Ending the war on science?

steve smyth — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:21:24 GMT

How about Embryonic Earth cells?
There must be Primordial Ooze still bubbling somewhere.
Could we transplant forests?
Or, even better, clone a new Earth while we are at it.
Let it grow as an appendage on Mars for a few eons...and voila!

Ending the war on science?

Kassie Lee — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:44:09 GMT

Life begins when brain waves start and ends when brain waves cease.

Ending the war on science?

Jaycubed — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:29:44 GMT

"Life begins when brain waves start and ends when brain waves cease."
Kassie Lee

What a small-minded view.

The vast majority of life, whether measured by number of species or amount of time in existence or amount of biomass, do not have any brains or "brain waves" (whatever it is you mean by that).

Ending the war on science?

Brian Knox, Phoenix, Arizona — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:35:55 GMT

No, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of life begins when brain waves start and ends when brain waves cease. Even atheists like Sartre were forced to make the distinction between the phenomonological mind and consciousness.

The problem is that science, on its own, only makes observations, and creates probable explanations of causation based upon empirical evidence. It has never attempted, nor is it qualified, to offer a moral philosophy of life. Many, however, wishing to forward a skeptical, nihilistic morality hide behind science's disinterested empiricism (something science must maintain to continue plying observations and experimentation). Whether Barack Obama (or, rather, those who write the policy statements he will sign into executive mandate) intends to promote pure science or the ideologies many advance under the aegis of pure science has yet to be seen.

Ending the war on science?

Joe, Seattle Wash. — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:51:32 GMT

The problem with being science driven and taking "politics" out of it is that science has no say on morality. Morality can't be sampled in a test tube, or derived thru an equation. Taken to its conclusion science would dissect a live human beings to learn better how they work. Without morality that end would seem purely justified by the scientific benefit.
Politics and morality should not try override the findings science makes based on research, but the value judgments that drive our policy, how we conduct science and what we do with the results should be tempered by morality. Politics is our collective moral voice in a democracy.

Ending the war on science?

Eith Kolbermann — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:54:30 GMT

this will just be a new war on science....from the left instead of the right.

politicians and science don't mix.

Ending the war on science?

joe — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:55:24 GMT

"raise the level of scientific integrity"...wow.
The Nazi Mengele was a scientist too. Would want ethics to get in the way of his work now would we? Lets call an embryo what it really is. Its a baby.

Ending the war on science?

Capt Flood — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:58:48 GMT

Typical MSNBC drivel: Boyle offers two direct quotes from Democrats, none from Republicans. With folks like this on board, MSNBC is rapidly becoming the Wikipedia of Journalism.

Ending the war on science?

dan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:59:37 GMT

I though Obama said determining the moment life began was above his pay grade. If he doesn't know when life begins...wouldn't that make his statements somewhat uninformed?

Ending the war on science?

Evan Willimantic, CT — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:02:08 GMT

All life is God's we haven't the right to interfere. We were merely appointed as care takers. Destroying His creation is something that we will all have to answer for. Only God has the right and power to take life.

Ending the war on science?

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:02:12 GMT

"Ending the war on science?" There is no war on science. There was consideration of ethics in science. But I guess that consideration has taken a back seat now. I have friends that are paralyzed, and I want them to be healed. But not at the expense of even more human lives. Remember, "Whatever you do to the least of me, you do to me."

Ending the war on science?

Matthew G. — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:16:43 GMT

It is not that we shouldn't pursue, in every way that is good and pure, the most effective way to solve a myriad of disease and disability. All of it perhaps.

It is that, in a world where the personal ethical standard is diminished daily by big business and government, that good people do bad deeds in an attempt to promote the means to and unknown end. This opens the door to endless possible opportunities for wrongdoing on the part of the unethical. In doing so, those who would normally otherwise question validity or source, are caught in a vacuum of epic proportion as they vie for a place on the ladder of scientific recognition. The possibility for stardom has the damning potential to set in motion, a cyclical series of bad choices that might otherwise be left to pure good judgment.

So it is not just about Science after all.

Ending the war on science?

Arthur Lemay, Boulder Creek, California — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:22:23 GMT

This is Orwellian double speak. Obama says "..harness the power of science to achieve our goals." Then he seems to say this in the context "preserving our environment." He uses science to justify the cap and trade scheme which will raise taxes by billions, if not trillions of dollars.

And, it does not occur to him, or his science nominee, Dr. Holdren that the CO2 theory of global warming is not science it is the environmentalists' "post hoc ergo hoc" fallacy. There is not one shred of scientific evidence that this is true -- it's just a theory. And it is increasingly clear to everyone, especially the great majority of climate scientists that global warming stopped in 1998, and all the evidence since then, and for earlier periods in the 20th century, shows CO2 has little to do with the climate. This is what science shows.

In the meantime, those scientists who are on the Federal dole, get enormous grants, or people like Al Gore who stand to make enormous amounts of money from this scheme, just keep parroting the same nonsense, and most people seem to believe it. No one asks why the climate models failed to have any predictive value, why the other planets are cooling/warming like the earth. The reason is that it is not CO2, it is the sun's energy emissions control the climate.

So, Obama is anti-science if he can't ask reputable scientists. The CO2 theory is nonsense, it is an environmentalists' fairy tale and money-raising scam. If Obama can't see this he is not much of a President.

Ending the war on science?

RSB, Phx, Az — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:43:46 GMT

Wow, the idea that science has no morals is stupid. Scientists have morals, hence science has morals. Just because it's not this extreme right wing uninformed b***s*** trying to force beliefs on others (hows that for freedom?) doesn't mean it's not a set of morals.

Ending the war on science?

Science Teacher, Logan, UT — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:01:08 GMT

I always find it interesting to note the use of the theoretical as layman speak, i.e. "just a theory" as if these theories can be shrugged off like a bad piece of beef. A theory is an approximation brought about by the culmination of thousands of tested hypotheses. If a null hypothesis is rejected, then it is replaced by a better approximation of the phenomenon and the theory changes ever so slightly to be a better overall approximation. Theories represent the best approximation of an underlying set of physical processes. I have to forgive each and every one of the people who mistakenly think that "I have a theory" is the same as the Theory of Evolution, because I understand that they didn't have a good science teacher somewhere in their attic. And to think, there exists a wholesale attack on science education and the teaching profession in this country "because it costs so much money." How was that for a unscientific claim. It is almost as existential as that like brain wave thingy.

Ending the war on science?

Karen Owens — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:04:02 GMT

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT! It's about time.

Ending the war on science?

Witchking, Albany, NY — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:15:05 GMT

Finally an administration that puts science and reason above ignorance and superstition the conservative Bush administration actually promoted ignorance.

Ending the war on science?

Bob, Tulsa, OK — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:15:18 GMT

There was nothing stopping this research under Bush... it's just the the Gov't wasn't funding it...

Ending the war on science?

BMS, VA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:33:51 GMT

Boyle, you complete and utter idiot! Still haven't learned?

Ending the war on science?

Bill Sprague, Leesburg, VA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:42:37 GMT

Philosophy of science is a curious art at its best. All too often dependant on the observer, with little in fundamental invariants. And now you bring in an infection called politics, for a fool's game in intent outcome. Clearly, a massive brain enema is in order with that line of "reasoning".

Ending the war on science?

Sam, Burleson, Texas — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:56:55 GMT

This is unbelievably biased! Why was it "political leanings" for Bush to oppose federal funding for stem cell research, but it's not for Obama. The press is a joke. Credibility used to be a virtue.

Ending the war on science?

JL — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:57:50 GMT

"Ending the war on science?"

Starting the war on economics...

Ending the war on science?

Jon Deu, Tuscaloosa, Alabama — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:00:20 GMT

RSB...woohooooo, I couldn't have said it any better. Good job!

