Maybe that will keep it fresh for you:
“Science can be a blood sport.”
I don't want to get emotional about it, but.... I thought science was science.
Of course, I see it as $cience when it comes from my pre$$.
"Why Eric Lander morphed from science god to punching bag" by Sharon Begley, January 25, 2016
Genome-sequencing pioneer Eric Lander, one of the most powerful men in American science, did not embezzle funds from the institute he leads, sexually harass anyone, plagiarize, or fabricate data. But he became the target of venomous online attacks last week because of an essay he wrote on the history of CRISPR, the revolutionary genome-editing technology pioneered partly by his colleagues at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass.
The whole "gene-editing" thing is simply eugenics dressed up in a friendly-sounding and more benevolent cause as I far as I'm concerned.
Maybe it is all for the good, or could be; however, I no longer trust the people populating and handling the sector, be it government or business. Period.
To be sure, Lander gave his foes some openings. He and the journal Cell, which published his essay last week, failed to disclose Lander’s potential conflict of interest when it comes to CRISPR. The essay, other scientists said, got several key facts wrong, and Lander later added what he called clarifications. Stirring the greatest anger, critics charged that rather than writing an objective history he downplayed the role of two key CRISPR scientists who happen to be women.
That's what happens when you reach an epiphany regarding the ma$$ media.
Those missteps triggered a bitter online war, including the Twitter hashtag #landergate.
Related: Thursday's Tweets
Biologist Michael Eisen of the University of California, Berkeley, deemed his essay “science propaganda at its most repellent” and called for its retraction, while anonymous scientists on the post-publication review site PubPeer ripped into Lander’s motives and character. The attacks spread well beyond science, with the feminist website Jezebel.com.
The outpouring of rage directed at him arises from what one veteran biomedical researcher calls “pent-up animosity” toward Lander and the Broad Institute, where he serves as director, that has built up over years.
When are people going to get angry about things that really matter?
It's all this bickering about who gets credit, not where the whole program may be leading.
It's Dr. Moreau stuff, but it's not being conducted on an uncharted Pacific island (or maybe it is), it is being conducted in the economic drivers and biotech ba$tions of Bo$ton. So it must be for the good.
“Science can be a blood sport,” said science historian and policy expert Robert Cook-Deegan of Duke University. “This seems to be one of those times.”
Some of the brickbats hurled at Lander reflect professional jealousy, especially since he took an unconventional path into the top echelons of molecular biology. Some seem to be payback for the egos Lander bruised over the years, dating to his role in the Human Genome Project in the late 1990s. Some of the anger seems to stem from still-simmering animosity over what Lander and his institute represent to many: the triumph of Big Science in biology.
Aaaah, BIG SCIENCE!
What the hell does that mean?
Isn't science science?
Current and former colleagues contacted by STAT described Lander, 58, as brilliant, prickly, and brash, as having “an ego without end,” as “a visionary” who “doesn’t suffer fools gladly,” and as “an authentic genius” who “sees things the rest of us don’t.” Lander won a MacArthur Foundation “genius” award in 1987 at age 30. Since 2009, he has co-chaired President Obama’s scientific advisory council.
Looks to me like an asshole, and you don't need an advanced science degree to see it.
“Anything I want to say, he’s ahead of me,” said one scientist who has worked closely with Lander on issues of science policy. “With normal mortals you can see wheels grinding in their head, but with Eric you can’t.”
Yup, he's another god we should bow down to. No mere mortal he.
I thought we stopped worshipping human gods centuries ago when a few kings of divine right lost their heads.
The institute was punching well above its weight. It attracted eye-popping donations, including $650 million for psychiatric research from the foundation of philanthropist Ted Stanley in 2014 and, since its 2003 founding, $800 million from Los Angeles developer Eli Broad and his wife Edythe. It won $176.5 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health in fiscal year 2015, ranking it 34th. Larger institutions got more — $604 million for Johns Hopkins, $563 million for the University of California, San Francisco — but the Broad’s smaller number of core researchers were leaving rivals in the dust in terms of their contributions to and influence in science.
Well, the print I had didn't mentioned who donated.
Physics became Big Science — dominated by huge collaborations rather than lone investigators....
You mention physics, and the first thing that comes to mind is the impossibility of three steel-framed towers -- one not even hit by a plane -- dropping into their footprint at free-fall speed in contradiction of the most basic law of physics. An immutable law, thus rendering the official position of events that day by the ma$$ media and government inoperable. That's my litmus test for any scientist.
You wanna own up to that one, or.... I gue$$ then you would be a "lone investigator" running into the huge collaboration of Big $cience, much like those who question global warming.
"The new genetic editing technique, known as CRISPR or CRISPR-Cas9, lets researchers perform cut-and-paste operations on DNA, the hereditary material, with unprecedented ease and precision."
