Junk Science and Quack Medicine

[Colonel Sun]

[Colonel Sun]

WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Aug 10 Washington, DC

1. STEM CELLS: BESTOWING PERSONHOOD ON THE ZYGOTE?
On Monday federal judge Royce Lamberth, appointed to the federal bench by
Ronald Reagan, blocked the use of federal funds for research using
embryonic stem cells on the grounds that extracting the cells kills human
embryos. It is of course true that, for good or ill, every embryo has the
potential to become a totally unique human being. The same is true of
every zygote created by the fusion of gametes in an in-vitro fertilization
Petri dish. One or more of the resulting embryos will be transferred to the
patient's uterus a few days later. There will typically be many embryos
left over. They are stored cryogenically in case a second transfer is
necessary. By 2008 about 500,000 frozen embryos had accumulated in
cryogenic facilities around the United States. That would be closer to 1
million by now, all of which retain the potential to become unique human
beings. Does Judge Lamberth’s decision mean that society must now assume
responsibility for the continued viability of this growing population of
potential people?

2. MISCONDUCT: GRADUATE STUDENTS EMERGE AS THE HEROES.
Renowned Harvard psychology professor Marc Hauser, author of "Moral Minds:
How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong" (Ecco, 2006),
wrote that "Our moral instincts are immune to the explicitly articulated
Commandments handed down by religions and governments." I agree with his
conclusion, and so indeed did the two Catholic seminary teachers I wrote
about in "Superstition: Belief in the age of science," (Princeton, 2008),
except that Hauser and I believe it to be an instinct shaped by evolution,
while the two priests said it was "written in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit." Details. It is often referred to by the faithful as "the moral
law." Hauser thought other primates must exhibit similar instincts, but
fudged his experiments with New World monkeys to show it. It was his own
students, who protested, first to Hauser and then to the Dean, that the
experiments showed just the oppo on a site. As Eric Felten wrote in this
morning's Wall Street Journal, they "risked their careers and reputations
to blow the whistle on him. They are the scientists to celebrate."

3. CONSERVAPEDIA: MORE ON DEUTSCHE PHYSIK AND PHILIPPE LENARD.
Two weeks ago WN commented on the conservative hatred of the theory of
relativity and of Albert Einstein. A week ago I added comments from Don
Langenberg about Philip Lenard and Johannes Stark, and also about the
beginning of Deutsche Physik. During the week I learned more about Lenard
from Cornelius Noack, professor of physics at the University of Bremen.
Noack did his thesis at the University of Heidelberg with J.H. Jensen
(Nobel prize 1963). Jensen was a replacement for Lenard who was fired by
the Allies at the end of World War II. Jensen found himself in possession
of Lenard’s personal library. Noack read Lenard’s hand-written margin
notes on Einstein's 1905 article in Z. fur Physik. The margin notes, Noack
writes, are full of hatred, distrust and misunderstanding. Lenard, who won
the prize in 1905 for his work in cathode rays, had found that it always
takes a set minimum of energy for an electromagnetic ray to ionize atoms,
although he never understood why. He felt that Einstein had "stolen" the
Nobel Prize. Noack suggests that Lenard should be recognized for showing
that cell phones aren’t dangerous.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.

[Tinker]

The Embryonic fetishism is certainly disturbing.

[Colonel Sun]

[Colonel Sun]

[Colonel Sun]

[Colonel Sun]

[url]We are all familiar with the idea of a ghostwriter, someone who writes behind the scenes, helping someone tell their story. It might be a sports or media celebrity who doesn't have the literary skills to tell their story well, and so they enlist the help of a professional. Often the real author is not acknowledged, and that's part of the deal. They've just helped tell the story and it wasn't their story.

But what happens when medical papers are ghostwritten. Is that the same thing, simply telling someone else's story? What happens when a professional writer is used to write a medical or scientific paper on behalf of the researchers? What if someone else was then asked or even paid to put their name on it as the author? And what if the named author wasn't involved in doing the actual research themselves? Should we be concerned, or is this just another case of a professional helping out someone who doesn't possess the literary skills needed to make a convincing case?[/url]

[Colonel Sun]

[Tinker]

[Colonel Sun]

[Colonel Sun]

[Marcus]

[Tinker]

I tend to be a fan of the rational AND empirical myself.

[~]

“Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

[Rhapsody]

[Colonel Sun]

[Colonel Sun]

[~]

[Marcus]

[Colonel Sun]

[Marcus]

[~]

[Colonel Sun]

[Tinker]

[Marcus]