A Return to Scientific Sanity

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When the measure of "scientific sanity" is how much somebody agrees with you, it is not advocating a healthy dialog or even recognizing that some people may disagree with you as strongly as you believe you are right.

When people state simply, "He was against Stem Cell research," they are misinforming people without objectivity to enhance their political stance on the issue. They are effectively "politicizing" the issue.

Bush didn't politicize this, it politicizes itself.

The fact is Bush wasn't against stem cell research, he was against destroying a life in order to conduct the research.

Even less condemning than that.... Bush was opposed to using taxpayer money to fund the destruction of life in order to conduct the research. I think this is the part of the issue Mott and others fail to recognize. Many taxpayers are ethically opposed to this procedure, and it is patently unfair to tell them their tax dollars must fund it. Much the same argument is made by anti-christians regarding prayer in school... why should their tax money facilitate religious practices in a public school? It's the same argument, from the opposite spectrum.

 

[maineman]

Even less condemning than that.... Bush was opposed to using taxpayer money to fund the destruction of life in order to conduct the research. I think this is the part of the issue Mott and others fail to recognize. Many taxpayers are ethically opposed to this procedure, and it is patently unfair to tell them their tax dollars must fund it. Much the same argument is made by anti-christians regarding prayer in school... why should their tax money facilitate religious practices in a public school? It's the same argument, from the opposite spectrum.

many taxpayers were against the invasion of Iraq. Was it patently unfair for Bush to tell us that our tax dollars must fund it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

many taxpayers were against the invasion of Iraq. Was it patently unfair for Bush to tell us that our tax dollars must fund it?

I don't think so, because wars and national security are a different matter. We elect a congress and president to make those decisions, we don't get to arbitrarily vote on if or when to go to war.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I don't think so, because wars and national security are a different matter. We elect a congress and president to make those decisions, we don't get to arbitrarily vote on if or when to go to war.

Well we elect a congress and a president to make decisions regarding science. Decisions regarding religion are explicitly banned. Suck it you moron.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well we elect a congress and a president to make decisions regarding science. Decisions regarding religion are explicitly banned. Suck it you moron.

Right, decisions respecting the establishment or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Sanctity of life is not purely a "religious" thing, it is an ETHICAL thing.... or are you trying to say that all non-religious people are unethical?

 

[Canceled2]

Even less condemning than that.... Bush was opposed to using taxpayer money to fund the destruction of life in order to conduct the research. I think this is the part of the issue Mott and others fail to recognize. Many taxpayers are ethically opposed to this procedure, and it is patently unfair to tell them their tax dollars must fund it. Much the same argument is made by anti-christians regarding prayer in school... why should their tax money facilitate religious practices in a public school? It's the same argument, from the opposite spectrum.

Krauthammer refuses invitation

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Right, decisions respecting the establishment or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Sanctity of life is not purely a "religious" thing, it is an ETHICAL thing.... or are you trying to say that all non-religious people are unethical?

 

[Minister of Truth]

No, its just Watermark that is unethical...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Again... since you cannot comprehend with one reading.... he did not politicize the science of the issue. There was an ETHICAL question regarding the science.

Science dictates that a fertilized egg is genetically speaking a unique human.

Thus, the ETHICAL question was... do you use federal tax dollars to support research that destroys the unique human?

That is not politicizing science. It is ETHICS.

Oh this is just rediculous to claim Bush didn't politicize embryonic stem cell research. First there had been a healthy ethical debate on embryonic stem cell research since 1995 when the technology first became viable to do the research. Second the ethical debate was further clarified by the Clinton administration in 1998 when they developed federal guidelines for embryonic stem cell research funding. IN 2001 Bush unilateraly limited embryonic stem cell research to existing lines when it was well known that those existing lines were inadequate. That politicized the issue and did absolutely nothing to further ethical discussion. Next He removed highly respected scientist from the Council of Bioethics and replaced them with pro-life ideologues. That politicized the issue. Other scientist on the panel complained about the politicization of this issue and they were subsequently replaced from the panel. In 2004 members of congress, including many moderate Republicans requested President Bush to expand funding beyond Present lines. Bush refused. That further politicized the issue. There was no ethical discourse here. It was a unilateral political decision made by the Bush administration. The same thing happened in 2005 when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) and an MD announced favoring expading funding on embryonic stem cell research. Again, the Bush administration unilaterly declined. There was no pretense what so ever of ethical discussions on this issue. It was purely a politcal decision. So pretending that Bush did not politicize this issue is just laughable in face of the evidence.