She's not going to do anything, but others are.
Let's hope there are not any mutations, 'eh?
Most Americans oppose editing unborn genes of babies
I see I'm not alone after all.
This Blog Born Again
I'm wondering if such things have a tie in to Zika.
Anti-abortion activist indicted in Texas turns herself in
Talk about turning the whole fetal tissue harvesting operation and turning it on its head!!
That's the way you try to get people to stop crying about atrocities.
That's why the whole thing has to be hushed up, right?
The horror that would follow regarding the politically-correct and divisive issue.
Activist behind Planned Parenthood video to reject plea deal
Good for them.
"The world just got some pretty strong evidence that online news is sexist. A new study found that women are more likely to be appear in photographs than in the text of news stories. Researchers in the United Kingdom used artificial intelligence software to catalogue an enormous body of English-language news on the Internet, some 2.3 million articles published by 950 online news sources, from the BBC to the New York Post, over six months from October 2014 to April 2015. “When women do show up in the news, it is often as ‘eye candy,’ thus reinforcing women’s value as sources of visual pleasure rather than residing in the content of their views,’’ the authors said."
I feel much this way as I do about women's equality being equated with working on the front lines of the war machine.
Why push away the wonderful things that make women what they are?
The ability to give life and to look beautiful should be celebrated. That's not to say it should be the be all and end all regarding women.
And how ironic is it that the same ma$$ media that also promotes such sexualization of women in its advertisements is also holding itself up as the driver of gender equality and women's rights?
So much for getting excited:
"Want Viagra? Proposed Kentucky law would require note from spouse" by Daniel Victor New York Times February 16, 2016
A Kentucky state representative believed that a new law requiring women to have a medical consultation 24 hours before having an abortion smacked of sexism.
So the lawmaker, Mary Lou Marzian, proposed a bill in the male-dominated House to drive home the point.
Under the legislation by Marzian, a Democrat from Louisville, men would have to navigate a series of obstacles before they could obtain erectile dysfunction drugs, like Viagra. Each man would be required to have two doctor visits, a signed-and-dated letter from his spouse providing consent, and a sworn statement — delivered with his hand on a Bible — that he would use the drugs only to have sex with his spouse.
Only married men would be eligible for the drugs.
In a phone interview Monday, Marzian said: “I thought if we’re going to insert ourselves into women’s most private health care decisions, then we should insert ourselves into men’s most private health care decisions as well.”
The proposal, to be sure, is tongue-in-cheek.
You sure it isn't someplace else?
She said she did not expect it to pass and was not sure if the plan — put forward Thursday — would even get a hearing.
Her point, she said, was to “wake up women all over Kentucky.”
The abortion law, signed by Governor Matt Bevin earlier this month, passed the Senate, 92-3. It was amended to allow women to conduct a live video chat with a doctor instead of an in-person visit. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky called the policy “an alarming overstep by lawmakers” that would “force both doctors and patients to comply with the will of lawmakers rather than medical expertise or personal choices for care.”
But it was hailed by those who oppose abortion.
“Many have fought for a long, long time to see meaningful prolife legislation come out of this Legislature and be signed into law,” Bevin said at the bill’s signing, according to WLKY.
Three female Democrats, including Marzian, cast the only votes against the law. She attributed the lack of opposition to a lack of political will: With Democrats holding just a 50-46 lead, there is a significant possibility that the party could lose control of the House after November.
I was thinking it was more the pharmaceutical toes being stepped on or the limp puds in the pants of the mostly male politicians.
Marzian, 61, who has represented a Louisville district since 1995, will run unopposed.
Her erectile dysfunction bill, she said, was meant to highlight what she saw as hypocrisy from politicians.
These days, you can't swing a stick without hitting hypocrisy in AmeriKa's ruling cla$$.
In past debates — a smoking ban that was defeated and a booster seat requirement that passed, for example — her political opponents spoke against government intervention in private lives, she said. The requirement that only married men could receive the drugs was aimed at politicians’ stated focus on family values, she added.
In hopes of landing her message, she chose a subject she thought would get men’s attention. About 80 percent of the House is male.
“I have found that men are very touchy about their sexual lives, and they think that is very personal,” she said. “So I wanted to hit a chord that men could understand how it feels to have a politician say, ‘Well, you really don’t know enough; you really need some education about this because you just don’t know enough about your body; and we need to insert ourselves into your private life.’ ”
I don't want to fool around, sorry.
I'm fine with most of the equality arguments, folks; however, there is also this cut-off-their-balls strain to feminism that is most distasteful.
It should be safety-first on stem cell therapies
Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood reopens, months after shooting
It's a public relations scam after the drill, and oddly, both aborted things.