Democrats charged during the Bush administration that science research became politicized. Obama's presidential memorandum signed this week promises to avoid that pitfall. Will it work?
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Bending over backwards for inept republicans and then getting it thrown in his face is partisanship? Funny how Repiglicans whine and cry about it, especially since the electorate soundly rejected the politics of failure the last 2 election cycles.
A so-called libertarian think tank arguing against the removal of a government regulation? Strange--but of course they object to public funding in general.
And anyone who compares cutting edge research with an applied field like in vitro fertilization isjust plain dishonest. IVF has a service that people want (sometimes desperately) and are willing to pay for--Oh, that's just like pure research which may take years to yield a practical result--if at all. And deep space exploration shouldn't be funded--look at how well airplanes are doing!
You quote representatives of the industry--and a hard-right ideologist with no expertise in the field. Someone whose larger positions would affect how a reader would see his commentary. Why nt have a Marxist put in some comments as well. You know, for 'balance'.
I believe the Nazis used the same approach prior to the Second World War and during the Second World War to describe and "justify" their despicable violations of human rights and destruction of human life.
The bottom line is that the embryo-research advocates are treating human life as simply another form of lab animal.
This opens the door to all kinds of evil people who will use the claim of "scientific advancement" to justify treating people as disposable. And the weakest among us will pay the price and suffer the consequences.
Obama has done a bad thing.
If you want to argue that it has a soul and spirit before it's even a seperate entity, then go join the rest of the hippies of the world in protesting eating meat or anything else humans do. I'd rather not see groundbreaking cures held up by a religion I don't follow, and the donated embryo's families don't follow.
Now shut up and let me eat my baby burger.
We must ban all, private or government-funded (State or Federal) ESC research.
Tell us all here, on a public forum, why it is that you, Smallvoice, don't go out and adopt an unwanted child. Why don't you organize the feeding, sheltering, clothing, and educating of all unwanted babies, orphans, or abandoned children everywhere? If there's room for all, then make room in your heart and your home for someone that has nothing, or even someone that is less fortunate than you.
You won't do any of this and I'll tell you why; because deep down, you're selfish. You don't really care about anyone beyond yourself and those that share your provincial and myopic views.
Your attack is unfounded and incorrect. I presume the "programs that help their fellow humans" is a reference to welfare and similar programs. I, as a "right-to-lifer" don't like those programs because they encourage the wrong behavior. People unwilling to work, for example, should suffer, and their are many on welfare that simply don't care to work. If the Government didn't take money to spend on such programs, there would be more funds for unselfish people or family members to use to help the destitute. It's a matter of self-reliance and family values.
According to your strange view of right-to-life, you think that the death penalty is a problem. The death penalty is a deterrent to those who would take the life of others. It's the right to life of the murdered person right-to-lifers care about. You might think that prison is a deterrent, but it hardly is today because prison life is too nice in the U.S.
Just wars (look up the term) are legitimate, too, because they involve taking lives in a circumscribed manner in order to reduce suffering, death, etc. otherwise occurring.
@xcopy
Regardless of whether smallvoice responds, your vitriolic questioning implies that knowledge that smallvoice doesn't do the things you ranted about. Maybe smallvoice does those things or something else you might think equally good. If not, one should also ask whether smallvoice should do so while the Government forces the funding of such programs already. Turnabout is fair play, too, so do you do those things you expected of smallvoice?
Regardless of whether smallvoice responds, your vitriolic questioning implies that knowledge that smallvoice doesn't do the things you ranted about. Maybe smallvoice does those things or something else you might think equally good. If not, one should also ask whether smallvoice should do so while the Government forces the funding of such programs already. Turnabout is fair play, too, so do you do those things you expected of smallvoice?
Vitriol? What vitriol ? I've only hinted at what I really think of you "pro life" nutjobs.
Besides, what does what I do matter? I'm not the one calling for a ban on stem cell research because I want a population increase. I'm not the one foisting false piety on everyone else. What, and who, I am is the one that is asking why you people (republicans, nutjuobs, religious fanatics, but I repeat myself) aren't doing everything they can for unfortunate children that are already born, not some mythical unborn soul. I actually know the answer.
You, on the other hand, with your false piety and 16th century untenable position, should be out there adopting, providing for, and sacrificing for all those children, those children that the anti-choice crowd profess to love so much. So where's your money pal. Want to put it where your mouth is, or like every other religious nut jobs do you just want to spout off?
I suggest that you, your family, and everyone that thinks the way you do, fore go any cures or benefits arising from SCR . Please refuse any and all benefits, both medically and economically, because SCR is morally "wrong". Please, when the time comes, I'd like you to suffer needlessly and succumb to your illness in a dark room where we don't have to hear you whine or complain. What I don't want to hear from you, or any in your gang, ever, is that you want to be treated. I want you to live your dream.
You're all a bunch of moronic hypocrites..
PS - Pentest hit the nail on the head.
These people need to go back to a fecal smelling, rat infested, plague incubating abbey of the 14th century where they belong! Christians need to suffer more, it makes them feel worthwhile!
As John Wayne once said " Life's tough, it's much tougher if your stupid"
Tolerance?
I think you deserve all the tolerance that you nutjobs have shown others in the last two decades; in other words... NONE.
You can continue to believe the world is flat for all I can but don't get in my way of progress please. Stay on the sideline and wail and cry and wave the bible if that completes you.
- by c|net Reader March 11, 2009 1:58 PM PDT
- Overall, I'm greatly impressed by this article. Ms Condon seems to have tried very hard to present a balanced view of the issues. The only thing missing, which I think is glaring by its omission, is the reason for the ban President Bush instituted. Many believe that life begins at conception which means that creating embryos from which to harvest stem cells is no different than killing a person to harvest organs. Thus, rather than force funds from taxpayers to use on something considered morally heinous, President Bush thought it better to leave embryonic stem cell research (on new embryos) to private investors. This is the same argument used to try to keep Federal funds from abortions.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(25 Comments)Whether you agree with that view, it is a valid view and the Government is better off not forcing taxpayers to fund such activities. If there is sufficient value in embryonic stem cell research above adult stem cell research, then private investors should be willing to front the money. The inefficiencies that approach imposes are lamentable, but that is far preferable to taking a person's money to fund what they consider murder.