In addition this is just one of many science policy issues which the Bush administration politicized. The politicization of science under the Bush administration was staggering and sweeping in scope. I can site you all sorts of examples of their undermining sound science by politicizing it. Some examples, and I can go into detail here if you wish, were;

Politicization of Science Commitees.
They polticized public information on science.
They politicized scientific research.
On issues they polliticized agricultural pollution, industrial pollution, Arctic drilling, oil and gas drilling practices, wetland protection, climactic change research,
On public health issues they politicized research of breast cancer risks, abstinence only education, health care disparities, the effectiveness of condomes, drinking water safety and on and on.

Not to mentions that they polticized science agencies and science policies such as EPA, NIH, OMB, the previously mentioned Bioethics Council, Missle Defense, Workplace Safety and Science Education policy.

Remember his advocatiing the "Teach the Controversy policy" in regards to evolution education during the Dover, PA ID Trial in which a Republican Federal Judge determined that ID is religion and not science? Bush completely disregarded that the fact of evolution is in no way shape or form controversial in science. It is a religious controversy which has no place in the science class room.

So, yes. When President Obama ended the Bush era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research it was a great day for American Science. Maybe in about 10 years we can undo the damage that Bush and his reactionary cronies have done to our public science institutions.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

And then you ignore the fact that some incentive would arise to create a few extra for this purpose and that this has already been answered.

The main moral objection that Bush had was the specific creation of life for the purpose to destroy it in order to advance science. He did not want to create an incentive to do this, nor to force people who found it morally objectionable to pay for it.

Those who find it morally objectionable would not be paying fertility clinics to create multiple extra embryos for their destruction to begin with.

Damo that's a strawman argument as no one in the scientific community was advocating that embryos be created specifically for embyronic stem cell research.

 

[Damocles]

Damo that's a strawman argument as no one in the scientific community was advocating that embryos be created specifically for embyronic stem cell research.

Read further. There is more than the scientific community that may have incentive to do what they otherwise would not. I even included myself in that one because it is likely to have been true. Attempting to take one post of a whole conversation and ignore further posts that elaborate on the topic is weak 'argument' at best.

Imagine my wife and I deciding on whether to adopt or go in this direction. Now that I know the extra embryos can be donated to science I can feel less squeamish about their deaths and will be far more likely to go in that direction. Instead, previous to this, I would be far more likely to adopt a child so that I would not be sacrificing life for no purpose. (Notice I said less, however I know myself well enough to establish that this is where my mind would go.)

If you want to incentivize adoption over disassembling human life to further science, then you go in Bush's direction. Pretending that the only possible incentive would be for nefarious scientists to secretly establish an embryo farm is just silly. We're not talking Dr. Shrinker here.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I see no evidence of a "collective assault" on science.

While I fully understand your objection to the war. Even if we were in disagreement I could still see your opinion on that matter. Pretending that you are inherently incapable of understanding such objections and their origins simply shows either a politically motivated and thus created lack of imagination, or a total incapacity to empathize with another human being.

Then you weren't paying attention. I can list you many, many examples of where the Bush administration politicized science policies, issues and institutions. There was most certainly an assualt on science by the Bush administration. The evidence to that affect is overwhelming.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Its statements like this...

"but Bush's collective assault on science was insane"

that make it clear thats its a useless exercise to debate this pinhead....
his already closed mind is evident and no amount of logic will allow him to change what has become reality to him....just his continuing to harp on this
"incentive" issue paints him as thick-headed and incapable of logical conclusions....so why continue....
the ethical dilemma that concerned both Clinton and Bush, he perceives as a Bush attack on science...
and to not give embryo "farmers" a reason to plant and harvest embryos for their stem cells seems to just confuse him...
so...give it up Damo....

Actually it's the reverse. The evidence for the Bush administrations assualt on science is vast and overwhelming. I can give you mountains and mountains of evidence but being a fanatic and a moron you would only push the bar higher and higher.

So in this debate it's pretty obvious who the pin head is. It's probably the person who doesn't know jack shit about science, meaning you.

 

[Damocles]

Then you weren't paying attention. I can list you many, many examples of where the Bush administration politicized science policies, issues and institutions. There was most certainly an assualt on science by the Bush administration. The evidence to that affect is overwhelming.

