 |
 |
>I must be missing something. Topics aren't sensitive; people are. If >whole swaths of scientific research are now decreed "out of bounds" as >discussion items, what will this group have left to talk about? > >It's now widely accepted that stem cells hold the key to cures for >Parkinson's and many other diseases and conditions. This research is >practically the only constructive, hope-filled area of endeavor on >behalf of PWPs. So when even the mention of it is to be banned, solely >on the basis of a few individuals' highly personal religious ideologies, >I get kind of edgy. I mean, free speech is still vitally important to >some of us. I'm not at all convinced that stem cells are a panacea for us. I am concerned that they will be a therapy rather than a cure. Dr. Turner's experience is instructive here. We still need to discern what or where or when is the switch turned on which shuts our dopamine supply off. ... edited for brevity (sorry Greyling:-) > >Might I suggest that those who are not interested in knowing some >particular subset of scientific information find or form their own >group, one that specifically forbids all the various banned topics in >writing, as part of its bylaws? I do feel very strongly that we need to discuss and respect all ideas and the folks who propose them. And I hope the lively diversity of our little community isn't splintered into smaller, less vital cliques. > This group is most valuable expressly >because of open participation by its diverse, highly educated membership >-- tireless researchers who ferret out and post the very latest >scientific findings from all points of the compass. I would hate to see >it degenerate into nothing more than a politically/religiously correct, >fuzzy group hug space. > > >Big warm hugs to all, > >Greyling ;-) > -- Stephen Rack Brattleboro, VT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn