April 5, 2005

YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY... (via Judd Heartsill):

Dissing Darwin: As Texas grapples with the future of biotech, our long-standing hostility toward one of modern science’s founding fathers is about to cost us plenty. (Michael Ennis, April 2005, Texas Monthly)

[A]s Texas enters the twenty-first century, dissing Darwin is
about to get very expensive.

That's because the scientific revolution Darwin started in the nineteenth
century-transforming biology from the domain of amateur naturalists like
himself into a disciplined science probing ever deeper into the mysteries of
life-has finally come to fruition. We are leaving behind the digital age and
entering the biotechnology era, with the promise and peril of regenerated
limbs, cloned replacement organs, and genetic cures. Indeed, George W.
Bush's first major televised address as president concerned "stem cells," a
term that has now entered the everyday lexicon. (Found in days-old human
embryos, stem cells are capable of developing into any kind of body tissue
and could potentially yield treatments for everything from paralysis to
Parkinson's disease.) Although the president dismayed researchers with his
split decision to limit federally funded embryonic stem cell research to
several dozen "lines" previously obtained from embryos unused in in vitro
fertilization, his cautious approach created an opening for enterprising
states. Last November, California voters committed $3 billion to fund
largely unrestricted stem cell research over the next decade; not wanting to
miss out on what is being called the biotech "gold rush," a host of
governors from Wisconsin to New Jersey have proposed spending hundreds of
millions each to compete for biotech businesses and researchers.


...no Darwin? No Mengele.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 5, 2005 10:40 AM
Comments

"Last November, California voters committed $3 billion to fund largely unrestricted stem cell research over the next decade"

Actually it's my understanding that it is restricted in a fairly major way--the funding may only be applied to embryonic stem cell research.

Posted by: b at April 5, 2005 11:37 AM

What does biotech have to do with Darwin?

Darwin could be completely wrong and it would not affect biological research, which is good science, grounded in physics and chemistry, and based on the traditional model of experimental research.

Darwinism is a branch of theology, which has little to do with science as it is properly understood.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 5, 2005 12:51 PM

""stem cells," a term that has now entered the everyday lexicon. (Found in days-old human
embryos, stem cells are capable of developing into any kind of body tissue"

You will note that this incorrect. Adults have stem cells too, but no one needs to die to obtain them.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 5, 2005 12:56 PM

>What does biotech have to do with Darwin?

The problem isn't so much the relation between Darwinism and biotech but the deliberate dumbing down of science education in the state, which has resulted in a science-illiterate workforce. Biotech companies don't want to invest in a state where the workforce isn't competent.

Posted by: John at April 19, 2005 6:34 AM
« WESTERN UKRAINE: | Main | WHO KNEW?: »