What is Digg?43 Comments
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35The paper has been peer reviewed but the actual procedure probably hasn't been reproduced by other scientists. Dr Woo Hwang Suk's infamous cloning research passed peer review several times and was even published in "Science" and yet it has since been proved to be fake. Since the study was only announced yesterday, it seems reasonable that further inquiry is needed before anyone can be sure that its ethical and scientific claims are true. Isn't that proper scientific scepticism or are you supposed to believe anybody's claims because you want them to be true? This is why science and politics shouldn't mix. I hope the technique is as good as they say it is but more scrutiny is not only needed, it is inevitable given that this is, you know, science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo-Suk_Hwang - sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -20/+44Bush thinks it needs rigorous review by the religious right. Truthiness tends to trump science in this white house
- politech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Anyone who imagined that the administration would suddenly change it's policy based on a single study has to be living in a fantasy world. That said, once the procedure has been validated, and the results duplicated, the policy should definitely be subject to adjustment at the very least.
The biggest issue I have with this debate is that the politics of BOTH sides of the argument are equally guilty of suppressing science. The religious right for suppressing Fetal Stem cell research in general, and the pro-choice left using fetal stem-cell research as a political bludgeon while ignoring all of the other arenas of stem cell research and the many successes resulting from those research projects. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18And you're as biased as they are...
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I would just like to point out the case of Jan Hendrik Schön.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n
And point out that not everything you read in magizines are true...even if they are peer reviewed.... - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Also add the list Victor Ninov, who claimed to have discovered element 116 and 118. http://sanacacio.net/118_saga/story.html
"A paper announcing the result was published in Physical Review Letters, the most prestigious journal in the field, and heralded in news reports throughout the world."
Later, it was determined that the evidence and discovery was a fabrication.
(Note, i'm not anti-Science. My major and my minors are all in the math and science fields. I'm just pointing out that it is reasonable to have more scientists double-check papers submitted to prestigious journals) - adam84a, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12well, I'm "religious", and conservative, and I didn't mark it inaccurate
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Peer review has never been scientifically proven as a way to determine the quality of research.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I don't get why some act as if science is separate and completely unrelated to the politics of humans. Science is about everything. Humans are included, therefore, human politics are a part of the science equation. Anyone involved in any kind of peer reviewing system will acknowledge the un-removeable element of politics as a part of the scientific process.
- Skywise, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9From MSNBC.COM ... Stem Cell 'breakthrough' more hype than hope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14502237/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I just want to know why everyone is still having a fit over embryonic stem cells when ALL the recent and REAL advances have been made with adult stem cells. Even with as many stem cell lines as are available around the globe, there has still yet to be even one (that I know of...correct me if I'm wrong) major advancement come from embryonic stem cell research. In contrast, adult stem cells have been used to treat paralysis and bladder disorders, amongst other things.
So, why all the fuss? Has it gotten to the point where science just wants to give the middle finger to religion? Why not put the money into research that has SHOWN positive and beneficial results...and doesn't cause conniption fits in certain groups? - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8After the recent history of unethical behavior from scientists concerning stem cell research, I don't blame President Bush at all for questioning their motives a little bit. Anyone want to buy a South Korean cloned dog?
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11continuing w/ helix's unrelated reply- i won't mark malkin's garbage as spam, but i will give it the "lame" or "duplicate" bury. the real problem w/ malkin/lgf/hotair is that one of them posts a story, and then the other blogs link to it, and then those get posted. so it becomes the same bs getting submitted multiple times.
i completely agree w/ you on the point of people who only digg/submit stories from 1 or 2 blogs/sources. doesn't matter what side of the aisle their beliefs lie on, it's a shame when people refuse to have an open mind and expose themselves to new information/viewpoints - JamieBarrows, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I can guarantee that the "religious right" would be all for this new system. They aren't against stem cells, they are against killing fetuses. So a technique that harvests stem cells without killing the fetus is something they would support. They currently support stem cell research using adult stem cells.
I can also guarantee that no change of policy based on this is going to come out of the WH without confirming this research. So I don't see why this is so surprising. Since Bush really believes that killing fetuses is wrong, and really believes in his current policy, it would be irresponsible to switch his policy without confirming the research and techniques used. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Pretty much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7What the hell is a bioethicist? Is it like a priest in a lab coat?
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"their base are uneducated, slack-jawed, cram Jesus down your throat with a mountain dew crowd of people. These are 4 member households living on two minimum wage jobs if they are lucky."
How can republicans be for the rich people then? - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@texpundit,
I tried arguing that as well. But after researching, I saw most reputable scientists and organizations exclaim statements similar to this:
Embryonic stem cell research is "thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells," according to the National Institutes of Health. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Sources )
So in a nutshell, adult stem cell research is paying off now. Embryonic stem cell research can pay off better in the future. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4From a Nature editorial on peer-review
“However, the final conclusion of that study is not that peer review is useless, but that better data is needed to verify that peer review is ‘doing its job’.” - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@helix400
"So in a nutshell, adult stem cell research is paying off now. Embryonic stem cell research can pay off better in the future."
They *think* it will pay off better in the future.
I don't mind them experimenting and gaining funding for it...but I still think the majority of the money needs to go where real results are happening *now*.
