Republicans vs. Sex Ed, round XXX

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The only thing I really disagree with was changing the name (without knowing more).

Some questions..
Where there abstinence proponents on the panel before this change?
Are there abstinence opponents still on the panel?

Those aren't relevant questions.

The point is that a senator intervened to assure that two figures whose work had been rejected on scientific grounds were included, and a figure whose work was widely respected was excluded, all for ideological reasons.

The conference has been turned from a scientific meeting into a political one.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, as a budding scientist you should be appalled.

To paraphrase Che from another thread: when, in 2050, historians begin trying to sort out the origins decline and fall of the US, they're going to go back to this administration, and to moments like this.

[Jon Miller]

Oh, I dont' know anything about the people added. And I said, I disagree (although I do know that some panels can be jokes...). I was just pointing out that if the panel was about the problems with abstinence only education (which I think is wrong for highschoolers), it should include some abstinence only proponents.

And obviously politicians won't pick the best ones...

Jon Miller

[-Jrabbit]

The symposium that's been meddled with was originally titled, "Are Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?" Its convener, Bruce Trigg of the New Mexico Department of Public Health, proposed a skeptical look at abstinence education, which the Bush administration is funding to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. As moderator, Trigg promised to ground the critique in scientific evidence.

The whole point of the panel was totally undermined by this political interference. Yes, it might have been wise to have some opposing representation on the panel. But the process of peer review approved the examination of the issue as proposed.

The forced change turns a scientific discussion of the consequences of abstinence-only as a sex ed strategy, into wrangling over ideology. One of the two new panelists considers his profession to be a "mission of the Lord" and the other doesn't even know who the other panelists are. Neither is a researcher or a scientist.

This is a travesty, and a threat to the entire scientific community.

[MRT144]

the entire abstinence philosophy is based on the idea that teenagers do not want to have sex if they dont have knowledge of sex. news flash, systems fail, often, especially as a teenager. im now 22 and i still shake the snake at most anyone thatll put up with me.

abstinence is sticking your head in the sand.

[Jon Miller]

I don't see anything wrong with a Doctor considering his profession to be a "mission of the Lord". If you think of what Christ did on this earth, there was a lot of helping the sick and the like.

I agree, he is likely not the best person for this panel (although I think that maybe it could have used an abstinence proponent in it's initial state), but I don't see any reason to diss him because of him being a Christian.

I don't feel particularly threatened. This has happened before, and will happen again. Us scientists just try to work arround it...

Jon Miller

[Rufus T. Firefly]

This is just one more attempt by conservatives to characterize science as nothing more than a set of opinions, neither more nor less valid than other opinions.

Ironically, when leftist postmodernist/deconstructionist/etc. academics make this kind of argument, conservatives scream bloody murder.

The difference, of course, is that leftist academics don't actually have a material impact on people's lives.

[MRT144]

"thats just like your opinion, man"

[Vesayen]

Abstinence works for people who want it to work.

Most people, don't want it to work. I don't blame them. Sex is nice.

Abstinence only programs are insane.

[monolith94]

Of course, the only reason I believe that abstinence-only drove me crazy is because I'm CRAZY, and therefore my opinion on the matter is invalid. But it is again that very abstinence that brought me to this state!!! Oh, the irony!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I was just pointing out that if the panel was about the problems with abstinence only education (which I think is wrong for highschoolers), it should include some abstinence only proponents.

If this were a political discussion, then yes. Seeing as how it was (intended to be) a scientific conference, then I disagree. For a scientific conference you select the lectures/papers based on their scientific merit -- presenting a "balanced" view is of secondary concern at best.

At the last scientific conference I attended, a few of the papers focused on the shortcomings of Intel's x86 architecture, and the majority of papers at least mentioned in passing the shortcomings of the x86 architecture. There were no papers presented that mentioned any advantages to using the x86 (other than backwards compatibility, which was treated as a necessary evil rather than as an advantage). This was a completely unbalanced view of the x86 architecture, and it was also a completely defensible view -- from a technical standpoint, it's pretty difficult to defend the x86.

If an Intel executive who also happened to be a politician somehow leaned on the conference or its venue (which was a publically funded university) to get them to drop some of the more vehement detractors of the x86 and replace them with Intel marketers, then we would have seen a "balanced" view of the x86 at the conference, but said view would be technically indefensible. However, this is akin to what happened at the CDC conference. "Balance" has no place in a scientific conference.

[Flip McWho]

Prevention of STDs isn't entirely a scientific matter though.

[loinburger]

Neither is selecting a computer architecture -- that's why we still have the x86. But for a scientific conference, it isn't appropriate to focus on the non-scientific reasons for using the x86 or for supporting abstinence-only education or whatever.

[Lorizael]

It seems possible, though, that the scientists who set up this conference in the first place, and decided on the subject matter and the panelists and the title, may have had some sort of agenda. You can be both political and correct.

[Arrian]

The most vexing thing about this episode is not that STD researchers will apparently have to duke it out with two pro-abstinence ideologues. It's that the event's peer-review process has been undermined.

...

As Rufus said:

This is just one more attempt by conservatives to characterize science as nothing more than a set of opinions, neither more nor less valid than other opinions.

That's it precisely.

The new cast of speakers was hastily assembled. Sulak said she first heard of the conference earlier this week. "I don't even know who these people are," she told me, referring to the other members of the symposium.

In other words, these people weren't even involved in the process... they were dug up at the 11th hour by a politician who didn't like what those damned dirty liberal scientists were talking about and wanted somebody on who would spread the good word to intervene.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger

If this were a political discussion, then yes. Seeing as how it was (intended to be) a scientific conference, then I disagree. For a scientific conference you select the lectures/papers based on their scientific merit -- presenting a "balanced" view is of secondary concern at best.

At the last scientific conference I attended, a few of the papers focused on the shortcomings of Intel's x86 architecture, and the majority of papers at least mentioned in passing the shortcomings of the x86 architecture. There were no papers presented that mentioned any advantages to using the x86 (other than backwards compatibility, which was treated as a necessary evil rather than as an advantage). This was a completely unbalanced view of the x86 architecture, and it was also a completely defensible view -- from a technical standpoint, it's pretty difficult to defend the x86.

If an Intel executive who also happened to be a politician somehow leaned on the conference or its venue (which was a publically funded university) to get them to drop some of the more vehement detractors of the x86 and replace them with Intel marketers, then we would have seen a "balanced" view of the x86 at the conference, but said view would be technically indefensible. However, this is akin to what happened at the CDC conference. "Balance" has no place in a scientific conference.

Generally science is about being critical though. I am suspicious of science that has no critical involvement.

Either A:
It is already known and accepted. Which this might be, in which case, why have a panel on it? (Why not just announce to the world?)
Or B:
There is some real disagreement, and that disagreement might not be being heard.

Now in your X86 example, A might be the case... And in this example, A might be the case. In which case it is no big deal, see? (is a fairly meaningless panel in the first place) However, if B is the case, it is bad. I am not sure for this example..

Jon Miller