Ending the war on science?

Tony in Chicago — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:03:48 GMT

To Arthur Lemay: you are amazingly uninformed about Climate Change based on the pedigree you give on your website. You are clearly unaware of the large body of evidence compiled by climatologists and related disciplines on 1) the relationship of CO2 to greenhouse warming and 2) the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 stating at the beginning of the industrial revolution (early 1800s). As well as the overwhelming agreement by these scientists of the reality of Global Warming - unlike what you are claiming ("increasingly clear to everyone the great majority of climate scientists that global warming stopped in 1998"). What amazing BS.

Lets hope Dr. Holdren gets confirmed - and soon.

Ending the war on science?

Beaver Student, Corvallis, OR — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:11:22 GMT

Science is not an ideology, you cannot have a war on science. Science refers to a pursuit and a process. What science holds most dear is objectivity and complete deference to what can be observed and tested. Everything science has taught us or shown us exists because of this process. It does not have an agenda. There is nothing to like or dislike. If you do not like something science has discovered, or has proven, or even has shown to be most likely, that is because of YOUR agenda. Not sciences. Science presents what we know or don't know, you invent the emotions.

Ending the war on science?

Tony in Chicago — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:13:48 GMT

Comments here about the need for moral judgement in applying science and technology are valid - just because a scientific approach can be done does not mean that it should be done. However, it does not follow that religious stricture is the correct basis for such moral reasoning. We live in a pluralistic society with many religious beliefs including no religious belief - each is recognized as valid within US constitutional law. Moral judgement should be applied based on what provides the most benefit to society - and surveys have consistently shown that a large majority of our population supports stem cell research (that was also shown during the November election!).

Ending the war on science?

Russ, Milan, IL — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:29:54 GMT

There has been no war on science. That's a moronic statement. Stem cell research has been conducted continually through the Bush administration. There has been unlimited legal research with private money and limited research with government funds on existing stem cells. It is a patent lie to say otherwise. Why don't we talk about the war on capitalism being conducted right now?

Ending the war on science?

Jonathan, Alliance, Ohio — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:32:45 GMT

I have to say that I am really impressed with most of the comments on this board - a lot more thoughtful reasoning that takes into account ethics and life's mysteries than was found in the article.

Ending the war on science?

PLP, Pensacola, Florida — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:40:58 GMT

You know, I would have a lot more respect for right to lifers if they had the courage of their convictions. But ask most of them if there has ever been a good enough reason to go to war and most will emphatically say "yes, there have been wars that were fought and won for the better good of humanity". But ask them if there is every a good enough reason to use an embryo for the greater good of humanity and they just as emphatically say, "no, there's never a good enough reason to kill an embryo". Well, if one believes that human life is sacred from conception until natural death, then one must also believe there should never be wars, that capital punishment should never be allowed, and it is never permissible to kill to defend ones home or their families safety. And don't give me the argument that "embryo are innocent life, and we as adults can make decisions about whether we go to war, or commit crimes, but embryos do not have a chance to make decisions." That isn't the issue, the issue is..are you really pro life, or just pro life for some lives?

Ending the war on science?

SB, San Diego, CA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:57:09 GMT

Regardless of how one might feel about stem cells, science must not be influenced by politics. It is because science has been for sale, that rampant Sick Building Syndrome, Mold-related Illnesses, and Chemical Poisonings exist in America today, impacting many millions of suffering people who haven't been able to get help. Scientists in the USA who study the above have not been listened to. Physicians who diagnose or treat these patients have been harassed. This is about to change! Visit www.schoolmoldhelp.org for information about the epidemic of mold-related illnesses that plague our schools, workplaces, and homes.

Ending the war on science?

Cheryl WA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:57:23 GMT

In the name of "science" many human lives have been tortured and destroyed. It has happened throughout history. Funny how so few of the scientists loan their own bodies to be used for their gruesome experiments. It's no different now. Laws should protect humans from being used by others to satisfy their curiosity, even if supposed cures could be found from their research. A lot about pain was learned from inflicting horrible pain on others, etc.
Obama has done us no favors. He is opening up more of a Pandora's box than most people realize.
It is also true that the person you are, is the person you were, is the person you will be. Conception IS the start of each life. It is an ugly thing that anyone would want to be "saved" or "cured" using someone else's destruction.
I object that I will be forced to pay for this crime aainst humanity!!!

Ending the war on science?

Mark R. Whittington, Houston, Texas — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:10:49 GMT

Deep sixing John Holdren would be the best thing that can ever happen to scientific integrity in government. Holdren is infamous for his article commanding climate change skeptics to just shut up.

Ending the war on science?

Anthony, N.E. Kansas — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:19:55 GMT

"Boyle offers two direct quotes from Democrats, none from Republicans. With folks like this on board, MSNBC is rapidly becoming the Wikipedia of Journalism."

Don't look now, but you've just insulted Wikipedia big-time. MSNBC (including CosmicLog) is synonymous with the bottom of the toilet.

Ending the war on science?

Courtney, Seattle — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:25:52 GMT

This makes me laugh... If the people above actually read anything Obama actually did he did one thing... He repealed the outdated, fear-mongering, extreme right wing thought that stem cells are embryos. Stem cells can be found from different sources as embryos. Embryos to some are considered baby’s if you hold that view then you should be happy, because he DID NOT over turn the nor does he have the power to over turn the ban on using embryos. Before you rant about science, morals, and Obama’s views read what he actually did. Congress has since (I believe) 1993 kept the ban on embryo's and has kept that ban every year ever since. So before you start your "the democrats are going to over turn it" rant the dems have been in power since 2006 and still have not repealed it. So unfortunately I have to say before you look stupid... READ!

Ending the war on science?

BJ. Sonora, CA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:30:18 GMT

Agreed - morality is not a product of religion - it has been co-opted by religion. Notwithstanding rightwing views that without religion, we would all instantly descend to murderous lacivious animals, the animal kingdom is rife with examples that ain't so. "Morality" as a care for other members of the species, is likely innate in any successful group, if only because the group as a whole would die out without it. But oh yeah, that requires you believe in evolution. Nevermind...

Ending the war on science?

m.tsang sd, ca — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:32:39 GMT

The subject can become extremely torpid with so many stipulations as to what constitutes life. What pro-lifers consider life is really a blastocyst - the two to five day old embryo in the shape of a hollow ball (from which stem-cells are taken). It has no nervous system. It can't think. It's a ball of cells. Men's sperm looks more alive then a blastocyst does! At least those can swim. When a man masturbates he releases a plethora of potential cells that could turn into a fetus. Are these pro-life groups worried about us masturbating? (It wouldn't put it past me if they were). What about each egg that sheds during menstruation? What about having sex with a condom on? I mean, conception is so close you can almost hear the little semen yelling "let me out!" But let's be honest, you’re really not giving life a chance with jr's raincoat on. How non pro-life of you to do that.

I can't even begin to point out all the other hypocrisies when stem-cell opponents exclaim embryos are real humans with the same entitled rights as you and me - well, unless your a gay embryo.Yet for all pragmatic purposes, there is one very ironic part to this whole issue. According to a USA Today report approximately one half-million embryos lie frozen in US fertility clinics. Frozen! So instead of using these cells to promote and expand great research to save actual lives, proponents of the ban would rather the embryos stay frozen. How non pro-life of them to do that.

These issues disclose an important fact: science has been stymied by a major impetus. That force is religion: an unscientific force that has been allowed to impede the progression of science. Why? Why in Texas was there recently a 7-7 tie as to whether creationism should be taught in schools? Why should we allow religious groups to falsely discredit and disparage factual, tangible scientific work? Just because the fossil record isn't completely intact? Because a book says the earth is at the center of the universe?

Science is in the business of understanding the beautiful complexities of life. There is no room for perversions. There is no room for putting a man on house arrest for the remainder of his life because he advocates the sun is at the center of the universe - which the Vatican did to Galileo. There is no room for putting a teacher on trial for teaching the principles of descent with modification - which is what happened to high school teacher John Scopes in 1926. And there is no room for holding scientists hostage because they want to use blastocysts to cure disease and save lives. Especially when opponents to stem-cell research exclaim their reason it is to save a life.

Ending the war on science?

Steve Herbert, Des Moines, IA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:13:37 GMT

There is a distinction between ethics and morality. The scientist, ( and I am one ) has an ethical obligation to make their observations without bias, and expect their observations to be replicated by individuals using similar apparatus for observation, if not technically improved upon apparatus for verification, and come to the same conclusion. Once this procedure is followed, the information gleaned then goes to the "policy makers" to act upon the findings. Morality is faith based. Faith is not subject to the intrusion of technical apparatus to make observvations, such as using a telescope to view the evening sky. People of different faiths have different rules, and science does not operate with different sets of rules. Observations are tested and retested in science. Religeon is not open to such scruitiny.

Ending the war on science?

ALM, Spokane, WA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:37:47 GMT

This guy is why people can't trust the media. He I'm sure considers himself an intellectual elite. However if you critically read this article you will see it's not only poorly written and breathtakingly slanted, but also uninformed.

By the way... note to you leftists... you can disagree with the morality of stem cell research without being a redneck, fear-mongering ideologue. And by the way Courtney of Seattle... you better re-research and post again because you're completely wrong. Stem cell research has been going on in this country including embryonic stem cell research using existing lines of cells already available. All that was banned was the harvesting and use of new embryonic stem cell lines.

The research that has been done since the initial fight over this has also shown that many of the applications that had been advertised for stem cells will not be possible.

Ending the war on science?

Sick of the Dogma, Albany, NY — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:51:46 GMT

It's amazing to see from reading these comments that in 2009 in what is arguably one of the best educated countries on the planet that primitive and superstitious thinking still abounds. At least now we have a president who isn't guilty of it.

And for those of you who think MSNBC is the bottom of the barrel,what on earth are you doing here reading it? Faux News is out there, just waiting for you.

Ending the war on science?

Kevin, Blanchard, OK — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:53:31 GMT

Maybe those scientists who weren't very creative in some regards have been stymied while the ban was in force. However, other scientists have led the charge to look for alternate sources of stem cells. They have found them in adults, even within the bodies of the individuals who would benefit from any use of stem cells. Let them donate their own stem cell. They have found them in umbilical cords. Not only is a life not destroyed, the stem cells come from the same life sustaining structure that has nourished the newborn, giving even more opportunities for life. And recent developments have allowed scientists to reverse some cells back to a state of pluripotency (stem cell state). Pretty promising research and amazing developments that otherwise might never have even been considered. Easy road with moral repurcussions or slightly more difficult road requiring some ingenuity and creativity minus the moral dillemma... hmmm... hmmm... let's be honest here, the real problem is that admitting that a blastocyst is a baby in the area of stem cell research leads to the obvious moral dillemma with the much more developed fetus that we so vigorously defend the right to kill.

Ending the war on science?

Anthony Wrifford, Columbia, SC — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:54:34 GMT

Stem cells can be produced without injuring one fetus.

Even so..think about this: There's never in the history of the world been anything gained without sacrifice, never.

Ending the war on science?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:58:44 GMT

Regarding the statement by Evan Willimantic, CT (3/9, 2102)

I’m sure it’s a very impassioned thought, and I have no idea of the background it comes from, but I am sure that background isn’t the Bible. The Bible may have been in the room, sitting quietly on it’s shelf, or looking impressive on the coffee table, but it wasn’t part of the discussion. Biblical Godliness includes things like smashing babies’ heads against the rocks. And if we’re going to talk about “all” life you’ll be extremely limited in what you can eat if you can only torture your food by pulling parts off it so you don’t kill it. From a chicken leg to a carrot, some must die that others might live. God doesn’t just sanction killing by men, he routinely, that is – as a matter of normal routine, demanded it. If I’m giving you a headache please go rub a crystal on it or whatever it is you do.

Arthur Lemay, Boulder Creek, California (3/9, 2122) wrote, “[I]t is not CO2, it is the sun's energy emissions control the climate ... [i]f Obama can't see this he is not much of a President.”

Or maybe he’s smart enough to know that he can’t control the sun. I know I can’t control the cars on the road when I’m crossing the street. I know I can control me when I’m crossing the street. It is the cars hitting me that cause the damage, but I’ll still do all I can with controlling me to prevent getting hit. Not a direct crossover, but if we contribute in any amount to the problem he wouldn’t be much of a president if he didn’t do what he could to limit the damage to just what the sun causes. Plus, I think your science is whack.

RSB, Phx, Az (3/9, 2143)

Some scientists have morals. Some scientists don’t. And some scientists have morals that are reprehensible. I cringe at the thought of some scientist performing experiments on a two year old to examine the effects that operating at the pain threshold has on development. It’s a good, solid scientific question. You, as an individual, unique person, are a fucking idiot. I’m sure I got edited, but rest asured it’s true. Freedom was never meant to be free to do harm. “Scientists have morals.” Look up Nazi medical research. Twit.

Jon Deu, Tuscaloosa, Alabama – see above.

Beaver Student, Corvallis, OR (3/9, 2311)
True, but scientists are not a pursuit nor a process and do have agendas and emotions. And all science is dependent on the scientist, it never happens on it’s own. So all scientific pursuit and process is tainted to some degree.

PLP, Pensacola, Florida (3/9, 2340)
That’s a nice box you’re trying to build. I understand why the box is so important to you. It’s the only place your argument works.

m.tsang sd, ca (3/10, 0032)
What book says that?

Ending the war on science?

Wayne in Kansas City, MO — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:23:48 GMT

It would be nice if there was a filter for comments about articles relating to science (and other topics, too, actually) to remove the ones made by idiots who just want to dictate their agenda. I guess it would require artificial intelligence to do that, at which point some moron would declare that it had a "soul" or was putting out "brain waves!!!"

Ending the war on science?

Tim, Ann Arbor, MI — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:30:49 GMT

Of course there was a war on science. As a scientist, I can illustrate it in about a thousand ways. Let's start with GBB appointing his personal PROCTOLOGIST to head the NIH. The man was an MD with ZERO research experience and a rather pathetic career (compartively). But he was a religious fundamentalist that could be depended upon to two the political line. The same thing happened with that reprehensible woman appointed to the CDC. Somehow, she decided that AIDS prevention and family planning needed to occur without showing, decribing, using, or distributing condoms - the method proven time and time again as the best recourse to everything else. Her political kowtowing actually *killed* people, and those actions had NOTHING to do with science. So, please, stop trotting out your abject ignornace. There is a clear political war on science, waged by Republicans and conservatives to curry favor with the religious right and maintain control of their constituents. And educated and informed electorate would not tolerate most of the abused GWB fostered.

Ending the war on science?

Tim, Ann Arbor, MI — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:44:52 GMT

It's not surprising that we have the usual uneducated cattle jabbering in here about Obama killing babies. Of course, they have read nothing on the subject, and know nothing about what Obama actually did, or that he was merely making Bush's policy make sense. It was perfectly legitimate to do fetal stem cell research in the US under Bush. It was previously legitimate to use already established fetal cell lines in US research after the date of the law under Bush. UNder Obama, you still cannot use federal funds to create new stem cell lines. You can use privately established cell lines (which is pretty much the same under Bush). All that was changed was removing the impediment of use and the restrictions of the details of use of stem cells to increase productivity. In any case, the initial tissue was previously (and unrelatedly) generated waste material. And under the new policy, there will be better control and oversight. It's a win-win for everyone.

