Comments on: The Scientific Integrity Memo – Borrowing from Macbeth? http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5051 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5051&cpage=1#comment-12890 David Bruggeman Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:20:25 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5051#comment-12890 Topic, please. This post isn't about the stem cell policy. There are recent posts more relevant to that policy. Check Ryan's recent entries to find them. Topic, please.

This post isn’t about the stem cell policy. There are recent posts more relevant to that policy. Check Ryan’s recent entries to find them.

]]> By: pjk1 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5051&cpage=1#comment-12888 pjk1 Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:00:21 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5051#comment-12888 "The stem cell directive was policy that used science as cover for a morals based decision." Maurice, you say "morals based"; it would have quite a different flavor if you said "ethics based", wouldn't it? We are all in favor of ethics, but "morals" usually has a religious connotation. Those (like Bush) who oppose sacrificing human embryos think it's a matter of ethics. (And of course, religious people generally use the 2 terms interchangably) Again, we all want to be ethical. So we should perhaps treat using the earliest stage of human life in this way, then disposing of it, as an ethical question-- and try to justify the course we favor on ethical grounds. Considering that, due to progress in the past few years, we can re-program adult stem cells to have much of the potential of the embryonic cells, wasn't there a case for NOT requiring all taxpayers (some of whom oppose it) to subsidize destroying human embryos in the name of scientific research? “The stem cell directive was policy that used science as cover for a morals based decision.”
Maurice, you say “morals based”; it would have quite a different flavor if you said “ethics based”, wouldn’t it? We are all in favor of ethics, but “morals” usually has a religious connotation. Those (like Bush) who oppose sacrificing human embryos think it’s a matter of ethics. (And of course, religious people generally use the 2 terms interchangably)
Again, we all want to be ethical. So we should perhaps treat using the earliest stage of human life in this way, then disposing of it, as an ethical question– and try to justify the course we favor on ethical grounds. Considering that, due to progress in the past few years, we can re-program adult stem cells to have much of the potential of the embryonic cells, wasn’t there a case for NOT requiring all taxpayers (some of whom oppose it) to subsidize destroying human embryos in the name of scientific research?

]]> By: Maurice Garoutte http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5051&cpage=1#comment-12878 Maurice Garoutte Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:15:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5051#comment-12878 Yes indeed, that document is politics. The stem cell directive was policy that used science as cover for a morals based decision. The cap and trade tax is policy that uses science as cover for wealth re-distribution. Roger and his peers are doing good work and creating what could be good policy guidance. Or they could be creating a pretty fig leaf for the administration to cover social engineering with a veneer of science. I will continue to judge scientists by their documents and politicians by their policy. Yes indeed, that document is politics.

The stem cell directive was policy that used science as cover for a morals based decision.

The cap and trade tax is policy that uses science as cover for wealth re-distribution.

Roger and his peers are doing good work and creating what could be good policy guidance. Or they could be creating a pretty fig leaf for the administration to cover social engineering with a veneer of science.

I will continue to judge scientists by their documents and politicians by their policy.

]]>