Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) His actual speech was scientific bunk. It was disingenuous to a fault and perhaps gave false hope to thousands of families across the country with its suggestion that a cure was imminent, when the truth is that there is nothing of the sort.
|
I didn't hear the whole speech. Did he really frame it that way? I thought I heard part of it as alleging that cures to some diseases could be achieved within a decade (which scientists feel is an ambitious assessment but not an incredulous one).
Quote:
|
2) The speech completely ignored the heart of the issue - namely, should the federal government be funding the harvesting of stem cells by destroying embryos? No one has a problem with funding research on existing cell lines. He never articulated the actual issue at hand.
|
I thought the issue was that by refusing federal funding, it effectively shuts down scientific research in the area, because basic research is systemically dependent upon the presence of such funding, at least in part. My understanding was that if there's no federal involvement, it just doesn't happen. This ain't NPR, where you can easily cover the problem by selling more bookbags and coffee cups.
Quote:
|
3) Why does ANYONE ever feel the need to say "this is not a partisan speech" when you know that everything that follows will be partisan.
|
Concur.
