1. Stem cell research is vital, not too keen on GM food though I don't mind when it's used for medical research etc.
2. Without doubt
3. Think the deciding vote should be by the experts.
4. Depends what you mean by loosen laws, think the rest of it comes down to common sense.
5. No the scientists should be free of red tape, labs have to be authorized by the government if they're manufacturing bio/chemical weapons.
Topic: Your opinion on GMO's & Stem Cell research. (Read 750 times)
First, what possible connection do you see between GMOs and stem cell research?
It's as if you asked for people's opinion on abortion & global warming (well, I guess they're both controversial and vaguely related to science
).
The very fact you would bring up both these subjects together shows how shallow the public debate on scientific issues can get.
As to your format:
1. Obviously, both the unrelated subjects you mentioned are very much acceptable. In fact, I really don't see why a reason is needed to find them acceptable; why don't you come up with a reason why they aren't acceptable and we'll see what we can do.
2. Please explain what "treatments" you're referring to. I'm sorry but this looks to me like another testament to the level of the public debate.
3. People already do vote how public money is allocated to scientific research. Well, obviously not "the people" in the broad sense. "People" can't make informed decisions about subjects they know nothing about. But panels of experts who work for the government and serve the public interest do, in fact, judge each grant request and decide which line of research is worthy of public funding. There are also panels of bioethics experts who decide whether biological research is ethical.
Note that for the sake of the discussion, I am purposefully avoiding the question of whether public funding is a good thing. As an anarcho-capitalist I think taxes are theft and governments shouldn't even exist. But I agree that as long as publicly-funded research does exist, the public has a right to regulate the research. And just like in any field, this should be done by experts, not laymen. Just as you wouldn't have a public referendum about which military project DARPA should fund, you wouldn't have one about which scientific projects the NIH should fund. This is what panels of experts are for.
4. Depends what you mean by "normal civilian board". If you mean people who are not scientists and therefore have no idea what they're regulating, the answer is obviously no. See the previous section.
5. Privately-funded labs should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone. This, of course, opens up the extremely difficult question of what it means to harm someone. It's easy to say they shouldn't manufacture chemical and biological weapons. But what about human cloning for example? Does that harm someone? Maybe the clone itself? There are no easy answers here.
It's as if you asked for people's opinion on abortion & global warming (well, I guess they're both controversial and vaguely related to science
).The very fact you would bring up both these subjects together shows how shallow the public debate on scientific issues can get.
As to your format:
1. Obviously, both the unrelated subjects you mentioned are very much acceptable. In fact, I really don't see why a reason is needed to find them acceptable; why don't you come up with a reason why they aren't acceptable and we'll see what we can do.
2. Please explain what "treatments" you're referring to. I'm sorry but this looks to me like another testament to the level of the public debate.
3. People already do vote how public money is allocated to scientific research. Well, obviously not "the people" in the broad sense. "People" can't make informed decisions about subjects they know nothing about. But panels of experts who work for the government and serve the public interest do, in fact, judge each grant request and decide which line of research is worthy of public funding. There are also panels of bioethics experts who decide whether biological research is ethical.
Note that for the sake of the discussion, I am purposefully avoiding the question of whether public funding is a good thing. As an anarcho-capitalist I think taxes are theft and governments shouldn't even exist. But I agree that as long as publicly-funded research does exist, the public has a right to regulate the research. And just like in any field, this should be done by experts, not laymen. Just as you wouldn't have a public referendum about which military project DARPA should fund, you wouldn't have one about which scientific projects the NIH should fund. This is what panels of experts are for.
4. Depends what you mean by "normal civilian board". If you mean people who are not scientists and therefore have no idea what they're regulating, the answer is obviously no. See the previous section.
5. Privately-funded labs should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone. This, of course, opens up the extremely difficult question of what it means to harm someone. It's easy to say they shouldn't manufacture chemical and biological weapons. But what about human cloning for example? Does that harm someone? Maybe the clone itself? There are no easy answers here.
2: Would you use these treatments if it was your last resort.
3: Should the people be able to vote what our scientist research and develop, Since a large chunk of government backed programs come from our tax dollar's.
2. It is my understanding that there are treatments possible because of stem cell research, the treatments are not stem cell research themselves. I think it would be stupid to decline a necessary medical treatment simply because a treatment was made possible because of stem cell research. 3: Should the people be able to vote what our scientist research and develop, Since a large chunk of government backed programs come from our tax dollar's.
3. No people should not be able to vote about this. Scientists can do whatever research they want as long as they use their own money. When government money is involved this should not be put to individual votes, however the kinds of research that taxpayer money goes to should be part of overall public policy.
There are two different things here. I'm all in favor of research, but massive use of GMO is dangerous to me. It's spreading all over nature stuff which wasn't designed by it, so we don't know how it's going to react.
1. Not only acceptable, should be a priority.
2. Yes.
3. No. Science is not a democracy. People are too stupid to understand. Public finance is better because patents...
4. Science is auto regulated when it comes to ethics, any other common law also applies to scientific research.
5. Better patent/trademark/copyright laws.
2. Yes.
3. No. Science is not a democracy. People are too stupid to understand. Public finance is better because patents...
4. Science is auto regulated when it comes to ethics, any other common law also applies to scientific research.
5. Better patent/trademark/copyright laws.
Format layout:
1: Reason you feel this is or isn't acceptable.
2: Would you use these treatments if it was your last resort.
3: Should the people be able to vote what our scientist research and develop, Since a large chunk of government backed programs come from our tax dollar's.
4: Should we be able to have a word and place laws or loosen laws on research and development and have a normal civilian board to keep track of it.
Update: Would have scientific backgrounds.
5: Do we need stricter laws on private labs or should be loosen the grip as long as they are not making anything for chemical warfare.
Please keep this civil.
1: Reason you feel this is or isn't acceptable.
2: Would you use these treatments if it was your last resort.
3: Should the people be able to vote what our scientist research and develop, Since a large chunk of government backed programs come from our tax dollar's.
4: Should we be able to have a word and place laws or loosen laws on research and development and have a normal civilian board to keep track of it.
Update: Would have scientific backgrounds.
5: Do we need stricter laws on private labs or should be loosen the grip as long as they are not making anything for chemical warfare.
Please keep this civil.
Jump to: