Comments on: So much for “restoring scientific integrity” http://asoftanswer.com/2009/03/13/so-much-for-restoring-scientific-integrity/ an unseemly mix of politics and Mormonism Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:25:07 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Larry http://asoftanswer.com/2009/03/13/so-much-for-restoring-scientific-integrity/comment-page-1/#comment-6548 Larry Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:19:33 +0000 http://www.asoftanswer.com/?p=2876#comment-6548 Krauthammer has been wrong so many times on so many subjects, it's a wonder anyone pays any attention to him anymore. I agree with the previous post: Obama is taking a position more in line with prevailing scientific findings. Apparently, he is not so bad on moral findings, either. Just ask Orrin Hatch. Krauthammer has been wrong so many times on so many subjects, it’s a wonder anyone pays any attention to him anymore. I agree with the previous post: Obama is taking a position more in line with prevailing scientific findings. Apparently, he is not so bad on moral findings, either. Just ask Orrin Hatch.

]]> By: David B http://asoftanswer.com/2009/03/13/so-much-for-restoring-scientific-integrity/comment-page-1/#comment-6520 David B Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:51:57 +0000 http://www.asoftanswer.com/?p=2876#comment-6520 I'll agree that Bush's speech on stem cell research was thoughtful. (Surprised? Don't be--i'm willing to give credit where it's due.) What it *wasn't*, though, was consonant with prevailing scientific findings. This is what most people mean by "restoring scientific integrity", i'd argue--being willing to go where science leads, rather than try to bend science to existing dogma (as the Bush administration was amazingly wont to do--the control over NIH grants alone was really astonishingly baldfaced). And yeah, science can be wrong. It's marvelously self-correcting, though--which is why it should be given a bit of freedom to decide whether method X is a good way to go, or whether method Z is in fact better. I’ll agree that Bush’s speech on stem cell research was thoughtful. (Surprised? Don’t be–i’m willing to give credit where it’s due.) What it *wasn’t*, though, was consonant with prevailing scientific findings.

This is what most people mean by “restoring scientific integrity”, i’d argue–being willing to go where science leads, rather than try to bend science to existing dogma (as the Bush administration was amazingly wont to do–the control over NIH grants alone was really astonishingly baldfaced).

And yeah, science can be wrong. It’s marvelously self-correcting, though–which is why it should be given a bit of freedom to decide whether method X is a good way to go, or whether method Z is in fact better.

]]> By: Dan http://asoftanswer.com/2009/03/13/so-much-for-restoring-scientific-integrity/comment-page-1/#comment-6514 Dan Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:49:32 +0000 http://www.asoftanswer.com/?p=2876#comment-6514 Krauthammer? Really? You look to a guy like him for a lesson on integrity? Krauthammer? Really? You look to a guy like him for a lesson on integrity?

]]>