One piece of biographical information about Elizabeth Blackburn was left out -- her brave role in exposing the charade of George W. Bush's "President's Council on Bioethics."
From Nick Anthis, at the Scientific Activist.
From 2001 to 2004 [Blackburn] served as one of only three full-time biomedical researchers on the 17-to-18-member council. In 2004, she was fired from the council, along with another member who disagreed with the administration's position on some of the relevant issues.
Blackburn spoke out about the Council of Bioethics, demonstrating that despite its written mission to be a body that monitors research developments and recommends appropriate guidelines, it was really just a tool for parroting the Bush Administration's positions on certain hot-button issues -- particularly embryonic stem cell research. Thus, Blackburn played a central and important role in revealing the extent of the political interference in science that pervaded the Bush Administration.
After her firing, Blackburn published a strongly worded account of her experiences in the New England Journal of Medicine. Her closing paragraph definitely deserves a prize:
When prominent scientists must fear that descriptions of their research will be misrepresented and misused by their government to advance political ends, something is deeply wrong. Leading scientists are routinely called on to volunteer their expertise to the government, through study sections of the National Institutes of Health and advisory panels of the National Academy of Sciences and as advisers to departments ranging from health and human services to defense. It has been the unspoken attitude of the scientific community that it is our duty to serve our government in this manner, independent of our personal political affiliations and those of the administration in effect at the time. But something has changed. The healthy skepticism of scientists has turned to cynicism. There is a growing sense that scientific research -- which, after all, is defined by the quest for truth -- is being manipulated for political ends. There is evidence that such manipulation is being achieved through the stacking of the membership of advisory bodies and through the delay and misrepresentation of their reports. As a naturalized citizen of the United States, I have an immigrant's love for my country. But our country must not fail us. Scientific advice should and must be protected from the influence of politics. Will the President's Council on Bioethics be up to that challenge?
I keep meaning to put a bunch of the "best of" DVDs in my Netflix queue. How Stuff Works did an awesome podcast about the Muppet Show. It's a must-listen!
"They stab it with their steely knives/but they just can't kill the beast." Unless I'm mishearing those lyrics from Hotel California (always a strong possibility), I'm pretty sure that's a clear reference to heroin.
I may be a stodgy grammarian ("could care less" really bugs me), but it's the philosophy major in me that can't stand the common usage of "begs the question."
Didn't know about "spit and image"... I like drawling "spirit and image" as the explanation, though.
that said... Betty rules!
Sorry, I'm a lit geek.
If this image can't get through to the hearts and thus minds of this site's commentors... sigh, we're lost.
From Nick Anthis, at the Scientific Activist.
From 2001 to 2004 [Blackburn] served as one of only three full-time biomedical researchers on the 17-to-18-member council. In 2004, she was fired from the council, along with another member who disagreed with the administration's position on some of the relevant issues.
Blackburn spoke out about the Council of Bioethics, demonstrating that despite its written mission to be a body that monitors research developments and recommends appropriate guidelines, it was really just a tool for parroting the Bush Administration's positions on certain hot-button issues -- particularly embryonic stem cell research. Thus, Blackburn played a central and important role in revealing the extent of the political interference in science that pervaded the Bush Administration.
After her firing, Blackburn published a strongly worded account of her experiences in the New England Journal of Medicine. Her closing paragraph definitely deserves a prize:
When prominent scientists must fear that descriptions of their research will be misrepresented and misused by their government to advance political ends, something is deeply wrong. Leading scientists are routinely called on to volunteer their expertise to the government, through study sections of the National Institutes of Health and advisory panels of the National Academy of Sciences and as advisers to departments ranging from health and human services to defense. It has been the unspoken attitude of the scientific community that it is our duty to serve our government in this manner, independent of our personal political affiliations and those of the administration in effect at the time. But something has changed. The healthy skepticism of scientists has turned to cynicism. There is a growing sense that scientific research -- which, after all, is defined by the quest for truth -- is being manipulated for political ends. There is evidence that such manipulation is being achieved through the stacking of the membership of advisory bodies and through the delay and misrepresentation of their reports. As a naturalized citizen of the United States, I have an immigrant's love for my country. But our country must not fail us. Scientific advice should and must be protected from the influence of politics. Will the President's Council on Bioethics be up to that challenge?
-- http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/10/05/nobel_prize_for_bush_critic/index.html
No "Mr Brownstone" by GnR?
Didn't know about "spit and image"... I like drawling "spirit and image" as the explanation, though.