SMBE 2007: Science Bloggers Unite!

Pink shirt in back = Julius Lucks

Isn't that John Logsdon, not Logston?

... some lovely Italian food. I had seafood spaghettini, and it was mm---mm---good.

Jacob Tennessen is seated in front of me.

Kuriakan -

How would you define "science blog"?

AA system? I was thinking Alcoholics Anonymous, but then I remembered "higher power".

Must be....academic code.

On behalf of all boozehounds, I'm disappointed in Professor Steve Steve. Not a single recipe for a Bamboo Collins?

Re "Just curious, what did Steve Steve eat?"

Maybe bambooghetti? bambaziti? bambizza?

Henry

Science must lead to the improvement of humanity.
We need to have the guts to say it.

The truth is here.http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html

Charles -

That's for the most part a rather decent and well-referenced historical discussion of some key figures in the despicable "eugenics" movement of a century ago. Most of it is quite familiar to many of the posters here.

I disagree with what I take to be an implied point, though. The apparent attempt at an analogy between eugenics and the sequencing of the human genome is not apt.

As I've explained to many people in the past, you don't need a lot of fancy scientific knowledge to commit massive acts of brutality. That's been proven many times and is being proven as we speak. People often underestimate the scale of things that went on the in the pre-industrial past. A few random examples linked below. Anyone could add hundreds or thousands more with ease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_impaler

The sequencing of the human genome may add to our capacity to help people. As for our ability to massacre them, we've already had that for millenia.

Obviously modern genetics potentially creates intense ethical dilemmas. But eugenics is not a dilemma. It should have been obvious that it was wrong in 1880.

Inapt analogies to the sequencing of the human genome notwithstanding, it's a decent summary of an important phenomenon in the history of science.

If you have a specific example of a modern day mainstream science blog that is specifically advocating what you perceive to be a direct social or political policy that is inhumane, why don't you mention that?

Charles inappropriate posts about Eugenics are typical of anti-science forces. They bury their heads in the sand about Christians who promoted slavery, genocide, and other evils. Dr. William Tinkle promoted Eugenics, writing books and articles promoting racial improvement via Eugenics from 1939 - 1993, long after Nazi attrocities had been exposed. Who was Dr. Tinkle? A geneticist, creationist, and one of th 10 founders (with Henry Morris, Duane Gish and others) of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research. That's right, Charles, one of the founders of creation science promoted eugenics into the 1990s. Read more about it, including some wonderful quotes from your fellow creationists promoting eugenics here: Dr Tinkle. Pluck the beam out of the creationist's eye before complaining about the splinter in the scientist's eye.

Looks like a fun group!

Since I'm a Halifax local doing my Masters work in one of the evolution labs here I was hopping to run in to some of the PT people there but since I was also a volunteer it has been a busy few days for me. But I was one of the friendly grad students who has been dragging our fine visitors to bars all over the city for lots and lots of drinking every night. I hope everyone who came enjoyed Halifax, now I have the CIFAR evolutionary biology meeting going on until Saturday. It has been a long and tiring week thats for sure!

The truth is here.http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html