Ending the war on science?

Alan Boyle — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:02:02 GMT

I hope folks follow the links to read the stories about the problems that researchers encountered during the Bush administration. There is one good-news story that I left out... Months after his dismissal, Andy Eller was reinstated to his post in the Fish and Wildlife Service after the agency admitted that it was basing its endangered-species policies on flawed scientific data (and after a federal judge ruled that what the agency was doing was illegal):

http://www.panthersociety.org/current.html

By the way, I tried to downplay the stem-cell angle in this item because that was covered in another MSNBC story, but it looks as if that's the issue that folks latched onto nevertheless. I'm glad to give people a place to vent on this subject, even if this place is synonymous with the bottom of the toilet. ;-)

Ending the war on science?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:20:44 GMT

Tim, Ann Arbor, MI (3/10, 0230), “Her political kowtowing actually *killed* people.” This has all the credibility of saying that after you robbed a bank the person who called the cops is the reason you went to jail. Her political kowtowing actually let people commit suicide. Except for those victims of rape who’s rapists weren’t considerate enough to go buy condoms, it was a choice. You want to make one person’s bad decision the fault of a second person. Cry me a river.
And the 0244 post, “You can use privately established cell lines (which is pretty much the same under Bush).” Under the Bush rules you could not use federal money on any cell line established after the Aug (?) 01 cutoff. The idea was to avoid an end around that had federal money supporting fetal murder. If I spend my 20k to establish a new cell line and then get grants for 180k for research on that line the reality is the government winds up footing 90% of the total cost associated with the intentional death of that child. Those numbers are just expedient. Under the new Obama rules money can flow that way. Now the government won’t spend money to directly murder an unborn human life, instead we’ll (potentially) take up the other costs. As long as private money takes care of the slaughter public money is only involved in the research. It’s political BS. Grow a spine and pick a side. Either get out or get in. Bush took a stand and wouldn’t let public money support killing the unborn in any way. Obama is softening that to not letting public money directly kill the unborn. If he had a ball, even just one, he’d go all the way to full, open support instead of this farce. How do we feel about people who supply aid and comfort to terrorists and say they didn’t spend any money on actual terrorism, just food and shelter. The rice they bought didn’t attack America.

Ending the war on science?

Austin Quinn, Kimberly, Idaho — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:06:25 GMT

How about we start funding our economy more than scientific reasearch?

Ending the war on science?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:38:25 GMT

Article on a bill in Georgia that would basically define the beginning of human life.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/
2009/03/10/legislature_stem_cell.html

I don't know if it could stand a US Constitution litmus test. The only thing the Constitution actually says, but actually does say, is about citizenship defined by birth. Of course, we already charge and convict for murder if an unborn child dies in a crime.

Ending the war on science?

Doug Fingles, Warner Robins, GA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:39:40 GMT

There was NEVER a war on science. The actions were to stop out-of-control researchers and scientists who have no moral or ethical boundaries in their quest for knowledge. These self-serving people mask their arguments by saying knowledge is independent of morals and ethics, and knowing more will help people. Those are patently false arguments. We are all guided by morals and ethics, and scientists and researchers must be as well.

It is becoming quite evident that the proponents of anthropogenic global warming have been quite willing to obfuscate the evidence to support their position, aligning themselves with certain political parties to gain influence and money. More and more independent researchers are coming to the conclusion that the models currently used for climate change are hopelessly inadequate, were manipulated to show certain results, and are the result of political processes, not science. In other words, Garbage In, God's Truth Out. President Bush had the courage to stop that nonsense and reign in out-of-control, politically motivated scientists. President Obama has meekly cowed to the demands of these same people and declared that science is independent of morality. Only two societies have that philosophy, fascists and communists.

Deciding to destroy a human being to help other human beings is an unethical decision that cannot be supported. Destroying human beings based on some artificial standard begs the questions of where is the line, who establishes it, can it be moved, when can it be moved, who can move it, and none of these protections are in place with President Obama's administration.

President Bush stood for human dignity, President Obama yields to the intellectual snobbery of the liberals running the Democratic Party.

Ending the war on science?

RICH C . SALISBURY MA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:40:44 GMT

Isn's it ironic how everytime religion vs science arises, those who back religion always revert to considering science as "observational" and having no merit or proof. Yet , what is religion ? science has proof , religion has 2,000 year old bibles that get a makeover everytime science makes a breakthrough

Ending the war on science?

D.J.D. / Moultonboro, N.H. 03254 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:54:13 GMT

One should consider the fact that morality (morals) is but opinion and not certainty. Scriptural writings, of any ilk, that deal with moral issues, or imply them, are opinions; perhaps valuable in themselves and, even, desirable, and socially beneficial. However, even if there is a majority of humnans who favor an opinion, there is no evidence that it is any more than opinion. So, in this respect one should appraise the value to society as a whole in order to evaluate whether one opinion over another will satisfy the demands of life in this biosphere, and not be an impediment to progress within it.

Ending the war on science?

Chuck, Mississippi — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:17:19 GMT

After reading the comments it seems clear that most people do not understand the difference between morals and ethics. Technically there might not be "morals" in "pure science" but there are definitely well-defined ethics in most scientific fields, including my own of plant genetics. The notion that something (or someone) is less valuable or informative because they lacks morals (or lacks your morals) is ignorant, holier-than-thought rhetoric meant to scare people. I thought when we elected Obama that we were going to put fear behind us and face the future, as uncertain and dismal as it may seem right now, with courage, resolve and perhaps a little enthusiasm?

Ending the war on science?

Scott R, Chicago, IL — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:45:03 GMT

This notion of Bush having a "war on science" is absurd! It was formulated, marketed, and introduced into the culture by the pro-embryonic stem cell group…this is nothing more than a marketing campaign by an anti-Bush special interest group. Hanson/Gore then thrust it into the mainstream to help their snake-oil “Man Made Global Warming” ponzy-scheme.

You talk about a war on science? Why is every global warming skeptic intimidated and blackballed??? If the science is that clear (which it’s not) why stifle scientific debate? A lot of the stuff the Bush administration rightfully questioned from NOAA ended up being bogus anyway. Remember the now discredited “hockey stick theory”, which was supposedly the smoking gun? Now it’s just one more headstone in the cemetery of bad science and scare-tactics that the lefty crowd is using to hurt our economy and enact the Gore ponzy scheme. 10 years from now, instead of ocean levels rising ten feet, Al Gore’s name will go down in history with Ken Lay and Bernie Maddof’s!

Ending the war on science?

Myron, Texas — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:57:26 GMT

Science is showing a cooling planet for the last ten years even with CO2 levels rising. But apparently Obama is going forward with his cap and trade political agenda. So nice to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Ending the war on science?

Intelligent American — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:11:10 GMT

Cheers for yet another amazing step in the right direction from the new President. The sooner we can remove any trace of the failed Republican ideals from our government/science/education/economy/environment/etc., the better.

Ending the war on science?

Eric, Salinas, CA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:32:50 GMT

Excellent articel Alan! Too bad so many fools of faith are here spewing their nonsense. I am glad that we have a president who is going to put real science back into the White House and our country after 8 years of being blinded by religion.

Real Science Rules!

Ending the war on science?

ratliner, Washington, D.C. — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:17:11 GMT

I hope Obama doesn't overcompensate the Bush problems. This article has an interesting take by Yuval Levin:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030902233.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"The issue, [Obama] suggested, is a matter of science, not politics.... By this logic, an increasing proportion of public concerns must be kept beyond the reach of democracy and be handed over to scientists or other experts to manage."

