Pt1420 Week 3 Discussion 1

Oldenburg reasoned that if the research results of Scientist X. were printed in a journal (after being certified as being of good quality and original) and that journal was made widely available through the multiplication of copies, then Scientist. X would have a better chance to lie ownership claims than if he/she held back these results. By apparently giving away the results of his/her work, a scientist ensures his/her intellectual property most effectively. The ability to compare new results to already published work makes plagiarism a very risky business

It is hard to trust someone who does provide good evidence for an argument. He also appeals to families by stating the affect a future without a majority of the world’s species could have on them, specifically their health. Michael Novacek produces a strong, reliable argument with all of this. While there are people who want to refute his point that the argument that the main culprit, global warming, is fake, Novacek still takes it upon himself to write this article. If he did not care enough, he would not have provided the information to possibly change minds and make a difference.

They were not educated so when the doctor would say something scientific they would trust every word while not even understanding what he was saying. This part of informed consent was stressed throughout the book because in today’s society most people have enough education to have a general idea what is going on when they are at the hospital about to have a procedure done, making it seem

Like in the example above knowing the donor had a disease but selling the tissue anyway. There are now regulations for tissue donations but not for the human remains business as a whole. Once regulations are put in place they need to be enforced and organizations need to be audited to make sure they are within compliance. Another concern is conflict of interest; if you are a funeral

This again emphasizes the struggle scientists and researchers have regarding informed consent and patients. Some believe that all patients need to have all of the information provided for them in order for the practice to be ethical and provide dignity and privacy for the patient, others are of the opinion that individual choice is not necessary because the physician or researcher knows best and should be able to further science without disclosing information that may not be understood properly by

Debate on What Transhumanism is Doing to The World Between Two “Scientists”? Credibility is a very important thing to have when writing an article or anything in general. If you don’t make your reader feel comfortable or make them believe what they are reading then they won’t stick with your opinion. That is what Jeremy Maitin-Shepard did, not only did he cite his references at the end, he quoted important scientists. Unlike online vlogs or Wikipedia which are places where anybody can go edit on their own terms without the story being published by a real publication house.

While the author does use parallels so that the reader can relate to the text, the author also estranges the reader from the idea of humans being the superior species. Through this estrangement the reader can see that the medical ethics in play, when referring to eugenics and genetic engineering, are in jeopardy as many people believe. The notion of humans not being the top species forces the reader to take a mental step back and rethink the reluctance to explore the possibilities of the human

Whilst many religions might be against the process of cord blood banking, we do have to look at the scientific side of it all. With the confusion between embryonic stem cells and cord blood banking, many are

Even though this research might become useful in the medical field, scientists should stop embryonic research because it is not productive, and there are better ways to get the desired results. Also, it is not moral to use and destroy embryos in this way. Embryonic stem cell research may become a very useful study for medical research.

Furthermore, the cold fusion incident, along with many other incidents involving pseudoscience and non-science has harmed the reputation of scientists and the scientific community as a whole. With a countless amount of pseudoscience’s and non-sciences “posing as science,” the credibility of what science actually is and the scientific community is at risk (Hansson). When scientists spend their whole day in a lab conducting experiments trying to figure out a cure for cancer or how to better protect the environment, they should not be discredited or take the blame for neither the misconduct of others and/or the spreading of false information that has not been approved by the scientific community. According to the article “What Is Psuedoscience?” by Michael Shermer where he quotes Michael D. Gordin, a historian of science from Princeton University, he reiterates that “No one in the history of the world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist” (Gordin).

Scientific thinking is distinguished from non-scientific thinking by its reliance on testable facts and evidence. Scientists are supposed to adhere to stipulated rules and principle in their inquiry and reporting. Press releases, on the other hand, are not confined by any inquiry or reporting rules. Journalists thus have unlimited freedom in their writing, and they often misrepresent facts and information during reporting to suit their needs. Press releases are prone to factual misrepresentations and generalizations, and this greatly reduces their credibility.

When the renaissance emerged from the middle ages, it brought new ideas of thought to the surface. Individuals like Leonardo Da Vinci proposed that to achieve a fuller understanding of God and the universe one must understand the natural laws and mathematics that govern it. During the 16th and 17th century in Europe, religion and politics affected the Scientific Revolution because there was no separation of the two in science, this is why the Church restricted scientific progress and politics pushed for scientific improvements for personal gain. Up until this point, religious scripture was undisputed.

1A The movie, The Race For the Double Helix, contained many distinct characters that are portrayals of actual people. To begin, Rosalind Franklin is the main female character in the movie, whose work was to use x-ray crystallography on DNA. She was shown as a multifaceted character, with entirely different personas in her work life and personal life. She was a woman in a field dominated by men, and subject to sexist co-workers inappropriate behavior, and was therefore a little high strung, but only out of necessity. While with her friends in France at the cafe, she was jovial and with a good sense of humour.