Also, what about birth cord blood stem cells? Why don't we hear hardly anything about that? - ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -21/+24Here's Bush in a nutshell:
"I want it to be this way, so it's now true."
No regard for law, science or anything else outside of his own agenda. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11On an unrelated note...
I wonder if people consider this blog spam. They have a "Digg This" link just like many others, and it seems some people do nothing but digg or submit ThinkProgress stories (for example, http://www.digg.com/users/jlegum/submitted ). So to those of you who mark as "Spam" anyhing from michellemalkin.com, littlegreenfootballs.com, lewrockwell.com or hotair.com, is this blog spam as well?
Personally, I think it's fine. They're following the rules and Diggers want it. Nobody is abusing the system here. So let them see the stories they want. I'm not going to abuse the system by burying it from the upcoming stories list. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's always a tradeoff between researching for the future and funding what works now. For example, do we fund coal power plants now or do we research fusion reactors? Do we stick with current materials or do we research carbon nanotubes? Do we fund hydrogen fuel cell research or do we just stick with oil based fuels?
Of course, we do both. It sounds like you want to fund mostly what works now. I prefer to invest more in the future than yourself.
"Also, what about birth cord blood stem cells? Why don't we hear hardly anything about that?"
Why don't you do some reasearch yourself instead of spouting off questions and demanding other people supply you with answers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6coming from a person who latches on to every word fad comedy central regurgitates?
- hsjk1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just because it has been its been reviewed by peers does not mean it is correct. It still must be rigorously tested. Any real scientist, regardless of political leaning or religious ties, will tell you that.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6So its not ok when Bush picks out HIS scientists to review something, but its completely acceptable for someone else to do the exact same thing?
- LacY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@texpundit-- "all" findings have been with adult stem cells (which is not the case) because that's where the primary funding is. With no gov't money (by far the largest grant funding agency) going to study/found new embryonic stem cell lines, people are using adult stem cells when they'd rather use embryonic stem cell lines.
No one is saying adult stem cells have no use, but embryonic stem cells have lots going for them over adult stem cells. For one, adult stem cells don't have the ability to become ANY cell--they are already partially differentiated. Which means if you want to generate neurons for paralysis patients, you have to find healthy precursor cells, rather than just find a way to make E-stem cells differentiate into neuronal cells. More importantly, adult stem cells have had the opportunity to incur mutations. In general, embryonic stem cells are more malleable, more healthy, and less likely to generate an immune response in transplants.
For some diseases and disorders, adult stem cells seem to work okay. But it won't be the case for all of them. So limiting science based on quasi-religious opinion is a step backwards. Scientists (at least the one's I'm acquainted with) aren't trying to give anyone the middle finger--they just don't want to work with second rate reagents when the best ones are also available. I'd think anyone getting treated for a disease would feel the same way... - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Don't worry Tuba, these right wing rants will all be modded down by morning...
- Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How can this thread be complete without mention of the Sokal Affair?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair - nellre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any comments critical of peer review have come from those who know nothing about science.
I get my scientific information from folks who've spend decades getting an education in their specialty not from politicians. - chase001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The Republican war on science continues (since they love calling everything a war).
- cabinboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It doesn't matter anyway since the embryos from which we get stem cells come from non successful "in vitro fertilization" and are thrown away, whether this experiment works or not.
- culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Won't somebody PLEASE think of the... what? No embryos have to die? None? Umm... Aahh.... well life begins at... my head hurts...
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Wow....where did all the liberals go?
- jamie939, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I find it amazing that people are shocked by revelations of this sort coming from the WH. They are not interested in science, or progress, or anything else that smacks of "college learnin" because their base are uneducated, slack-jawed, cram Jesus down your throat with a mountain dew crowd of people. These are 4 member households living on two minimum wage jobs if they are lucky. All it takes in leadership from the WH is to a little teary eyed "love merica" flag waving or denunciation of smart ass "college learned" people....NEWSFLASH....QUIT GETTING INDIGNANT ABOUT IT CAUSE IT AIN'T GONNA CHANGE UNTIL THEY ARE GONE....PERIOD.
- joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3does anyone else get the feeling that the powers that be don't want people to be healthy and live forever... perhaps due to overpopulation concerns.
sure, there's nothing to say that this is the case, but this is always the feeling I get whenever I hear about things like this. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14once again we see the arrogance of this administration in thinking that just because they say something (true or not), people will believe it.
awesome, simply awesome. truthiness reigns! - mikemac, on 10/12/2007, -17/+11Actually, it's more like:
Bush: "I'm tired of these liberal scientists saying my Intelligent Design stuff isn't science because it isn't 'peer-reviewed'. I think I'll call one of their important discoveries non-scientific for the same reason to get back at them. Because the White House is the center of all information, no one will question me." - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I bet those terrorist scientists were going to hack into Bush's computer with their PSPs, thats why he's so against them.
- willibro, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11Just not reviewed by the RIGHT (in more ways than one) scientists.
- Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -23/+13If this makes front page, I GUARANTEE it will get marked inaccurate. The religious right doesn't like facts getting in the way of their viewpoints.
- yuda99, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Hey look... there's a terrorist in the laboratory!
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2Gah, I meant to post the above as a new thread at the bottom...sorry for replying to an unrelated comment. :(
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is