Good point!

Ending the war on science?

W Nicholson, Oklahoma City, OK, USA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:28:31 GMT

Dear Alan,

Once again a great job all round. Anyone who doesn't realize there was a campaign to discourage true scientific research in favor of right wing Christian ideology under the Bush administration is obviously part of the ideological problem.

I love to read your blog and then wait to see how many nuts fall out of the trees. It is both amusing
and frightening to see how much ignorance and superstition remains in humanity in the 21st Century.

Keep up the good work.

Ending the war on science?

Patrick M., Philadelphia, PA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:30:54 GMT

Most people in this country, and indeed world, do not understand the rigorous logic involved in creating a theory from a hypothesis and the difference between causality and association. There is an association with higher temperatures and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, but can it be shown that increased carbon dioxide causes increased temperatures? I assert that claim cannot be proven with the evidence we currently have; it is possible that higher temperatures on the planet cause increased atmospheric carbon dioxide from possible sources such as melting permafrost, outgassing from oceans, lakes, rivers, etc. As temperatures on the planet have increased, so have atmospheric concentrations of other gasses such as nitrogen oxides. This claim can be checked by looking at the Lake Vostok ice cores from Antarctica which data back thousands of years before the start of the industrial ages. Also, from looking at this ice core data as well as the geological record, we can clearly see global temperature and climate changes (ice ages and eras where the temperature is higher than it currently is) occuring before human life has existed at all. If natural phenomena have caused these swings in climate in the past, who can prove that these same forces are not currently at work today? Certainly, I do not claim that global warming is anthropogenic or not as absolute fact, but there is a lot of solid evidence on both sides that needs to be carefully weighed in the ongoing debate before we, as a society, decide which policies to enact.

Ending the war on science?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:50:03 GMT

"Evan Willimantic, CT... All life is God's we haven't the right to interfere. We were merely appointed as care takers. Destroying His creation is something that we will all have to answer for. Only God has the right and power to take life."

Remember to tell the doctors that if you ever need a blood transfusion, cancer therapy (yes cancer lives too), or anti-biotic..oh and if you need a new heart someday or some organ donation from some poor young sod who got nailed walking across the street, don't let 'em....also the next time you kill all those un-used sperm cells, go pray for forgivness.

Now, back to the real world...there is no doubt using human fetuses for stem cells is unfortunate and causes moral dissonance. But the fact remains, these fetuses are destined to die anyway , so like the accident victim destined to die, and offers their organs to let another live, this whole stem cell issue is a no-brainer...get those cells !

[ALAN ADDS: Just wanted to make clear that the process of extracting stem cells can involve the destruction of a blastocyst, comprising maybe 100 cells - but not a fetus, which is a stage of development that begins maybe eight weeks after fertilization. The stem cells are taken from the blastocyst at about the five-day stage of embryonic development. The use of fetal tissue is an important but separate level of debate.]

Ending the war on science?

Pete Sandborg, Dickinson, Tx — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:33:41 GMT

Hey, dead aborted babies for sale. We'll fund you if you want to study dead aborted babies, in the hope that you will find a cure for Michael Fox. Well, there goes some more billions for this "sound science". It's a joke and it only keeps the abortion mills running.

Ending the war on science?

handyc0 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:35:10 GMT

he is a good person

Ending the war on science?

D, San Diego, CA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:37:20 GMT

The party of death strikes again. All Heil Fuhrer Obama!!

Ending the war on science?

JJ, San Diego, CA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:47:00 GMT

Obama said during today's signing ceremony. "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Does anybody notice that Obama characterizes those who oppose his agenda as having a political or ideological agenda when the very initiatives that he proposes are wrapped in political and ideological assumptions and presuppositions?

What a hypocrite. Does this fool think that people will not catch on?

Apparently Obama does not know the difference between scientific progress and ethical considerations.

Ending the war on science?

Nick from nj — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:23:12 GMT

Science is what this world needs now more than ever. With the population raising we need science to help provide food for us. With the earth warming we need science to help us with all our man made problems.

God has nothing to do with all that we as humans have done to ourselves and the world. it is our job to heal the earth and the human race. Not a magical being that lives in the sky. Maybe if we all wait around and do nothing but talk to the sky maybe everything will fix its self.

im sure Zeus will fix the sky’s that we polluted. Neptune will heal the oceans and restock all of our fish that we have killed off and everything will be magical again.

Wake up people.

Thank you Obama for funding science once again and putting it where it belongs, at the for front of this country and the world!

Ending the war on science?

Jaycubed — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:45:48 GMT

Please spew on, hate-filled ignoramuses, and continue your complete disregard for reality.

When Bushco began their campaign to destroy America 8 years ago, there was much talk about irony being dead.

Irony is obviously not dead, as evidenced by the crackpot comments seething with self-righteous indignation and hatred. It's just invisible to the rapidly decreasing numbers of True Believers. They can only crank up the volume of their rhetoric spewing to make up for the increasing lack of interest by the general public in their failed ideas.

Ending the war on science?

David, Eastampton NJ — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:00:13 GMT

The ignorance of the right wingers is truely scary. "We have no right to destory life"? (Then don't destory harmful bacteria.) These embryos were NEVER going to be humans anyway. So you'd deny cures to disease to push your agenda. Even Nancy Reagan is on board with the research. Goerge Bush stood for "dignity"? He stood for ignorance. These are the same peole who believe in fairy tales like "Adam & Eve". Truely amazing.

Ending the war on science?

Robert Hammond, Douglasville, GA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:35:43 GMT

Will this signal the end of the war on scientists who dare ascribe to intelligent design? They are the one who have paid the worst price for years. Loss of jobs, loss of tenure, publishing rights taken away. I doubt their fate will be changed as those repressive of the intelligent design camp are fully in the lead now.

Ending the war on science?

Jake, Woodbridge, CT — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:37:01 GMT

Joe From 'Seattle Politics is NOT our collective moral voice in a democracy.' Politics is the application of money and power to get what one wants.

Ending the war on science?

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:51:00 GMT

Anti-science fanatics always claim that they're not really opposed to science and that they "love" or at least "like" science. The problem is that despite their angry protestations, they don't actually understand it very well.

Agnotology: The cultural production of ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

I first read about it in an interview in the January 2009 issue of "DISCOVER" magazine, pages 12-14.
Proctor interview with Discover magazine:
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/08-why-did-western-drs-promote-tobacco/?searchterm=proctor

Robert N. Proctor bio at Stanford:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/proctor.html

Ending the war on science?

Linda Rein Sarasota, FL — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:52:37 GMT

All of your comments are interesting but what you all don't understand is there has been a war on science since 2002. Funding for NIH (National Institutes of Health) where most funding for research comes from has been held to 2002 levels by the Bush Admin. Hence alot of research has been put on hold that doesn't have any thing to do with stem cells. In the stimulus package just passed there was a provision for 10 billion dollars for science. Folks he is funding research again not just stem cell research. So for those of you that think he is immoral for allowing stem cell research to continue with human embryos, I raise my hat to the man who decieded that research and science are important to this country and the world.

Ending the war on science?

blue7053, San Diego, CA. — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:53:40 GMT

About 150 years ago, during the first study of gases, it was found that some gases acts as a barrier to certain frequencies of radiation.

During the past 150 years, we have created sufficient of these gases to raise the amount in the earth's atmosphere by 50%.

The applicable laws of physics have been tested repeatedly and always been found correct.

Next Problem:
You cannot engage in a process with any aspect of the infinite, in a finite world. Capitalism is a doomed and dooming economic philosophy.

Problem:
The Human Race is not smart enough to manage a planet.

Ending the war on science?