Yet you keep repeating and not listing. We're having a conversation in here, if you'd like to contribute, please do. The reality is people of conscious may object to this, pretending that there is no other option than yours or "waging war on science" is silliness, a petulant child who thinks that the parent who won't let them jump on the trampoline without supervision is waging a "war" on them.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yet you keep repeating and not listing. We're having a conversation in here, if you'd like to contribute, please do. The reality is people of conscious may object to this, pretending that there is no other option than yours or "waging war on science" is silliness, a petulant child who thinks that the parent who won't let them jump on the trampoline without supervision is waging a "war" on them.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I started this conversation. You also didn't address my point. I never made a claim that there were other options then mine. I simply stated a fact that the Bush administration systematicly and in sweeping fashion politicized many science policy issues and public science institutions and the facts supporting my claim are overwhelming.

 

[Damocles]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I started this conversation. You also didn't address my point. I never made a claim that there were other options then mine. I simply stated a fact that the Bush administration systematicly and in sweeping fashion politicized many science policy issues and public science institutions and the facts supporting my claim are overwhelming.

I addressed your point. Please, re-read the thread if you must.

Bush didn't "politicize" science, the controversy assures that this branch of science will be political regardless of who is in office.

The idea that anybody who disagrees with your take on any issue in science is "politicizing" while agreeing is not is just inane, it is political still even when they agree with you.

 

[Bonestorm]

I addressed your point. Please, re-read the thread if you must.

Bush didn't "politicize" science, the controversy assures that this branch of science will be political regardless of who is in office.

The idea that anybody who disagrees with your take on any issue in science is "politicizing" while agreeing is not is just inane, it is political still even when they agree with you.

It seems clear that Mott was discussing more that just stem cell science. The Bush Administration on several occasions on several separate issues supplanted the judgment of scientists at certain agencies (EPA for example) with the judgment of political appointees.

It's not scientific disagreement that was the problem but supplanting scientific judgment with political judgment.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It seems clear that Mott was discussing more that just stem cell science. The Bush Administration on several occasions on several separate issues supplanted the judgment of scientists at certain agencies (EPA for example) with the judgment of political appointees.

It's not scientific disagreement that was the problem but supplanting scientific judgment with political judgment.

Exactly, and it just wasn't science policy, institutions where he did this. We can all remember his appointment of the unqualified, inept and incompetent Michael Brown to FEMA and what a disastreous fiasco that was.

 

[Damocles]

It seems clear that Mott was discussing more that just stem cell science. The Bush Administration on several occasions on several separate issues supplanted the judgment of scientists at certain agencies (EPA for example) with the judgment of political appointees.

It's not scientific disagreement that was the problem but supplanting scientific judgment with political judgment.

And I agreed with the whole CO2 is not pollution stuff, I ceded that one in an earlier post as the only time I could see somebody suggest that he "attacked" science, but it certainly wasn't a "systematic attack on science". That too is a controversial (false controversy IMO, clean air and water is enough of a reason to reject flatly any ideation that man can change the environment), saying that Bush alone caused this controversy is a clearly false premise.

The issues are political, they are not "politicized", and they are political because there is controversy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Oh this is just rediculous to claim Bush didn't politicize embryonic stem cell research. First there had been a healthy ethical debate on embryonic stem cell research since 1995 when the technology first became viable to do the research."

Yes, there was a debate as to whether it was ethical. To this day, nothing was resolved. You still have both sides of the argument being supported. Which is why Bush decided not to force people to pay for it with tax dollars.

"Second the ethical debate was further clarified by the Clinton administration in 1998 when they developed federal guidelines for embryonic stem cell research funding. "

LMAO... how did he 'clarify' it? He simply gave his opinion on it. That is all. Bush in turn did the same thing.

"IN 2001 Bush unilateraly limited embryonic stem cell research to existing lines when it was well known that those existing lines were inadequate. "

Incorrect... he limited FEDERAL funding to existing lines. Which in turn led to people like Stowers and Lokey to fund it privately.

"That politicized the issue and did absolutely nothing to further ethical discussion."

Bullshit... it took it out of politics and put it in the hands of private citizens. Those who support the research could and DID put funds towards it. Those who did not support it were not forced to see their tax dollars go to research they were morally opposed to.

"Next He removed highly respected scientist from the Council of Bioethics and replaced them with pro-life ideologues. "

LMAO... as opposed to appointing proabortion ideologues???? As you know abortion is a polarizing issue. Most people feel strongly one way or the other on this topic.


So, yes. When President Obama ended the Bush era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research it was a great day for American Science. Maybe in about 10 years we can undo the damage that Bush and his reactionary cronies have done to our public science institutions.

That is the line of thinking of someone who believes the only way for research to be done will be if the FED does it. Again, I point to the example of the embryonic stem cell research. When the Fed decided not to fund it, private money (that believed in the viability of the line) flowed into it.