Comments on: The Public's Role in Regulating Scientists

By: Jerry Nora

Jerry Nora — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:00:00 +0000

John,

The main thrust of this article had nothing to do with psychiatry. The misleading title (which was there by a misunderstanding) has been replaced, so hopefully things are clearer, though looking at my article again, psychiatry really never appeared in what I wrote except to give a brief bit of background on Chesterton.

Chesterton just did a good job of illustrating an issue that I saw coming up time and again with embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), namely that ESCR was defended on the grounds that scientists thought it necessary, there was no debate over the fact that scientists invented terms like "preembryo" out of political necessity rather than any new scientific discovery, etc.

While we may not agree on ESCR, you do seem to have a similar opinion with me on why we should not let an interest group run a "debate" without outside perspective. You write:

"Yes we [know] oil issues are complex, but that doesn't mean that the oil companies should make oil policy. They do not possess a monopoly on that special knowledge. We should seek out people with special knowledge who don't have a vested economic interest in the matter."

Precisely my point! There is no monopoly of knowledge on biology either, so having a monopoly of opinion on embryonic research and bad-mouthing anyone who opposes it (not necessarily you, John, I'm speaking of more general trends in higher education and the media) is unhealthy for the country.

Far from thinking any debate will unreasonably hobble science, I think it will help promote solid, honest research. As we have recently seen, letting the biomedical juggernaut run without meaningful conversation and oversight is incompatible with good science. (Exhibit A: the fraudulent stem cell and cloning research in Korea.)

My use of Chesterton was to a), highlight a book that I found very interesting, and b), show that letting a group of vested interest define the terms of debate (as many in the media or academia seem content to do on important bioethical issues) leads to dangerous consequences.

My mentioning of oil companies and Walmart was to show that Americans are not happy letting people in those two industries do our thinking for us (I don't think my writing would lead one to serious think I was trying to defend that, but apologize if you had serious readon to think so, John).

If, then, we are skeptical of those two industrial/commercial sectors why should we let the biomedical research groups think for us with regard to human life? Some feminists have been waking up to the issues raised by reproductive technologies, but I've been struck by how many people have just rallied behind the ESCR lobby without more critical input.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

As a brief addendum, folks may wish to check out Subjected to Science, which is a book on the history of the developmetn of medical research regulations in the earlier half of the 20th and the late 19th centuries. The focus of controversy then involved vivisection and also the exploitation of orphans and other vulnerable human populations. Scientists resisted these standards, likewise claiming that this would overly inhibit research.

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

You couple a grossy flawed argument with poorly constructed strawmen.

Firstly, we should certainly give psychiatrists more say in defining insanity thant he average person in the street. Elsewise we'll be locking up people for being different than the norm and failing to treat people whom are severely ill but are ill quietly.

And both of your analogies don't work. Yes we oil issues are complex, but that doesn't mean that the oil companies should make oil policy. They do not possess a monopoly on that special knowledge. We should seek out people with special knowledge who don't have a vested economic interest in the matter.

Likewise with the Walmart case.

I'm reminded of a week ago the nytimes had a forum on their website asking readers what they expect will be found from the satelite that collected debris from an asteroid. It's a ridiculous question to pose to the general public.