Posted on 02/05/2007 6:58:43 PM PST by Muentzer2005
James Sherley, a biological engineer whose opposition to embryonic stem cell research has been controversial among his peers, charges he has been denied the same freedom to challenge scientific orthodoxy afforded his white colleagues.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
He could stand to lose a few pounds.
Vital information, not sure why it wasn't in the original post.
Sherley, who has vowed to stand in protest outside the president and provost office for three hours each morning, says he believes the research is immoral because it requires the destruction of days-old embryos. He works only with adult stem cells.
What does his race have to do with this issue. If you are being unfairly treated because your views are unpopular with your peers, you have my full support. If you are pulling a race card to get attention, shut up.
There are lots of scientists working with adult stem cells. Many of those have been highlighted here at FR. This is not why he's being denied tenure. It's because his work is not particularly good by comparison to all of those others who are out there working with ASC. He lost my support when he turned this into a racial issue, which it is not. There are lots of non-whites with tenure at MIT.
How do you know that?
Do you know of any other scientists at MIT in the same situation?
(who only work with adult stem cells?)
If he objects to e. stem cell research because he thinks it's immoral, he's probably better suited for the philosophy department.
You think morality has no place in the real world, only in the ivory tower of philosophers?
Disturbing.
He told them he works only with adult stem cells and they replied "Sherley, you can't be serious..." and he said "I am serious and don't call me...oh, wait."
Obviously an expert on evaluating those who do adult stem cell research. There are a lot of those out there.
It probably is not racial as much as political. But most of what you say sounds like pure speculation. There is no way you could know about his work and provide and evaluation of such unless you had inside information or was on the review board.
Why??? People with conservative views should be afraid to express their opinions??? Is is right that conservatives are punished??? Academic freedom is only for leftists, I suppose.
Oh, I understood you clearly.
You don't think it is appropriate for this professor to speak out on the morality of research conducted by his peers. You think he should shut up.
You say you think we have an obligation to live our lives with morals and reason. How consistant is this with your view that people should not pause to consider morality, or at least not speak out about it? That this should somehow be left to philosphers instead of everyday people? I think your stance is altogether immoral and unconscionable.
I am of the opposite opinion. Morality is everyone's business! Just because you are a scientist doesn't mean you abandon your conscience, your morality, your voice. This man was speaking out about the activities of his peers at his institution. What you are saying, is that people should not consider morality in their everyday life, leave morality to philosphy departments. If someone asks us why we let immoral acts happen without pausing to consider or say anything, we can just say we were following orders.
Our laws are influenced by everyday people, as well as experts in their field as this man was. Both are far more influential in our laws than philosophy departments.
Because it is a game. If you want to play the game you need to play the game by the rules.
Academic freedom is only for leftists, I suppose.
----
Unfortunately I think you are right. If I ever decide to go that route, I will definitely keep my mouth shut till I have tenure. Or until things wrap around so far that being conservative becomes part of the counter-culture and is perceived as "cool," in opposition to those fuddy-duddy leftists ;) .
Funny stuff.
His work is published and I reviewed much of it when I first heard of his tenure problems a year ago. IMO his work isn't up to MIT tenure standards and 3 different review comittees found that to be the case as well.
MIT is also being sued by another prof over tenure, but he is accusing MIT of being too conservative and pro-military. Go figure.
I know many conservative profs with tenure. If you are doing really good cutting edge work and bring in money to the university, you will almost certainly get tenure. The university will not want to lose a cash cow.
You must be right, anyone who thinks EVERY human life is deserving of the recognition of the right to not be murdered, whether as an embryo, in the womb or anywhere else, surely has no business in science. /sarc
When a human embryo is no more than a disposable piece of discardable flotsam, the mature human will descend into the same definition of expendable, worthless disregard in favor of "greater" virtues than its own life.
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
You LtdGovt, want good men to do nothing.
An individual refusing to accomodate evil is a powerful thing. So is someone saying "that just isn't right", having the courage to say it even when it might harm their interests or make others uncomfortable.
It is more powerful than any ivory tower philosphy department.
This professor is a hero for speaking out, for shaming his peers.
You are a morally bankrupt disgrace for telling him to shut up.
It is my understanding, from the report, that, while he does object to embryonic stem cell research, his specific protest at the moment is not a protest about that form of research; instead, it is a protest on the basis of his belief that his opportunity for tenure may have been denied because of his embryonic stem cell research objections.
Thus, contrary to your misunderstanding, his protest is not about convincing others not to do such research, but that his work has a scientist should not be shortchanged because of his objections about that research.
Unfortunately today, embryonic stem cell research, like "global warming" has less to do with real science and more to do with politicized scientific orthodoxy, on a level barely distinguishable from a Middle Ages blind faith.
Certainly, but the line that is quoted, is somewhat ambiguous: "challeng[ing] scientific orthodoxy", "opposition to stem cell research". My first comment was my gut reaction to the line that is cited.
You talk about politicized science. I don't think that it's science that is the problem, but rather, the fact that liberals are abusing science for their own purposes. Some time ago, I read that scientists found a way to harvest embryonic stem cells, without destroying embroyos. But I doubt that liberals will find this approach appealing, for two reasons. (1) This can't be used as a wedge issue and (2) it will not affirm the practice of abortion. So it isn't quite as useful as it is when using embryos.
That really does tell the whole story, but there are always quite a few who seem willing or able to accept it.
What people don't understand is that there are many tiers within the tenure evaluation process. There separate reviews at the department level, college level and university level. There are opportunities for external review, and multiple opportunities to appeal a decision. Not to mention that in the years prior to and during application for tenure there are opportunities to change universities and turn the tenure clock back a tick or two.
Additionally, subsequent to failure to obtain tenure there are opportunities to move to other institutions or get a job outside academia.
It amazes me how easily people become convinced of complete unfairness and bias within the tenure evaluation process. People will read the complaint of one poor little conservative who has been denied tenure supposedly on the capricious whim of their colleagues and never question the conduct of the victim. A hunger strike is ridiculous - sounds like it's good to be rid of him.
"That really does tell the whole story, but there are always quite a few who seem willing or able to accept it."
Like Noam Chomsky?
I agree 100%. It'll devolve into a racial issue though.
No.
I'm think if we wanted to we might be able to come up with one or two reasons why Chomsky might choose to stick his nose in where it doesn't belong.
It could be racial. White liberals are the biggest racists around. Affirmative Action has created the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and set the stage for peers to assume that a black person is there because of quotas and not because of proven talent in a particular field.
"I read that scientists found a way to harvest embryonic stem cells, without destroying embroyos. But I doubt that liberals will find this approach appealing, for two reasons. (1) This can't be used as a wedge issue and (2) it will not affirm the practice of abortion. So it isn't quite as useful as it is when using embryos."
Most of the LameStreamMedia minimized, or ignored, or suppressed the news and some liberals actually expressed the exact concern you thought they might - it could be used as another peg in the assault against abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.