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:13:02 GMT

I have to say that there has been an ideological war on science by the Republicans because the results that the scientists were coming up with were fitting in with the ideology of the right and be pro-business.

For those that believe life begins at conception, I challege you to view pictures of different mammal embryos and chose the human one. I am not saying that we are equal to animals, but what I am saying is that I don't believe that life begins at conception and will be damn hard to prove.

Ending the war on science?

Randy, Los Angeles — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:23 GMT

I guess if the economy is a swamp the president can keep his boots clean on the high ground of science. This puts an elegant spin on an administration that is dazed and confused by the challenges they haven't understood or addressed.

Ending the war on science?

Tommy, Dallas, TX — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:16:28 GMT

Finally, the crazy christians will not be able to stop the world from progressing. I find it funny that they love science that destroys life (weapons) but hate science that saves or creates life.

Ending the war on science?

Matt L, Everett, WA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:47:57 GMT

Doug Fingles Says: "Deciding to destroy a human being to help other human beings is an unethical decision that cannot be supported."

I read this and think you must be against any war and the death penalty, because that's exactly what both do. Out of curiousity am I correct, or will you squirm out of that with some moral flexibility that allows you to kill (Have killed) those that don't agree with you?

Ending the war on science?

Jermey Shupe, Layton, Utah — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:05:17 GMT

I am sick and tired of the constant Bush bashing; especially over environmental issues. Bush was right not to sign the Kyoto accords. The sad fact is that the Kyoto accords have absolutely no chance of preventing, or slowing, global warming because they contain 2 fundamental flaws:
1. China, the world's second largest polluter would only sign the accords if they were listed as a developing nation. In practice that means that China has to do precisely 0 to clean up its act, and can even expect help from the West to modernize its economy. That also means that if you own a dirty factory in the United Sates, you probably have older equipment, and are already on the fence about moving to China. If extra costs are added to your business, to penalize you for emitting green house gasses, you will probably pack up your equipment and move it to China. Thus all that has been accomplished is to move the pollution to another country, and displace American workers in the process.
2: The Kyoto accords trading system are based on acid rain. The only way to eliminate it is to eliminate the sources. Thus the Kyoto accords focus on the elimination of greenhouse gas emissions. There is nothing in them to protect, or expand, green house gas sinks, such as the Amazon, or old growth forests. To put it simply; if the human race emits 250 units of green house gases, and the planet's ability to absorb those gases is 200 units a year; nothing will be gained if we lower our emissions to 150 units a year while simultaneously reducing the planet's ability to absorb those gases to 100 units per year.

Bill Clinton had the opportunity to sign the accords, and didn't. He left it to Bush. I believe that he was aware of these problems, and left it to Bush to take the blame for them. Bush showed courage by not singing a treaty; despite the wide spread support for it.

I also believe that Bush banned stem cell research out of personal beliefs. I didn't agree with that decision, but I understand that it came from his personal convictions.

Ending the war on science?

Evilbino Plattsburgh, NY — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:48:36 GMT

Let's use this money to fund a lunar colony. I'd volunteer, even if it was for a position doing hard labor for the rest of my life. As long as I can get off this planet before it's destroyed by religion, science, or worse scientology.

Ending the war on science?

Julie,Los Angeles,CA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:27:17 GMT

There are copious quantities of stem cells available without destroying embryos in the umbilical cord of newborn babies. That shouldn't offend anyone. Some doctors offer storage for future use.

Ending the war on science?

Steve Sims, Portland, OR — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:50:10 GMT

"It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient - especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1-bX2SmU-c&feature=related

There's hope yet!

Ending the war on science?

SterlingM — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:00:40 GMT

Rrding Doug Fingles:

"Deciding to destroy a human being to help other human beings is an unethical decision that cannot be supported."

This is a gross generalization, and I truly hope you don't believe this fully. For if you did you could not kill the intruder that just broke into your home and is attacking your family. There one example that refutes your statement. Are there others? Sure there are.

As far as the artifical standard you mentioned, does that also apply to reasons for pushing a nation (any nation) into war for:
1) links to terrorism (nope didn't fly)
2) weapons of mass destruction (nope not there)
3) human dignity (ahh focus groups approve. We'll run on that.)

I, for one, support the War on Terrorism, when it was about fighting terrorism and not settling old debts by old politicans who saw it as their only shot to 'get back in there'.

Back to the current topic - scientific inquiry.
There was a period of time in history known as the Dark Ages when scientific inquiry was essentially stopped and 700+ years of human potential and progress were lost due to political motivations and irrational spiritually backed policies. You can add 8 more to that figure thanks to policies of the Bush Administration.

Perhaps now, we can focus on what science is telling us about our world rather than how that science can be molded (or outright ignored) to fit the political, economic, and ideological leanings of those who just want to make more money for themselves and their business contacts.

We'll see how it plays out.

Ending the war on science?

Chris, Schenectady, New York — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:50:12 GMT

Way to go Mr. President! WOOHOOO!

The Bush era politics of demonizing science, specifically any science that got in the way of the neocon / bigot agenda, is finally coming to an end!

Thank goodness!

Ending the war on science?

Jim E, Titusville, Florida — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:20:07 GMT

The whole point of conducting science is to gain a better understanding of our environment, to better ourselves, to make better/smarter decisions. It is the macro level of “Don’t touch the stove, it is hot and will burn you.” Anyone apposed to science is dooming themselves (or worse, others like their offspring) to ignorance. The Dark Ages are named that because there was no scientific advancement. The next time you need to visit the hospital, thank a scientist for the treatment. The person who made that plastic tube, the electronic monitoring equipment, or the tiny needle that doesn’t hurt as much, or the chemicals to sterilize the rooms and the drugs which cure disease or at least relieve some of the pain or the disciplined doctor who stayed up late reading books about the human body for 8 years of their life. Study and understanding leads to original thought and enlightenment. Bush (who is passive) would have everyone chanting and prying the sky won’t fall. Obama (who is proactive) is allowing for a government which helps its citizens… even the ones who refuse to contribute. What is more human than that?!

Ending the war on science?

J. Myers, Cincy, OH — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:28:22 GMT

I have always struggled with what the moral dilemma is with embryonic stem cell research. As I understand it, almost all embryonic stem cells are acquired from fertility clinics. Fertility treatment, and in-vitro fertilization in particular, are incredibly expensive procedures. In order to provide the greatest opportunity for success and reduce the chance of repeating an expensive procedure, once the egg is fertilized, and cells have multiplied a few times, the embryo is split (essentially the same process that creates twins), providing multiple embryos. These are then allowed to grow for a time. Some of these multiple embryos die naturally, and some survive. Of the survivors, a few are implanted in the womb (again more than one to increase the chance for a successful pregnancy). The dilemma lies in what to do with the other surviving embryos, if all were implanted every time, you would end up in the situation that the women in California has found herself in. Some are donated (assuming the mother meets a strict set of prerequisites), some are frozen for possible future pregnancies (again at a higher cost that can be prohibitive), and for the last eight years, the rest are destroyed and thrown away. This is where I struggle with the public out cry against embryonic stem cell research. Is it morally superior to destroy and throw away living embryos rather than allowing them to contribute to scientific research? Where is the debate?

Ending the war on science?

Chris, Houston, TX — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:02:34 GMT

Oh will you ignorant self-delusional right wing wackos please give it a rest! It's so sad that you're all so afraid of the unknown that you choose to subscribe to some ridiculous dogma rather than try to learn, evolve and expand human knowledge and capacity to live a meaningful life. The single most significant threat to the survival and prosperity of the human race is that damnable cancer of religion. Get it out of politics, get it out of real science. Barrack Obama is not a miracle worker and he has a HELL of a mess to clean up thanks to the past eight years of awful government. Right wing wackos: you had your chance and what's left is a tide of economic, environmental and educational nightmare. Now step aside and let's get some real work done.

Ending the war on science?

Chris, Houston, TX — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:05:06 GMT

"President Bush stood for human dignity" a poster wrote. WHAT? In what bizzaro world can you come up with THAT little gem of nonsense? He was the most inept, greedy, pathetic president this country has ever had....bar none. He stood for himself, for his oil cronies and for right wing wackos. Good grief.

Ending the war on science?

cdugga — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:17:36 GMT

Scientists are abortionists? Keep talking Rush. Your constituency for wanton ignorance demands you keep feeding them misinformation and ideas selected to set them apart so we can all see who they are and what they stand for. That is ignorance is bliss. What will be will be, god willing. Welcome to fundamentalism. We are not responsible for the world. It is all predestined by diety. Will christian suicide bombers be next? Maybe we can find the answer somewhere in the bible. Scientists are fools to look anywhere else for answers. Bush was our last upstanding and moral president. Unlike during the Clinton years, we did not have to spend years ignoring science, healthcare and our environment in order to determine the true whereabouts of Clintons penis. We had weapons of mass destruction to find, preemptive wars to fight, and democracy to spread to the shitites and suckies. Science? Why ask why?

Ending the war on science?

Tarc, Ann Arbor, MI — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:42:08 GMT

To assert that there was no war on science (either considering the stem cell area or nor) by the Bush administration is ludicrous. Clearly, you must have missed Bush's appointment of his no-research-experience-necessary *proctologist* to head the NIH. Or that awful woman in put in charge at the CDC to remove the mention, use, and illustration of condom use from all AIDS prevention and family planning literature. These are just two exmaples of the absolutely egregarious intervention on scientific finding in the name of lamebrained religious concerns. Get real.

Ending the war on science?

John Doe, Anytown, U.S.A. — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:52:36 GMT

Ending a life to save a life...I've seen a lot of crosstalk on the subject.

I'm usually open-minded about debating religion against science, saying that most religions don't have an issue on the matter, or allow people to do what they will. But when you place a person's life on the line for a pre-embryo [that, ironically, could grow up to have that same disease], you are getting rid of a life that could make a change for a chance.

You're gambling a life for a chance at life. Putting less in the pot than dealt. It's senseless.

And people will tell me I am wrong for supporting research that could potentailly cure millions. There is no ethical or moral violation for stem cell research, only religious violation. And I usually don't mind religion.

My take on it best goes back to an old addage of the Tyrant and a Savior. A tyrant can kill a thousand people. A savior can kill a tyrant, and save a thousand. Yet, according to religion, they both will be punished, because they killed. The ends are completely ignored, only the means are factored in.

That thinking has to stop. And if people will tell me i'm wrong, I would like to direct them to a little book where a man was told to kill his son, another man sacrified his daughters for two strangers, and millions were killed by one being.

Yet murder is a sin, regardless of the end.

Ending the war on science?

Tim, Ann Arbor, MI — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:53:25 GMT

@Tim Rommes - You assume (incorrectly) that people can make informed choices, which is incorrect. That was the whole point, in fact, and why she IS indeed responsible as a doctor and a human. As a doctor, she is charged with doing no harm, and there is no logical denial that her actions did harm to a great number of people. The statistics of the dramatic increase in HIV infections in the US is a pointed illustration of precisely why you are incorrect on this point. You are also incorrect in asserting that Bush's policy was attempting to avoid promoting abortion. Since the fetal tissue used was freely available and some aquired post-abortion (and some from never implanted embryos from fertility sessions), there was no driving force or even logical connections between the two. It's like removing a dropper full of water from the ocean and saying that we have to stop that because the sea level will fall. Get real. Obama's policy chnage has been virtually universally lauded by the scientific community as a logical correction of Bush's (rather cowardly and incoherent) policy. After all, Bush didn't have the moral or political will to stop fetal cell research, so he just make a poorly thought out half-measure that simply ended up wasting valuable reseatch dollars.

Ending the war on science?

Tim, Ann Arbor, MI — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:59:13 GMT

@ Austin Quinn - According to recent statistics, funding medical research through the NIH stimulates the economy. For every dollar that is spent through the NIH, $1.34 is injected into the economy. It's one of the few things that the federal government does that. So, in short, funding science IS funding the economy.

Ending the war on science?

Scott — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:22:14 GMT

"Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government," Melton said in a statement.

Really! So I guess that means that you lefties will still be open to some discussion of Global Warming then... Right?

Ending the war on science?

Jeff C, Raleigh, NC — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:55:31 GMT

"Deciding to destroy a human being to help other human beings is an unethical decision that cannot be supported."

Somehow I don't think the people on United 93 believed that... thankfully.

Ending the war on science?

Scott — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:18:07 GMT

Jeff C, You can't really be trying to compare the heroes of 9/11 with Abortion Doctors are you?

There is a HUGE difference between sacrificing your own life to save others, and sacrificing some "other" persons life to save others! [...]

Ending the war on science?

Joe, Macomb, MI — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:26:23 GMT

I wish people would learn the distiction bewteen and embryo and a fetus. An embryo is a microscopic ball of a few undifferentiated cells. Only in the fevered imaginations of the religious right is it a "baby". An acorn is not an oak tree no matter how hard you wish it to be so. The embryos used for research are leftovers from procedures done in fertility clinics and would be disposed of anyway.

Ending the war on science?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:47:40 GMT

"Life begins when brain waves start and ends when brain waves cease."

'Flatlined' people have been known to recover, espically those who drown in very cold water where the low temperature slows oxygen deprevation damage.

It's not that simple.

Ending the war on science?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:53:37 GMT

"How about we start funding our economy more than scientific reasearch?"

You write as if there's something mutually exclusive about the two...

This particular research isn't just 'for the good of mankind,' somebody will ultimately make money from it. When that happens, would you rather buy it from some other country?

And just what does it mean to 'fund our economy,' anyway?

Ending the war on science?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:40:19 GMT

Patrick M., Philadelphia, PA (3/10, 1130)

Causal or not is, indeed, difficult if not impossible to definitively determine at this point. During a robbery it is also difficult if not impossible to determine whether or not the assailant will shoot you until he does or doesn’t. If we can do anything to stop or slow global warming, without making things worse in some other way more than this helps, we should. Maybe in the end it will turn out that our efforts are only bailing out the ever warming ocean, or maybe we’ll be able to fix it. I’d hate to have us sit on our collective butt until we scientifically determine that we *could have* done something about it if we’d started by 2010.

Thomas Ashby (3/10, 1150)

Those fetuses (with a nod toward Alan’s comment, but I can’t spell blastocyst, and “fetus” and “abortion” are the keywords in the discussion generally, although it technically goes beyond) aren’t destined to die, unless you’re a Calvanist, but you’re not. Someone has decided to kill them. It’s more like implementing a system to harvest organs from prisoners, because the rest of us decide it would be better for the rest of us. After all, they’re just felons (or the elderly, or disabled, or ugly, or …), they don’t get a say. Whether or not we condone the killing of those too weak to object is a big issue for those of us way over here on my side of the argument. Putting the tissue to, what I must assess as, good use after the independent decision to kill it sounds reasonable. However, once you start some of the following decisions are biased by the fact that it can be given to science to save lives. In the end it becomes an excuse to murder. Murder being my private interpretation, it certainly doesn’t get interpreted that way by our legal system.

S.B. Stein, E.B., NJ (3/10, 1513)

How shall we define life? If having the ability to reproduce is in the definition shall we say that prepubescent children are not alive?

