No, technically, corporations are only bad when their friends in the highest places use public funding to skew scientific research and debate specifically for the purpose of invigorating them while supressing others without regard to potential benefits to humanity, all under the guise of "bioethics," but frankly I was using the term "corporate circle jerk" more loosely than you seemed to so naturally infer, and so aptly.
Since you didn't read the article obviously, let's review the new appointees, the one's you, the atheist, are arguing, seemingly, in favor of.
Quote:
|
Carson is a motivational speaker (wtf!?) who has lamented that "we live in a nation where we can't talk about God in public," according to a Washington Post article. Schaub has referred to research in which embryos are destroyed as "the evil of the willful destruction of innocent human life," according to the same article. And in The Weekly Standard, Lawler warned that if the United States doesn't "become clear as a nation that abortion is wrong," women will eventually abort genetically defective babies.
|
Try to follow along.
Both of the panelists replaced had been outspoken in their opinions that embryonic stem-cell research should move forward and could lead to valuable therapies for many diseases. Blackburn in fact was one of the most respected scientists in the field. The entire 18 member panel is now conveniently opposed to it, just like God is, discussion over.
A revolutionary new approach to science.
Of course,
granted, why anyone would expect anyone who seems to be the intellectual equivalent of a Bible thumping Texas snake oil salesman to know anything either about
ethics or
science is beyond me in the first place, but there you have it.