Comments on: Reckless Science Leads to Rash Conclusions in Stem Cell Tragedy http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:44:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andrew http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-5705 Andrew Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:57:05 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-5705 As to Bob's "audience": In a play, even the audience is part of the production. We are let in on certain aspects of what is happening, however much study we have in the matter, or lack thereof. The audience is a mix of perspectives formed around a consensus, an acceptance that not everything is as it seems, that an illusion is taking place before their eyes, and that some truth is hidden within. Some fact, additionally, in the case of the media. The media has left something out: accuracy for the sake of attendance. Their production is based on factual events, and their stage is supposed to be set with that which represents those facts. Instead they give us a true, yet gaudy, fiction, one loaded with spectacle, devoid of any meaningful, believable, plot, scant on characterization through the diversity of human experience, and brings so much attention to itself as to be not merely a running parody, but an unfailing irony. That the media, in all its information bloated glory, in which we learn about our everyday world, in fact tells us nothing about it. It's the romance novel that was written once, and ever again. Pick up one, you've picked 'em all up. Watch the news one day, and save a breaking story, or brand new scientific discovery, you've just watched every broadcast ever aired. Of course I'm over-generalizing. There are significant moments that the news brings us, up front, and as raw as you can get through a screen. But, besides momentous occasions, what do they offer us? Not education. Not even a good story. As to Bob’s “audience”:
In a play, even the audience is part of the production. We are let in on certain aspects of what is happening, however much study we have in the matter, or lack thereof. The audience is a mix of perspectives formed around a consensus, an acceptance that not everything is as it seems, that an illusion is taking place before their eyes, and that some truth is hidden within. Some fact, additionally, in the case of the media. The media has left something out: accuracy for the sake of attendance. Their production is based on factual events, and their stage is supposed to be set with that which represents those facts. Instead they give us a true, yet gaudy, fiction, one loaded with spectacle, devoid of any meaningful, believable, plot, scant on characterization through the diversity of human experience, and brings so much attention to itself as to be not merely a running parody, but an unfailing irony. That the media, in all its information bloated glory, in which we learn about our everyday world, in fact tells us nothing about it. It’s the romance novel that was written once, and ever again. Pick up one, you’ve picked ‘em all up. Watch the news one day, and save a breaking story, or brand new scientific discovery, you’ve just watched every broadcast ever aired. Of course I’m over-generalizing. There are significant moments that the news brings us, up front, and as raw as you can get through a screen. But, besides momentous occasions, what do they offer us? Not education. Not even a good story.

]]> By: Mr. Gunn http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-4405 Mr. Gunn Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:27:04 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-4405 Bob, that's exactly the point. There's been many discussions about this among the science blogging crowd, in terms of how we can help properly disseminate information, but we kinda have our problem cut out for us in the sensationalism and lack of understanding and context that plagues most mainstream media accounts of research. Compounding this is the lack of general scientific literacy among the general population due to years of neglect and underfunding of schools. Bob, that’s exactly the point. There’s been many discussions about this among the science blogging crowd, in terms of how we can help properly disseminate information, but we kinda have our problem cut out for us in the sensationalism and lack of understanding and context that plagues most mainstream media accounts of research. Compounding this is the lack of general scientific literacy among the general population due to years of neglect and underfunding of schools.

]]> By: Bob Tannenbaum http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-4339 Bob Tannenbaum Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:21:26 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-4339 here is the essential problem: how do we teach anything so that the "audience" understands clearly what is being taught? you do it in such a way that no misunderstandings can take place. that is, you go into the mind of the audience, ferret out where the mistakes and misunderstandings occur, and fix the lesson or essay, or speech so that the audience can not misunderstand what you are talking about. in this case, the news was given with no regard to the total picture, and to going back to basic scientific method which does work on both trial and error and probability theory. doctors practice on patients. it is called a practice for a reason. doctors have always used trial and error. just watch the tv show, house. here is the essential problem: how do we teach anything so that the “audience” understands clearly what is being taught?
you do it in such a way that no misunderstandings can take place. that is, you go into the mind of the audience, ferret out where the mistakes and misunderstandings occur, and fix the lesson or essay, or speech so that the audience can not misunderstand what you are talking about.
in this case, the news was given with no regard to the total picture, and to going back to basic scientific method which does work on both trial and error and probability theory. doctors practice on patients. it is called a practice for a reason. doctors have always used trial and error. just watch the tv show, house.

]]> By: tmac57 http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-4138 tmac57 Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:14:27 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-4138 Sonic: No problem. Glad you took the time to review. Cheers! Sonic: No problem. Glad you took the time to review. Cheers!

]]> By: sonic http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-4136 sonic Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:10:28 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-4136 tmac57, On review I would say you are correct, there is nothing in the article that states that stem cells will ever 'cure' anything or will ever be part of a useful therapy. Sorry for the misreading. tmac57,
On review I would say you are correct, there is nothing in the article that states that stem cells will ever ‘cure’ anything or will ever be part of a useful therapy. Sorry for the misreading.

]]> By: tmac57 http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-4130 tmac57 Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:54:22 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-4130 Sonic:"I’m not sure that the use of fetal stem cells will give us any ‘cures’ to anything. I believe this is called ‘begging the question’ in logic, true?" And I believe that your argument is a 'straw man', Sonic. Sonic:”I’m not sure that the use of fetal stem cells will give us any ‘cures’ to anything.
I believe this is called ‘begging the question’ in logic, true?”
And I believe that your argument is a ‘straw man’, Sonic.

]]> By: sonic http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-4125 sonic Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:55:05 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-4125 I'm not sure that the use of fetal stem cells will give us any 'cures' to anything. I believe this is called 'begging the question' in logic, true? I’m not sure that the use of fetal stem cells will give us any ‘cures’ to anything.
I believe this is called ‘begging the question’ in logic, true?

]]> By: Max http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-4114 Max Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:37:00 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-4114 Here's a clue from 2005: "Stem-Cell Craze Spreads in Russia" http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/03/66904 "While scientists worldwide are only studying stem cells, dozens of Russian clinics and beauty salons claim they are already using both adult and embryonic stem cells to treat everything from wrinkles to Parkinson's disease to impotence. Scientists warn that while stem cells are still being researched in laboratories, treatment by clinics claiming to use stem cells may cost patients their health and fortunes. Moreover, they say, even though it's illegal, enforcement is lax and no one knows if the injections patients are getting contain stem cells." Read the whole thing. Here’s a clue from 2005:
“Stem-Cell Craze Spreads in Russia”
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/03/66904

“While scientists worldwide are only studying stem cells, dozens of Russian clinics and beauty salons claim they are already using both adult and embryonic stem cells to treat everything from wrinkles to Parkinson’s disease to impotence.
Scientists warn that while stem cells are still being researched in laboratories, treatment by clinics claiming to use stem cells may cost patients their health and fortunes. Moreover, they say, even though it’s illegal, enforcement is lax and no one knows if the injections patients are getting contain stem cells.”

Read the whole thing.

]]> By: Devil's Advocate http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-4106 Devil's Advocate Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:34:28 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-4106 Overarching the article and the subject of stem cell research is this gem of a quote, from Cambias, with which I wholeheartedly agree: "Politicization of science means bad science, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on." Replace the word 'science' with 'skepticism' and it works equally well. I'm old enough to have changed Darwin's diapers, but I don't recall a time when so many important scientific questions were so thoroughly politicized. This is because either the politicization of science is at an all-time high or there's a problem with my memory. Overarching the article and the subject of stem cell research is this gem of a quote, from Cambias, with which I wholeheartedly agree:

“Politicization of science means bad science, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on.”

Replace the word ‘science’ with ‘skepticism’ and it works equally well.

I’m old enough to have changed Darwin’s diapers, but I don’t recall a time when so many important scientific questions were so thoroughly politicized. This is because either the politicization of science is at an all-time high or there’s a problem with my memory.

]]> By: Cambias http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/27/reckless-science-leads-to-rash-conclusions-in-stem-cell-tragedy/#comment-4104 Cambias Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:56:36 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1453#comment-4104 MadScientist: You're making the assumption that everyone falls neatly into the categories of "capable of correct reasoning" = supports stem cell research, and "incapable of proper reasoning" = believes religious nonsense. But what about the people who can reason properly yet still have religious (or even non-religious) ethical qualms about the use of fetal cells? Or the people whose opinions are not yet formed? Or people who are easily swayed by emotional appeals yet currently support stem cell research? A case like this makes a very powerful, visceral, under-the-reasoning-radar argument: STEM CELLS = TUMORS = DEATH. And it may even be true. Do we want stem cell research to suffer the same irrational fears that bedevil nuclear power or GM crops? No? Then a very useful step would be to loudly and vigorously oppose this kind of careless, dangerous medical quackery. MadScientist:

You’re making the assumption that everyone falls neatly into the categories of “capable of correct reasoning” = supports stem cell research, and “incapable of proper reasoning” = believes religious nonsense.

But what about the people who can reason properly yet still have religious (or even non-religious) ethical qualms about the use of fetal cells? Or the people whose opinions are not yet formed? Or people who are easily swayed by emotional appeals yet currently support stem cell research?

A case like this makes a very powerful, visceral, under-the-reasoning-radar argument: STEM CELLS = TUMORS = DEATH. And it may even be true.

Do we want stem cell research to suffer the same irrational fears that bedevil nuclear power or GM crops? No? Then a very useful step would be to loudly and vigorously oppose this kind of careless, dangerous medical quackery.

]]>