Tim, Ann Arbor, MI (3/11, 1153)

I assume (correctly, I think – but it is *my* assumption) that people can make informed decisions. That’s part of the reason I vote. If nobody was capable of making an informed decision I wouldn’t bother. There’s a line at the polls. I don’t like lines. I don’t think they always do make informed decisions. And sometimes the informed decisions people make are bad. Aside from information there are issues with intelligence, degree of contact with reality, hopefulness, etc. The dramatic increase in HIV cases is only proof that people make poor decisions. As for those who would have been saved by a supply of free condoms: The reason they contracted is not the supply part of not having a free supply available, there are plenty of condoms available. Except for the possibility of a very, very, very few cases the free part of not having a free supply available is not the cause, condoms are not that expensive. Most of the people who contracted HIV that wouldn’t have if there had been an abundant supply of free condoms went into stores that sell condoms and bought a six pack of beer and a pack of smokes instead, or stayed out of the store and bought some suspicious little bag of something. Not that there’s anything wrong with a six pack and smokes, just that there was a budgeting decision. And I’ll say it was a bad one. I don’t particularly think the rest of us should pay for their life long medical care based on their own stupid, self centered decision making process, so I can get behind drop shipping cases of condoms to their doorstep. The ideology behind not doing that is the issue. Doesn’t work, but I don’t believe I said I think it works. I do endorse the idea of expecting reasonable decisions from people and holding them accountable for the outcome of there decisions. But that seems to be particularly un-American given the last six months.

On the abortion (and other) issue, you only seem capable of looking back. I’m not suggesting a causal link between the harvesting of tissue from a particular fetus to the killing of that particular fetus. Perhaps we should congratulate you for seeing that would be ludicrous, at least in most theories of time progression. I am saying, again now, that once you start that it becomes part of some future decision and there is a causal link between that future decision and the future death of a particular fetus from which tissue is harvested. To review, in terms you *may* be able to understand: If I take something on Monday that belongs to you and on Tuesday you tell me it didn’t matter because you were going to throw that thing away, I did not take it on Monday because you were going to throw it away on Tuesday. If I take something that belongs to you on Monday and you tell me it’s okay on Tuesday, and I take something on Tuesday and you tell me it’s okay on Wednesday, and I take something on Wednesday and you tell me it’s okay on Thursday, then on Thursday I am more likely to take something from you. The more good, scientific research we do with the carcasses of the unborn the more likely it becomes that people will ignore the moral issues inherent in murdering the unborn. (And again, the murder part is my moral judgment, not a legal one.)

Jeff C, Raleigh, NC (3/11, 1255)

Taken out of context your comment is something less than stupid. In context it reads like they sat at the airport and went, “That plain’s going down? Oh, yes, I’d like a seat on that one.” Or maybe you’re talking from the terrorists’ viewpoint. Thankfully they decided to destroy human life.

Joe, Macomb, MI (3/11, 1726), “The embryos used for research are leftovers from procedures done in fertility clinics and would be disposed of anyway.” This is the greater wrong. Worse than the woman who decides to kill when she inconveniently got pregnant, these deaths were planned for.

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (3/11, 1753) wrote, “And just what does it mean to 'fund our economy,' anyway?”

Come on Frank, that’s when you buy US Economy stock. I can’t find that ticker symbol.??

Ending the war on science?

Dr. Dennis McClain-Furmanski PhD — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:02:40 GMT

Many times we've seen agencies change directors in mid-administration. The policies were in place already, only the head changed. Neither policy nor director depended on the other. Why is it being presented that the new administration's policies cannot be put into effect unless and until the new directors are confirmed? The results may be less than if a fully accepted new director were in place, but at least the agencies can be set on their new course.

As for those who claim there was to "war on science", dollars to donuts you aren't scientists either working directly with stem cells (as is my son; regrowth of severed neurons including spinal cords) or whose work is in a field already known to be able to make use of stem cells to effect a cure or improvement (my own; Parkinson's). The scientific research community is subservient to the scientific funding community, the latter of which regularly uses its position to not only control funding but also manipulate public perception. The past administration was more active than any other in manipulating public opinion, especially by enforcing its ethical values into the policies. I've had my work and even my scientific integrity threatened with being questioned if I pursued the stem cell work (I had no intention of it, but was threatened anyway). I know others who did continue and were then investigated, some of whom found themselves facing much higher hurdles in entirely separate areas. Don't tell me there was no war on science; many colleagues and acquaintances and myself were forced by policy makers to defend ourselves, retreat, or suffer scientific damage. We have been under attack for 8 years.

When science as it is usually practiced is confronted with biased material presented as science but intended to force its preconceptions and agenda onto the directions science takes, then science is under attack from something other than its only true adversary, differing opinions from within itself. The material used by the Bush administration to manipulate public opinion and science did not have its origins in science, but rather in their ethical and economic biases. Even when scientific evidence was presented, it was almost invariably pulled apart and shown to be wrong, sometimes even by scientists who held similar opinions but maintained the scientific integrity to want to make their points with replicable evidence rather than preconception.

Ending the war on science?

Craig — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:07:30 GMT

Alan, I think this title is a bit loaded... I understand you're paraphrasing, but "science" does not mean "science explicitly funded by the federal government." The people who think that scientific revolutions are as easy as casting a vote every 2 to 4 years for the person who promises to print the most money get overly excited about headlines like this. Please be explicit when you are using NewSpeak so the rest of us don't have to hit them.

Ending the war on science?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:30:49 GMT

Tim Rhommes "I assume (correctly, I think – but it is *my* assumption) that people can make informed decisions."

Yes, and even in matters of abortion. So, whne the decision is made, the fetus IS destined to die. Fetus that is, something way less than a functioning human.

Ending the war on science?

John Mayer, Knoxville TN — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:29:21 GMT

“Lets call an embryo what it really is. Its a baby.“ And let’s call an acorn what it really is: a tree. And let’s call an egg what it really is: a chicken.”

Perhaps it is, after all, inappropriate to base human status on higher brain wave activity; many of the supernaturalists here wouldn’t qualify. Thank God Obama came along before they religious completed their goal of dragging our nation back into the dark ages.

Ending the war on science?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:11:29 GMT

Thomas Ashby,
You presented "destined" like it was out of anybody's hands. The fact is our policies today effect people's decisions tomorrow. Taking "destiny" completely out, a policy that allows using the tissue from a fetus that is already dead promotes future abortions because that killing can be more readily rationalized. Bringing babies to term and then killing so their organs can be harvested would clearly be wrong. Bringing babies to viability and then killing them so their organs can be harvested would clearly be wrong. How about bring babies to some level of organ development and killing them before they're independently viable, but would be able to live if they were allowed to mature naturally? What we're talking about is only different by degree. You, along with a great many others, draw a moral line in a different place than I, and a great many others.

Ending the war on science?

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:19:44 GMT

Anti-science politics video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7gecOSVK68

Ending the war on science?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:46:11 GMT

Tim Rommes " Bringing babies to term and then killing so their organs can be harvested would clearly be wrong. Bringing babies to viability and then killing them so their organs can be harvested would clearly be wrong."

Who said anything about this? You have a real talent for exaggerating ideas. But most morality types always do. This is especially evident in the, legalize cannabis issue.

Ending the war on science?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:41:27 GMT

Not so much an exaggeration as a black and white issue. But us morality types do tend to see wrong as just plain wrong. (Grower?)

Ending the war on science?

Kristin of Fairbanks, Alaska — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:24:55 GMT

Wow, I am SO happy to read all these kinds of articles. I am impressed with the way that Obama has quickly gotten science involved in his policies. He is very right about "and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient - especially when it’s inconvenient."
That sentence alone makes me happy, to acknowledge that things that suck are things that need to be dealt with, so it doesn't suck anymore. Another plus is that the majority of scientists are atheists, and it will raise the voices of atheists, which is an important unseen agenda. Hooray!!!