ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, April 23, 2018

Beyond irreproducibility

As I observed in my most recent Voxiversity, Why the West Needs Christianity, the most serious challenge now facing science is the historical decline in the percentage of scientists who are Christians, and the concomitant decline in the personal and professional ethics of scientists that has inevitably resulted from this demographic change. And this lack of ethics is having a profoundly negative effect on science, including some unanticipated consequences.  In his book Who We Are and How We Got Here, David Reich laments the decreasing willingness of American Indian tribes to permit their DNA to be studied by genetic scientists as a result of bad behavior and broken promises by previous scientists.
Modern genomics offers an unexpected way to recover the past. African Americans—another population that has had its history stolen as its ancestors descend from people kidnapped into slavery from Africa—are at the forefront of trying to use genetics to trace roots. But if individual Native Americans often express a great interest in their genetic history, tribal councils have sometimes been hostile. A common concern is that genetic studies of Native American history are yet another example of Europeans trying to “enlighten” them. Past attempts to do so—for example, by conversion to Christianity or education in Western culture—have led to the dissolution of Native American culture. There is also an awareness that some scientists have studied Native Americans to learn about questions of interest primarily to non–Native Americans, without paying attention to the interests of Native Americans themselves.

One of the first strong responses to genetic studies of Native Americans came from the Karitiana of Amazonia. In 1996, physicians collected blood from the Karitiana, promising participants improved access to health care, which never came. Distressed by this experience, the Karitiana were at the forefront of objections to the inclusion of their samples in an international study of human genetic diversity—the Human Genome Diversity Project—and were instrumental in preventing that entire project from being funded. Ironically, DNA samples from the Karitiana have been used more than those of any other single Native American population in subsequent studies that have analyzed how Native Americans are related to other groups. The Karitiana DNA samples that have been widely studied are not from the disputed set from 1996. Instead, they are from a collection carried out in 1987 in which participants were informed about the goals of the study and told that their involvement was voluntary. However, the Karitiana people’s later experience of exploitation has put a cloud over DNA studies in this population.

Another strong response to genetic research on Native Americans came from the Havasupai, who live in the canyonlands of the U.S. Southwest. Blood from the Havasupai was sampled in 1989 by researchers at Arizona State University who were trying to understand the tribe’s high risk for type 2 diabetes. The participants gave written consent to participate in a “study [of] the causes of behavioral/medical disorders,” and the language of the consent forms gave the researchers latitude to take a very broad view of what the consent meant. The researchers then shared the samples with many other scientists who used them to study topics ranging from schizophrenia to the Havasupai’s prehistory. Representatives of the Havasupai argued that the samples were being used for a purpose different from the one to which its members understood they had agreed—that is, even if the fine print of the forms said one thing, it was clear to them when the samples were collected that the study was supposed to focus on diabetes. This dispute led to a lawsuit, the return of the samples, and an agreement by the university to pay $700,000 in compensation.

The hostility to genetic research has even entered into tribal law. In 2002, the Navajo—who along with many other Native American tribes are by treaty partly politically independent of the United States—passed a Moratorium on Genetic Research, forbidding participation of Navajo tribal members in genetic studies, whether of disease risk factors or population history. A summary of this moratorium can be found in a document prepared by the Navajo Nation, outlining points for university researchers to take into account when considering a research project. The document reads: “Human genome testing is strictly prohibited by the Tribe. Navajos were created by Changing Woman; therefore they know where they came from.”
However, David Reich manages to completely miss the point and fails to learn the obvious lesson of not lying to people and failing to deliver on one's promises.
Scientists interested in studying genetic variation in Native American populations feel frustrated with this situation. I understand something of the devastation that the coming of Europeans and Africans to the Americas wrought on Native American populations, and its effects are also evident everywhere in the data I and my colleagues analyze. But I am not aware of any cases in which research in molecular biology including genetics—a field that has arisen almost entirely since the end of the Second World War—has caused major harm to historically persecuted groups. Of course, there have been well-documented cases of the use of biological material in ways that may not have been appreciated by the people from whom it was taken, not just in Native Americans. For example, the cervical cancer tumor cells of Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman from Baltimore, were distributed after her death, without her consent and without the knowledge of her family, to thousands of laboratories around the world, where they have become a mainstay of cancer research.

But overall there is an argument to be made that modern studies of DNA variation—not just in Native Americans, but also in many other groups including the San of southern Africa, Jews, the Roma of Europe, and tribal or caste groups from South Asia—are a force for good, contributing to the understanding and treatment of disease in these populations, and breaking down fixed ideas of race that have been used to justify discrimination. I wonder if the distrust that has emerged among some Native Americans might be, in the balance, doing Native Americans substantial harm. I wonder whether as a geneticist I have a responsibility to do more than just respect the wishes of those who do not wish to participate in genetic research, but instead should make a respectful but strong case for the value of such research.
Yeah, attempting to justify ethical lapses and avoid the responsibility to obtain consent on the grounds that you're ultimately doing more good than harm isn't exactly convincing when the argument is being presented by a group of godless, amoral individuals who are already known to be corrupt, untrustworthy, and ethically challenged.

Labels: ,

62 Comments:

OpenID markstoval April 23, 2018 6:47 AM  

"... the argument is being presented by a group of godless, amoral individuals who are already known to be ethically challenged."

My first thought has always been, are they using this research to identify people? As they improve our knowledge of genetics, can that knowledge be used against us?

If it can be, it will be. The Tribes have good reason to be concerned

Blogger Sherwood family April 23, 2018 6:48 AM  

There are no "scientific ethics."

There are only the ethics of scientists in a given civilization which are going to look a whole lot different depending on the civilization.

Does anyone honestly think that the scientists of Unit 731 during WWII thought carefully about their responsibility as scientists? No. They thought about their duty as loyal subjects of the Emperor to bring about the East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. How about the scientific ethics of Trofim Lysenko? Nope...trying to save his skin by conforming to required dogma of his civilization.

So...why should we expect scientists to transcend that standard unless they have a reason? A commitment to truth doesn't mean much if you believe everything is subjective and relative because of the Postmodernist worldview and dogma of the society in which you live?

Absent a more compelling commitment to truth, i.e. Christian belief, there is no reason to fall on your sword when it comes to climate change, human biodiversity, transgenderism, etc.

And we see exactly what we would expect to see: people going with the flow because that is where the dollars are and doing otherwise is a good way to ruin your career.

Blogger S'mon April 23, 2018 6:49 AM  

I would think honesty plus substantial sums of money would be the best policy. The data is valuable; they can pay the tribal councils for the right to collect it from volunteers. The tribes will take a more favourable view of genetic testing if they are getting cash up front.

Blogger Dire Badger April 23, 2018 6:59 AM  

Doctor Frankenstein was supposed to be a cautionary figure, not an ideological Ideal.

But, at least Franky SUCCEEDED.

Blogger wreckage April 23, 2018 6:59 AM  

"good has no definition, except inasmuch as it is whatever I am doing. Trust me. Trust me."

Blogger basementhomebrewer April 23, 2018 7:00 AM  

I understand something of the devastation that the coming of Europeans and Africans to the Americas wrought on Native American populations, and its effects are also evident everywhere in the data I and my colleagues analyze. But I am not aware of any cases in which research in molecular biology including genetics—a field that has arisen almost entirely since the end of the Second World War—has caused major harm to historically persecuted groups.

We understand we lied to you before, but we aren't as evil as those Christian Europeans that screwed up your civilization! Trust us, if we lie to you it is only for your own good. We aren't lying about that, I swear!

But overall there is an argument to be made that modern studies of DNA variation—not just in Native Americans, but also in many other groups including the San of southern Africa, Jews, the Roma of Europe, and tribal or caste groups from South Asia—are a force for good, contributing to the understanding and treatment of disease in these populations, and breaking down fixed ideas of race that have been used to justify discrimination

Arguably the slave trade was a good thing for African Americans in the long run. Just compare their standard of living today to the standard of living in the African countries from where they were taken.

Blogger Salt April 23, 2018 7:05 AM  

My dark side wonders how much of this research is for UN sponsored population control bio-weapons?

Blogger AdognamedOp April 23, 2018 7:44 AM  

+3 prairie nig cloak

Blogger Desdichado April 23, 2018 8:03 AM  

Salt wrote:My dark side wonders how much of this research is for UN sponsored population control bio-weapons?
Why would the NWO care about redskins, though? There aren't enough of them to give them any particular political or social power in society.

