I'm sorry, but this comment is poorly thought out and poorly supported.
First the commenter sets up a straw man in which it is claimed that these particular scientists are "deeply attached" to the issue (which implies they are not objective). There is no evidence for this conclusion in the article, nor is one supported in any way by the commenter.
Then the commenter makes a really terrible analogy about doctors and lawyers working with themselves as clients. How exactly are scientists studying these dolphins analogous to a doctor swabbing her own throat and prescribing herself an antibiotic for her strep throat (which, by the way, is in no way unethical, and probably often done)?
Again, I'm sorry, but the commenter doesn't seem to understand word one about either science, or the role of science if he/she thinks scientists and science are supposed to be some glorified "information please" clerks who are there to provide whatever information you think you need to make a decision.
And you put forth a really muddled view of that constitutes ethical behavior. Are you really trying to advance the theory that physicians who advocate for healthy public policy are "unethical"? A pediatrician sees his community ravaged by whooping cough - you are trying to tell us he shouldn't get on the phone to his congressman and local newspaper and raise hell about vaccinations? A water scientist notes that local wells are contaminated by petroleum contaminants. You think she's wrong to pick up the phone and give an interview advocating investigation, cleanup, and prevention? You really think that people like Einstein and Bohr shouldn't have tried to influence policy as a matter of ethics and their professional duties?
Bullshit.
Part of the problem in this country is the lack of ability of "the public" to "make the decision on these issues". Science, physicians, and other professionals have a clear role in both informing AND persuading the public. We want the people who know the most about these issues speaking up the loudest...beyond politicians....and definitely beyond business people, who without a doubt are the ones who inevitably have the deepest conflicts of interest.
Thank God scientists ARE starting to speak out more, instead of the cacophony of "know nothing" we are hearing from certain anti-science segments of "the public". We just got done with eight years of an administration which put science on the back burner, while advocating the most irrational of policies.
The return of American "know-nothing-ism", exemplified by the commenter's little screed about the role of science, is a symptom of what has been going wrong with America over the last decade. We need more scientists speaking up and out.
First the commenter sets up a straw man in which it is claimed that these particular scientists are "deeply attached" to the issue (which implies they are not objective). There is no evidence for this conclusion in the article, nor is one supported in any way by the commenter.
Then the commenter makes a really terrible analogy about doctors and lawyers working with themselves as clients. How exactly are scientists studying these dolphins analogous to a doctor swabbing her own throat and prescribing herself an antibiotic for her strep throat (which, by the way, is in no way unethical, and probably often done)?
Again, I'm sorry, but the commenter doesn't seem to understand word one about either science, or the role of science if he/she thinks scientists and science are supposed to be some glorified "information please" clerks who are there to provide whatever information you think you need to make a decision.
And you put forth a really muddled view of that constitutes ethical behavior. Are you really trying to advance the theory that physicians who advocate for healthy public policy are "unethical"? A pediatrician sees his community ravaged by whooping cough - you are trying to tell us he shouldn't get on the phone to his congressman and local newspaper and raise hell about vaccinations? A water scientist notes that local wells are contaminated by petroleum contaminants. You think she's wrong to pick up the phone and give an interview advocating investigation, cleanup, and prevention? You really think that people like Einstein and Bohr shouldn't have tried to influence policy as a matter of ethics and their professional duties?
Bullshit.
Part of the problem in this country is the lack of ability of "the public" to "make the decision on these issues". Science, physicians, and other professionals have a clear role in both informing AND persuading the public. We want the people who know the most about these issues speaking up the loudest...beyond politicians....and definitely beyond business people, who without a doubt are the ones who inevitably have the deepest conflicts of interest.
Thank God scientists ARE starting to speak out more, instead of the cacophony of "know nothing" we are hearing from certain anti-science segments of "the public". We just got done with eight years of an administration which put science on the back burner, while advocating the most irrational of policies.
The return of American "know-nothing-ism", exemplified by the commenter's little screed about the role of science, is a symptom of what has been going wrong with America over the last decade. We need more scientists speaking up and out.
Louder.