Dunno if it is so overwhelmingly.. but I do know that US lags behind when it comes to internet connections and use.. and I KNOW you are behind several European countries when it comes to computers.Rekaar. wrote:Overwhelmingly, yes.Voronwë wrote:Do the majority of Americans even have a personal computer yet?
Bush and Science
it is overwhelmingly, just below multiband television (cable/sat).
~75% of househoulds have a PC, and about 85% have multiband TV i think.
-
anyway i dont think that hurts my point that waiting for national consensus on matters of scientific research direction is good policy. There are many checks on NIH research, not the least of which is the budget set forth by Congress, but with respect ot this issue, there are internal ethical checks that have proven themselves against formidible challenges.
Of all the governmental agencies that need more "moral" oversight, I would suggest the NIH is way down the list if not completely at the bottom.
~75% of househoulds have a PC, and about 85% have multiband TV i think.
-
anyway i dont think that hurts my point that waiting for national consensus on matters of scientific research direction is good policy. There are many checks on NIH research, not the least of which is the budget set forth by Congress, but with respect ot this issue, there are internal ethical checks that have proven themselves against formidible challenges.
Of all the governmental agencies that need more "moral" oversight, I would suggest the NIH is way down the list if not completely at the bottom.
-
masteen
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 8197
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
If any departments are in need of moral oversight, it's the DEA.
Exactly how moral is it to have activities that a large percentage of your population enjoy criminalized?
Exactly how moral is it to have activities that a large percentage of your population enjoy criminalized?
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
actually i didnt.
you guys were the ones who actually used such ludicrous examples as "eugenics", "chemical weapons", and "nazi atrocities" to describe the potential risks from NIH. and i'm sorry to say just mentioning those things in this discussion is ludicrous.
i understand that very few people outside of the various industries which are touched by the NIH really know much about it - not because of any secrecy, but simply because you have no reason to. The doctor tells your dad to take Lipitor and he stays alive for 10 more years. You guys watch some football games and life is good.
i will restate my point for the 4th time, to which nothing even approaching a response has yet been offered:
Name one instance in over 100 years of cutting edge scientific research where the extensive internal controls over ethical experimentation have failed at the NIH.
you guys were the ones who actually used such ludicrous examples as "eugenics", "chemical weapons", and "nazi atrocities" to describe the potential risks from NIH. and i'm sorry to say just mentioning those things in this discussion is ludicrous.
i understand that very few people outside of the various industries which are touched by the NIH really know much about it - not because of any secrecy, but simply because you have no reason to. The doctor tells your dad to take Lipitor and he stays alive for 10 more years. You guys watch some football games and life is good.
i will restate my point for the 4th time, to which nothing even approaching a response has yet been offered:
Name one instance in over 100 years of cutting edge scientific research where the extensive internal controls over ethical experimentation have failed at the NIH.
Sorry guy but that was not the "point" I was addressing.Voronwë wrote:actually i didnt.
you guys were the ones who actually used such ludicrous examples as "eugenics", "chemical weapons", and "nazi atrocities" to describe the potential risks from NIH. and i'm sorry to say just mentioning those things in this discussion is ludicrous.
i understand that very few people outside of the various industries which are touched by the NIH really know much about it - not because of any secrecy, but simply because you have no reason to. The doctor tells your dad to take Lipitor and he stays alive for 10 more years. You guys watch some football games and life is good.
i will restate my point for the 4th time, to which nothing even approaching a response has yet been offered:
Name one instance in over 100 years of cutting edge scientific research where the extensive internal controls over ethical experimentation have failed at the NIH.
You stated,
Politics are everywhere... including science. And why shouldn't it be so? Any issue that has "real, lasting domestic economic implications" should be open to debate by the society as a whole.It is a tremendous policy blunder by the White House - letting the political wing run roughshod over issues that have real, lasting domestic economic implications.
And by golly you are posting these feelings in a political forum trying to argue your point... hmmmm... sounds political to me.
Please keep in mind, I personally have nothing against the NIH and I haven't made my own decision about stem cell research. I just resent the knee-jerk reaction by many people that religious views don't have a valid place at the "table" in the exchange of ideas.