I'd be more worried about ties between something like 23andme and that agenda, if I were inclined to worry about that agenda.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 23, 2018 8:08 AM  

I do believe I read at Sailer's that Reich has not given his own blood for any of this science.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 23, 2018 8:16 AM  

Salt wrote:My dark side wonders how much of this research is for UN sponsored population control bio-weapons?

lim E(X) -> 1 as t -> inf

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 23, 2018 8:19 AM  

Dire Badger wrote:Doctor Frankenstein was supposed to be a cautionary figure, not an ideological Ideal.

But, at least Franky SUCCEEDED.


I have a running theory that Frankenstein's monster was a metaphor for European Jews, pieced together from various nations and doomed to dwell apart.

Blogger Arthur Isaac April 23, 2018 8:36 AM  

When dealing with the subjects of Romans 1, quarantine and extermination is the OT proven methodology.

Don't let them near your children or your genes.

Blogger haus frau April 23, 2018 8:46 AM  

"the cervical cancer tumor cells of Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman from Baltimore, were distributed after her death, without her consent and without the knowledge of her family, to thousands of laboratories around the world, where they have become a mainstay of cancer research."


And Henrietta's family has every reason to be livid about it. There are lots of cervical cancer tumors they could have taken samples from with permission. They chose to violate this family's consent for convenience.
How does he so completely miss the explicit reasons for not cooperating that the targets of that research are giving him? Its like they're speaking Chinese to him. .

Blogger Uncle John's Band April 23, 2018 8:47 AM  

This is a lower-order problem than a general loss of ethics, but it is worth noting the structural incentive for dishonesty built into contemporary science funding. It is common for "basic" researchers to stretch or fabricate "practical" downstream applications to make their work more politically appealing, with no intention of ever delivering. A small piece, but representative of a culture with a truthfulness problem.

Blogger The Kurgan April 23, 2018 8:53 AM  

I think we should get the full DNA first of all the (((smart people))). I’m sure they will not have any objections. Because it’s all for the best.

Blogger seeingsights April 23, 2018 9:17 AM  

Besides biological research, some of the most nefarious researchers are in psychology. The psychiatrists in MK-Ultra did experiments on people without their knowledge and consent. The Unabomber--when he was a college student--was involved in a psychological experiment he was misled about. Then there are unethical therapists, including Freud himself.
All those unethical psychologists also strike me as being non religious.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 9:28 AM  

@12

"I have a running theory that Frankenstein's monster was a metaphor for European Jews, pieced together from various nations and doomed to dwell apart."

That's a very interesting idea.
The name of the doctor himself is curious:
"Frenchman inside German (for) Stone"

And the monster runs amok, with crowds turning to hunt him, chasing him literally to the ends of the Earth.

Blogger pyrrhus April 23, 2018 9:31 AM  

@17 Harvard psychologists and psychiatrists who were secretly on the CIA payroll performed mind control experiments on undergrads. Some had their lives ruined, including Ted Kaczynski....At one time, at least half the department was taking CIA money, but this did not come out for a long time. Scientists are no better than anyone else, and psychiatrists/psychologists are the worst, because almost all of them are atheists.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 9:34 AM  

@15

"This is a lower-order problem than a general loss of ethics, but it is worth noting the structural incentive for dishonesty built into contemporary science funding. It is common for "basic" researchers to stretch or fabricate "practical" downstream applications to make their work more politically appealing, with no intention of ever delivering. A small piece, but representative of a culture with a truthfulness problem."

At one time, in the early 1990's, I had a summer job through a temp agency, working as a secretary for a prof in the chem department. He did lots of research on bird eggs and bird DNA. His grant proposals (he would hand write everything, and I would type it up) would always claim that his research would have applicability to the AIDS problem.

I don't think he believed that for even a second -- none of the research papers that I typed up mentioned AIDS even once.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 9:37 AM  

@19 pyrrhus

"Scientists are no better than anyone else, and psychiatrists/psychologists are the worst, because almost all of them are atheists."

And they are more prone to rationalization than any other field except for those with Education degrees.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 9:38 AM  

correction... those who MAJOR in Education.

Most with Education minors pursue some useful field of study (history, math, physics, chem, etc.) as their major.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) April 23, 2018 9:41 AM  

Narcissists gonna Narcissist.



"and breaking down fixed ideas of race that have been used to justify discrimination
...
I wonder whether as a geneticist I have a responsibility to do more than just respect the wishes of those who do not wish to participate in genetic research
"

a - IF race didn't exist genetically THEN there would be no point in collecting samples from any particular race ...

b - stated another way, "I have manufactured a framework of supposed 'Ethics' which justifies me lying to you about what I'm going to do with these samples. And you should like what I'm doing and respect my privacy as a Doctor."

c - nothing about any of these conditions or subject population opinions prevents any geneticist from making any particular argument. that whole sentence is a non-sequitur.

d - to the extent that it's not a non-sequitur, his position is that Native Peoples' sensitivity about having been lied too and taken advantage of should just be talked away. BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT THIS TIME THAN IT WAS ALL THOSE TIMES BEFORE! TRUST ME!

Blogger Joseph Maroney April 23, 2018 9:42 AM  

"The psychiatrists in MK-Ultra did experiments on people without their knowledge and consent"

That goes down a rabbit hole well worth exploring.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 9:46 AM  

They dosed people with LSD without knowledge or consent. Sometimes in public, and just watched to see what would happen.

Utterly sickening.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 9:48 AM  

It would be interesing, would it not, to somehow cause an aqueous solution of LSD to fall on everyone entering/leaving CIA headquarters....

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 9:50 AM  

and GHQC, for that matter, too.

OpenID widlast April 23, 2018 9:50 AM  

Check out the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment if you want a textbook case of malpractice and abuse of their fellow humans.

Blogger Tim Bushong April 23, 2018 9:52 AM  

Excellent post, and excellent vid, Vox.

Blogger Avalanche April 23, 2018 9:55 AM  

@9 "UN sponsored population control bio-weapons?
Why would the NWO care about redskins, though? There aren't enough of them to give them any particular political or social power in society."

Because you ALWAYS start your 'animal' (wince) research with the cheapest and "least likely to successfully raise hell" population before moving it up to the more expensive, "more interesting to PETA et al." population. Thus, cell lines, then mice or rabbits, then dogs, then primates, only THEN humans!

So small groups of people who have essentially no power in 'your world'; then disadvantaged groups who still have little power, looooong before you start trying to mess about with the main population you want to .... adjust (or even just learn about).

And -- this author does make it sound like 'oh, the poor mistreated noble savages.' (No offense to your heritage, Vox.) A LOT of this is just plain-old identity politicking for group-gain:

Turn your eyes to the whole Kennewick Man debacle. Yet another instance where "the natives" were raising high-holy-hell because it really looked like Kennewick man was both PRE-their arrival AND of European extraction -- he apparently had NO Siberian lineage. (No 'native' genetics... therefore NO business of the "natives." And the "natives" raised hell to STOP scientists from doing any 'figuring out' where KM was from, because it threatened THEIR group identify.)

*IF* it turns out (as seems not unlikely) that the trans-Siberian "natives" were, in fact, preceded into "North American" by these European-sourced "natives," that immediately becomes an expensive problem for the modern-day tribes. (And thus their fights to keep it unstudied.)

That is, IF Kennewick Man et al. (there are MORE "pre-native" bones/genetics in contest across N-America); THEN earlier lineage(s) displace "native" Americans in the "we were first here" contest, and the "natives" suddenly lose their hold on such power as they have over the modern govt (no more casinos? No more govt power wielded against the Euros who CREATED the U.S.? ). (Of course they want to prevent this research and their possible displacement by modern science.)

(Spergy details: pretty solid evidence for the Solutreans of Brittany coming over (up across Greenland and Iceland during the Ice Age when the ocean was some 400-1,000 feet lower -- thus revealing huge amounts of land along the shores) and leading to/becoming the Clovis people, who were wiped out at the boundary of the sudden Younger Dryas plunge back into the Ice Age -- which plunge also wiped out all North-, and a lot of South-American megafauna (defined as animals having an adult weight above 100 pounds: e.g. mammoths, dire wolves, sabertooth tigers, et al.). But the Clovis people WERE here first. The Clovis people are named for "Clovis Points" -- specific arrow/spear heads (first found at, and thus named for, Clovis NM); tools that bear NO RESEMBLANCE whatsoever to ANY Siberian-sourced / "native" tools. OOPS!)

