Marie Curie was turned down by the French Academy because she was a woman from Poland. Word went around she also was Jewish. Science back then was a gentleman's pursuit and the French were as stubernly nationalistic as we assume they are today, if not more so. There were short sighted assumptions about her abilities because other felt they knew better. These people also control the progress and direction of the sciences. If people today hold these same assumptions - they knew best - when setting limits on others, then the task carried out by institutions will be to limit and prevent good science.
Research related to deadlier flu virii has been put on hold at the behest of the scientific community. The researchers are open to debate on the ethics and risks involved. People can take sides. I will take the side of free speech and free access over censorship and restriction. One should not be restricted because one was born with a skin color, name or to parents of a centain nationality, yesterday's gender. However, the researchers did not help their own cause by saying they use the highest security standards (they do not) or by pausing it for only sixty days. Opponents are not helping their case by stating they do not need to hear from the researchers involved, but the researchers must hear from the opponents. Both sides are taking the low road.
Big Think
However, even though censorship looms large, why bother? A study in National Geographic points out scientists do far more informal censorship than any current law. Arthur Caplan could learn a thing or two. This is something many do not see happen.
Well, that is all for today. Cya tomorrow, maybe.
Research related to deadlier flu virii has been put on hold at the behest of the scientific community. The researchers are open to debate on the ethics and risks involved. People can take sides. I will take the side of free speech and free access over censorship and restriction. One should not be restricted because one was born with a skin color, name or to parents of a centain nationality, yesterday's gender. However, the researchers did not help their own cause by saying they use the highest security standards (they do not) or by pausing it for only sixty days. Opponents are not helping their case by stating they do not need to hear from the researchers involved, but the researchers must hear from the opponents. Both sides are taking the low road.
Big Think
However, even though censorship looms large, why bother? A study in National Geographic points out scientists do far more informal censorship than any current law. Arthur Caplan could learn a thing or two. This is something many do not see happen.
Well, that is all for today. Cya tomorrow, maybe.