreamland........ There is a lot getting screwed up in the name of science as well.
Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I can't help but suspect there's another anti-science argument waiting to be deployed. Many among the parties of God will never yield to progress.
That would be disappointing. I'd have to consult with my physician, Pablo Kevorkian.
That is funny
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I can't help but suspect there's another anti-science argument waiting to be deployed. Many among the parties of God will never yield to progress.
That would be disappointing. I'd have to consult with my physician, Pablo Kevorkian.
That is funny
Having seen some of the adult stem cell treatments that have been becoming available over the last decade, I've been against embryonic treatments for almost as long as they've been touted.
It's the easy way out, and doesn't guarantee a match, and can result in rejection.
Your own cells (IMO) have no disadvantages morally, ethically, or medically.
It's the easy way out, and doesn't guarantee a match, and can result in rejection.
Your own cells (IMO) have no disadvantages morally, ethically, or medically.
Originally Posted By: oilboy123
I have not even decided what side of the fence I'm on......If I was given a choice I think I would side with a creator rather than scientist people. I think sometimes they feel like they know everything. Not even close.
If you are saying science running amok is the answer to everything then you are in dreamland........ There is a lot getting screwed up in the name of science as well.
This may sound strange to you, but trust me: no real scientist advocates "science running amok," or claims to know everything. Either of those attitudes (especially the latter) would be a mortal sin in the scientific community.
Political/industrial/social agendas are another story. I'm going to leave that point there, except to assure you that most "screw-ups in the name of science" have not been made by scientists being left alone doing their own thing.
I won't say science and God are mutually exclusive (lots of scientists believe in God), but religion has to be separated from science: religion for the self, science for the world.
I have not even decided what side of the fence I'm on......If I was given a choice I think I would side with a creator rather than scientist people. I think sometimes they feel like they know everything. Not even close.
If you are saying science running amok is the answer to everything then you are in dreamland........ There is a lot getting screwed up in the name of science as well.
This may sound strange to you, but trust me: no real scientist advocates "science running amok," or claims to know everything. Either of those attitudes (especially the latter) would be a mortal sin in the scientific community.
Political/industrial/social agendas are another story. I'm going to leave that point there, except to assure you that most "screw-ups in the name of science" have not been made by scientists being left alone doing their own thing.
I won't say science and God are mutually exclusive (lots of scientists believe in God), but religion has to be separated from science: religion for the self, science for the world.
No matter how stem cells came to be, they are here, and should be studied.
The thing about this, if I understand it correctly was that the ban was only on FEDERAL money being used in embryonic stem cell research.
Private money was not prevented from doing research on any stem cells they choose to use.
It was more about the money than it was about the science if I understand the issue correctly.
Private money was not prevented from doing research on any stem cells they choose to use.
It was more about the money than it was about the science if I understand the issue correctly.
I was right
Quote:
Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US. In 2001, the President banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding. In fact, large US pharmaceutical corporations are now conducting such research. (These industries are heavy Republican Party donors.)
So if folks are in favor of such research, why vilify Bush for not funding it. They can put their own money where they believe instead of complaining they didn't get the hand out.
Just another example of how an issue or position is skewed for political gain.
The Bush administration NEVER banned such research, they simply banned funding it with federal dollars.
Yet I don't recall ever hearing the issue framed that way. It was always called the Bush stem cell ban, not mentioning it only applied to federal funds for embryonic research.
And of course, people bought that line, without actually doing any research to determine what really happened.
Quote:
Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US. In 2001, the President banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding. In fact, large US pharmaceutical corporations are now conducting such research. (These industries are heavy Republican Party donors.)
So if folks are in favor of such research, why vilify Bush for not funding it. They can put their own money where they believe instead of complaining they didn't get the hand out.
Just another example of how an issue or position is skewed for political gain.
The Bush administration NEVER banned such research, they simply banned funding it with federal dollars.
Yet I don't recall ever hearing the issue framed that way. It was always called the Bush stem cell ban, not mentioning it only applied to federal funds for embryonic research.
And of course, people bought that line, without actually doing any research to determine what really happened.
Interesting debate. I just watched "Expelled" last night. For those of you who think there is some "anti-science" bent in the USA, it's worth viewing.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Interesting debate. I just watched "Expelled" last night. For those of you who think there is some "anti-science" bent in the USA, it's worth viewing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3QHsUS3Lp4
Interesting debate. I just watched "Expelled" last night. For those of you who think there is some "anti-science" bent in the USA, it's worth viewing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3QHsUS3Lp4
I can't view youtube at this station. What's the vid about?
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I was right
Quote:
Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US. In 2001, the President banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding. In fact, large US pharmaceutical corporations are now conducting such research. (These industries are heavy Republican Party donors.)
So if folks are in favor of such research, why vilify Bush for not funding it. They can put their own money where they believe instead of complaining they didn't get the hand out.
Just another example of how an issue or position is skewed for political gain.
The Bush administration NEVER banned such research, they simply banned funding it with federal dollars.
Yet I don't recall ever hearing the issue framed that way. It was always called the Bush stem cell ban, not mentioning it only applied to federal funds for embryonic research.
And of course, people bought that line, without actually doing any research to determine what really happened.
I did not know that. I thought it was a total ban.
I was right
Quote:
Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US. In 2001, the President banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding. In fact, large US pharmaceutical corporations are now conducting such research. (These industries are heavy Republican Party donors.)
So if folks are in favor of such research, why vilify Bush for not funding it. They can put their own money where they believe instead of complaining they didn't get the hand out.
Just another example of how an issue or position is skewed for political gain.
The Bush administration NEVER banned such research, they simply banned funding it with federal dollars.
Yet I don't recall ever hearing the issue framed that way. It was always called the Bush stem cell ban, not mentioning it only applied to federal funds for embryonic research.
And of course, people bought that line, without actually doing any research to determine what really happened.
I did not know that. I thought it was a total ban.
I think the point is: our press can be depended upon to get it wrong. If you want to learn anything about either side or better yet a well rounded view of science or "whatever", don't bloody expect a (lazy/biased) reporter to do it for you.
Of course, everyone hated Bush. Few were willing to actually do their homework and call the media on the obvious bias.
I won't go any further, as I don't want to violate the terms here regarding RSP.
But it's pretty obvious the media was happy about this confusion.
For example, look at the article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stem_cells
Obama says, "Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry,"
But all Obama is doing is allowing federal money to be spent. There have been no restrictions forbiding research in this area. So why give the false impression that the Bush admin was against free and open inquiry?
Of course you'll hear no critical review of those remarks. It will be passed off as he is now allowing such research to happen, even though it's been legal for the past 8 years.
This is nothing more than a money deal and political theater. Ironically he's speaking out against politics in science. OK, so why make political theater out of it?
I'm not being political, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and how the media goes along with it.
I won't go any further, as I don't want to violate the terms here regarding RSP.
But it's pretty obvious the media was happy about this confusion.
For example, look at the article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stem_cells
Obama says, "Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry,"
But all Obama is doing is allowing federal money to be spent. There have been no restrictions forbiding research in this area. So why give the false impression that the Bush admin was against free and open inquiry?
Of course you'll hear no critical review of those remarks. It will be passed off as he is now allowing such research to happen, even though it's been legal for the past 8 years.
This is nothing more than a money deal and political theater. Ironically he's speaking out against politics in science. OK, so why make political theater out of it?
I'm not being political, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and how the media goes along with it.
Another example, look at the headline
"Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells"
Nowhere is embryonic mentioned in the headline, yet that's a key fact left out.
It reminds me of a case back in the 1990's when I was in DC and read the Washington Post headline about what Alan Greenspan wanted to do with the budget "surplus" (There was no surplus, but the media had no problem going along with that little untruth either.) It said in bold letters that Greenspan was against a tax cut.
But if you read the article, it said he would rather have the debt paid down than a tax cut, but a tax cut was better than more deficit spending.
But the headline was "Greenspan Against Tax Cut"
And the simple minded read that, nothing more and think Greenspan is against a tax-cut. Instead it was his 2nd choice after paying off the national debt.
"Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells"
Nowhere is embryonic mentioned in the headline, yet that's a key fact left out.
It reminds me of a case back in the 1990's when I was in DC and read the Washington Post headline about what Alan Greenspan wanted to do with the budget "surplus" (There was no surplus, but the media had no problem going along with that little untruth either.) It said in bold letters that Greenspan was against a tax cut.
But if you read the article, it said he would rather have the debt paid down than a tax cut, but a tax cut was better than more deficit spending.
But the headline was "Greenspan Against Tax Cut"
And the simple minded read that, nothing more and think Greenspan is against a tax-cut. Instead it was his 2nd choice after paying off the national debt.
Its another Obama non event. Like banning torture at Gitmo. That was banned years ago. Sounds good but in reality means very little.
- Status