(Whole 'nother discussion if we turn to possession by right of conquering -- BUT if the current "natives" owned this continent by right of conquest (albeit, there were damned few Clovis LEFT to conquer, so more likely subsumed into the new migrators/settlers rather than 'conquered'); then WE Euro-deriveds ALSO possess this continent by right of conquest -- and the "natives" turn out NOT to have legal power to steal control of (i.e., prevent identifying) e.g. Kennewick Man's genes!)

Blogger Ceerilan April 23, 2018 9:57 AM  

What's really terrifying is that these scientists are lying to people in part to obtain funding. It's clearly a type of fraud.

I recall a pbs show from a few years ago where a genetic researcher went to Lebanon. His goal was to help heal the country by obtaining genetic samples from different religious groups to show they are genetically related. At the time, I figured he was just naieve. This post shows me he might not have been the book smart bafoon everyone took him for.

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir April 23, 2018 10:02 AM  

"I understand something of the devastation that the coming of Europeans and Africans to the Americas wrought on Native American populations..."

The African slave trade was dominated by Jewish entrepreneurs--but then you would know that, wouldn't you, Mr. Reich.

Blogger Bobiojimbo April 23, 2018 10:02 AM  

Reminds me of Michael Chrichton's Next. Not that good of a book, but a decent cautionary tale.

Blogger Avalanche April 23, 2018 10:04 AM  

@14 "There are lots of cervical cancer tumors they could have taken samples from with permission. They chose to violate this family's consent for convenience.
How does he so completely miss the explicit reasons"

So, do you agree that the Europeans who came into Africa because of the massive amount of resources that the africans did never -- and COULD never -- extract, refine, use, and benefit from are somehow evil? We should just leave all 'resources' WE can find use for 'in the ground' -- or in the back closet of a lab -- and "so what" if those resources COULD have helped the people who could and would NEVER be able to use them?

Suppose the labs agree to box up and ship H. Lack's genetic material BACK to the family? "Oops, sorry, we took your relative's 'stuff' - here it is back"? What will the family do with boxloads of tissue? (I suppose bury it?)

It's NEVER as easy as: informed consent (and payment, lots and lots of payment!) should always work perfectly.

Blogger Daniel April 23, 2018 10:05 AM  

"Force for good." Sounds like newspeak to me.

Blogger wreckage April 23, 2018 10:09 AM  

@30; but the Indian quasi-independence is secured by treaty, so it isn't really a legal issue, but an identity one. Also, have you read Michael Scott Rohan's Winter of the World novels?

Blogger Avalanche April 23, 2018 10:14 AM  

@16 "I think we should get the full DNA first of all the (((smart people)))."

They already HAVE it! Who do you think is RUNNING the "genetic research" all over the world? They genetically ID people who want 'the right of return' (which is why they had to reluctantly accept the Ethiopians they are now kicking out... those black-jews did IN FACT have jewish genes!) AND of course, the jews are hugely careful tracking the Cohen line -- a specific tribe that has specific 'mating' rules applied to them.

This is why I always look askance at their whole 23-and-me et al. labs-for-profit. Somehow they always seem to find a "nigger-in-the-woodpile" for any known racist who send in -- and lots of just White folks -- even those with solid genealogy research showing no mixing. And having heard a black "educator" triumphantly announcing how she was teaching "white folks" that IF they supported, e.g., ecology, when that as PROOF they had some "native American" in them. (WTH?!)

Just as NOT trusting the reproducibility of "scientific" and "medical" "research" because you dare not -- WHY would anyone trust genetic research today? IF some researcher (as they ARE) discovered that as a matter of SCIENCE, blacks, are in fact, GENETICALLY, less intelligent (as they ARE) -- DOES that data get published?! Oh hell no! Who was it sat on his 'research' results for, like, 20 YEARS because it showed black dysfunction?

As Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor (and many others) say: since it's CLEAR it's not White racism causing black dysfunction, maybe we should quit trying to fix that (mostly non-existent) "cause." and begin operating on the basis of the TRUTH!

Blogger Avalanche April 23, 2018 10:30 AM  

@28 "Check out the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment if you want a textbook case of malpractice and abuse of their fellow humans."

Again NOT that simple! Syphilis was a scourge (always has been) and it was common and spreading amongst the black 'community' more than the White community. The available treatment was horrible (and people would stop taking it, and continue to spread the disease) and the (mostly White, of course) scientists were TRYING to find a better treatment, one that people would actually accept and use till "cured."

If you give 'informed consent' explanations (and, granted, back then that was not a thing) to someone unable to read and who barely understands anything about medicine and science (as africans today don't about ebola and other of their horrific contagious diseases) that "invisible" vectors, which you can get on your hands or food, CAUSE the illness (i.e., it was NOT witchcraft or evil performed by the sufferer), then WHY would 'we' believe the reports of evil being done on these illiterate, low IQ, low culture, subjects?

How is this ANY different from, say, those black lady "mathematicians," without whom we Euro-derived folks would NEVER have made it into space? Cause, you know, White men can do math?!

I don't THINK I'm paranoid. I have pretty decent reason to conclude that having read up on and seen the MASSIVE fraud and lying to falsely support pretty near EVERY "this doesn't seem right or logical" report or explanation in the mainstream (of ANY field!), I should approach ANY "new" report of scientific (genetic, medical, operational, ... pick your field!) "conclusion" with more jaundice that willingness to accept!

I like Lionel Nation's occasional repeat of Gore Vidal's:

I am not a conspiracy theorist;
I am a conspiracy investigator!





Blogger Avalanche April 23, 2018 10:38 AM  

" (i.e., it was NOT witchcraft or evil performed by the sufferer)"

and, oh yeah, eating the body parts of an albino pygmy -- or raping an INFANT! -- would NOT cure you or prevent AIDS...

Disgusted.

Blogger VD April 23, 2018 10:47 AM  

So, do you agree that the Europeans who came into Africa because of the massive amount of resources that the africans did never -- and COULD never -- extract, refine, use, and benefit from are somehow evil? We should just leave all 'resources' WE can find use for 'in the ground' -- or in the back closet of a lab -- and "so what" if those resources COULD have helped the people who could and would NEVER be able to use them?

Of course the Europeans who did that were evil. If you aren't going to condemn them for stealing what wasn't theirs, you can hardly condemn the Africans who have turned the tables and are invading Europe and North America.

Blogger Uncle John's Band April 23, 2018 10:48 AM  

@ 20. Dirk Manly

That's exactly what I'm referring to. I doubt the prof even perceived it as a big deal; certainly not a blow against the integrity of "science". It's just that normalizing even low-level dishonesty is corrosive.

Blogger Johnny April 23, 2018 10:52 AM  


@19 pyrrhus

"Scientists are no better than anyone else,

Science is like the magic dirt thing. Labeling somebody a scientist changes nothing. A better way of saying it that other than circumstance, they are no different from anyone else.

Blogger DraveckysHumerus April 23, 2018 10:53 AM  

Consider Moore v. Regents. MDs discovered the excised tissue of a leukemia patient contained unusual cells. These had potent disease-fighting properties. For nearly a decade, the docs told this guy he needed to have his body sampled on a routine basis, using him as a live petri dish to produce cells the MDs patented and exploited for personal benefit without any disclosure to the fellow. SCOTUS held this was legally acceptable because ... science!

Blogger Johnny April 23, 2018 10:58 AM  

I was involved is scientific research briefly. The big boss wanted me to research the area that was of his interest. The only goal being that he did not want his anticipated project to duplicate previous work. Otherwise he had no interest at all in what the other researchers had done.

Now think about this for a moment. If a researcher in a specific area of study has no interest in what the other researchers have come up with, does anybody care? Apparently not. And of nobody cares than the whole thing is pointless. Academic make work. Churning out papers for the sake of churning out papers.

Blogger lazlo azavaar April 23, 2018 10:59 AM  

43. Perhaps we should start calling them "science merchants".

Blogger James April 23, 2018 11:01 AM  

basementhomebrewer wrote:

We understand we lied to you before, but we aren't as evil as those Christian Europeans that screwed up your civilization! Trust us, if we lie to you it is only for your own good. We aren't lying about that, I swear!


This observation is one that the left will never get or, if they do get it, they will agree that those doing it are essentially good. “Well, they’ve lied to us about war, about money, about elections, about science, about history, but they would never lie to us about race, or God, or climate change, or human nature because, darn it, that’s just TOO important, and they would be violating divine law. Even though there is no divine law.”

I realized before I was an adult that the arc of history showed a distinct hand pushing it in certain directions and, because they felt the need to do it surreptitiously, they were not to be trusted. At the time, I thought that the visible politicians and industry captains were the ones that were doing this. I realized in my early adulthood that they were just the great and powerful Oz and we weren’t supposed to look at the men behind the curtain. The left used to believe this. They have just morphed into useful idiots that believe that as long as their “rulers” pay lip service to the “causes” and end results the left agrees with, then they are OK. They no longer have the intellectual honesty to recognize that these “causes” and end results have been programmed into their perception of “reality” by the same people that are doing the changing, nor can they admit that they are not intelligent enough to recognize this. Anyone that is deceived enough not to see that there is a Creator or that abortion is murder is not someone that should be allowed to make decisions for the masses.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 23, 2018 11:04 AM  

Avalanche wrote:That is, IF Kennewick Man; THEN earlier lineage(s) displace "native" Americans in the "we were first here" contest, and the "natives" suddenly lose their hold on such power as they have over the modern govt
False.
Native rights are not based on some nebulous moral superiority based on being here first. They are based on treaties, signed by the Federal Government. Those treaties have specific rights and duties detailed for both sides, and the specific rights of the Natives are given in return for giving up the status of independent nations.

Blogger James April 23, 2018 11:23 AM  

I saw a movie on Netflix recently called The Titan. Its not particularly good so I'm not recommending it. But, the premise deals with some of the "ethics" involved in genetic manipulation. Earth is dying (sound familiar) and there is a moon of Saturn (Titan) that could be livable if humans had different physiological properties. Like the ability to breathe a high Nitrogen low Oxygen atmosphere. The ability to tolerate sub-freezing temperatures. The ability to function in liquid methane. So, they manipulate the DNA of volunteers to make these changes. All of the changes eventually kill all but two of the subjects. The survivors aren't even human anymore. They look alien and communicate through contact rather than by speech. They also have powers that humans don't, like super strength and the ability to fly. The whole time I was thinking, "So, in an attempt to "save" the "human" race, they have to create a new species. What exactly are they saving then?" The scientists behind the work have no problem with this paradox. They are strictly goal oriented.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 23, 2018 11:34 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Jack Amok April 23, 2018 11:36 AM  

Native rights are not based on some nebulous moral superiority based on being here first.

No, but White guilt at kicking the Native's off their land is. Us White Europeans are uniquely evil, you see, because of conquering the Amerindians, enslaving Blacks, holocausting Jews, and desecrating Mother Gaia. Anything that gets in the way of that narrative, like figuring out the native tribes kicked someone else off their land before we did, has to be shut down.

Not because it makes what Europeans did to natives less evil, it just makes it less uniquely evil. Of course anyone with a brain already knows just about every native tribe kicked a different native tribe off their land back in the mists of time, but they're appealing to people with half a brain at best.

Blogger Mr. Bee April 23, 2018 12:01 PM  

You don't need to be a Christian, per se, to refuse to "bear false witness". Even scientists who considered themselves agnostics had probably been raised as Christians and adopted the ethics. That's an unlikely eventuality today.

OpenID bgkoranburner April 23, 2018 12:13 PM  

There are lots of cervical cancer tumors they could have taken samples from with permission. They chose to violate this family's consent for convenience

I have some sympathy here as it's hard enough explaining to blacks procedures that would help them, non black children can understand easier. "put your X here so we can take cancer cells out of your body"

Far worse has been bio weapons testing on the public. They have had military camp out on radioactive land, pumped flue virus into subways, bus terminals, even done tests spraying roads.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/03/09/army-conducted-239-secret-open-air-germ-warfare-tests/b17e5ee7-3006-4152-acf3-0ad163e17a22/

"Check out the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment if you want a textbook case of malpractice and abuse of their fellow humans."

Given the treatment at the time the Tuskegee Syphilis patients would have mostly died from Herxheimer reactions because of how far the syphilis had progressed. The treatment at the time was a single megadose of PCN, figured out late in the Tuskegee experiment, no cure when it started the experiment was looking for treatments. If we still used megadoses of PCN, PCN would still work against as many diseases as it used to.

The problem is that for a few diseases including late stage syphilis, Lyme Disease & some 3rd world shit that if you kill the diseases off too fast, the dead disease remnants are too many & too toxic for people's bodies to handle. Keep in mind Whitey hadn't perfected dialysis yet!

At the time White people had not figured out the mechanism only that if you gave someone with late stage syphilis the cure they would most likely die. Eventually whitey decided that protracted antibiotic doses over 2 weeks was better to prevent these problems, but giving stupid non complaint patients that creates drug resistance.

When people talk about Tuskegee they act like there was a cure at the start of the experiment, I have even heard RNs say that Herxheimer reactions don't exist because they have never given high dose antibiotics.

Blogger Jack Amok April 23, 2018 12:36 PM  

The story about the cervical cancer cells shows David Reich doesn't even understand the foundations of what's being violated. The woman, and her family's, privacy was violated by shipping her genetic material around the world without consent. And in reporting it, he uses her name, adding to the violation.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 1:04 PM  

@43


"SCOTUS held this was legally acceptable because ... science!"

SCOTUS was obviously wrong. This is basic equity -- he should have got a cut. Even as low as 10% would have been reasonable.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 1:14 PM  

@48

"The whole time I was thinking, "So, in an attempt to "save" the "human" race, they have to create a new species. What exactly are they saving then?" The scientists behind the work have no problem with this paradox. They are strictly goal oriented."


Take an Ethics class (after taking a Formal Logic class).

Scientists will NEVER have the answer. Here is why:

Science (properly conducted) can only tell you what IS.

The question is, what OUGHT to be done.

Scottish Philosopher David Hume worked out (in the mid 1700's) this very simple statement, regarding the use of logic to derive ethical conclusions:

"You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'"

To get a conclusion that says what you OUGHT to do, then one of the foundation statements of your argument has to include some goal which OUGHT to be pursued.

A ought to be accomplished
B is true.
IF B is true, C can accomplish A
Therefore, we should do C.

On the other hand

A is True
B is True
If B is True, C can be accomplished
Conclusion: We CAN do C.

Note that in the 2nd form, there is still no guidance as to whether doing C is desirable or not.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 23, 2018 1:30 PM  

"So, do you agree that the Europeans who came into Africa because of the massive amount of resources that the africans did never -- and COULD never -- extract, refine, use, and benefit from are somehow evil?"

If you believe at all in the concept of property, yes. Your unbelief is showing, Avalanche.

"The whole time I was thinking, "So, in an attempt to "save" the "human" race, they have to create a new species. What exactly are they saving then?""

That was actually explicitly part of the dilemma of The Titan.

"And in reporting it, he uses her name, adding to the violation.

It's right there on the cell line. "HeLa".

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 23, 2018 1:33 PM  

"To get a conclusion that says what you OUGHT to do, then one of the foundation statements of your argument has to include some goal which OUGHT to be pursued."

Another way to state why logic provides no motivation in and of itself.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 2:56 PM  

@57

And science is nothing more than applied logic.

Blogger SciVo April 23, 2018 3:33 PM  

"But is [Native American distrust of geneticists] good for the Jews?"

Blogger weka April 23, 2018 4:57 PM  

@UncleJohn. Can confirm. Grants go to those who matter ò or market themselves well.

Which rewards lying.

And makes peer review painful.

Disclosure: H factor 20 Google sxholar. Largest grant 60 000 $NZ to date

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 11:07 PM  

@59

You put your finger squarely on it.

Blogger Dire Badger April 24, 2018 12:29 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:Dire Badger wrote:Doctor Frankenstein was supposed to be a cautionary figure, not an ideological Ideal.

But, at least Franky SUCCEEDED.


I have a running theory that Frankenstein's monster was a metaphor for European Jews, pieced together from various nations and doomed to dwell apart.


It was a direct reference... The entire Tale was based off of Jewish Folklore, the tale of the "Golem" and the Snow Queen.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts