Re: scientist herethe_physicistOctober 25 2012, 20:58:06 UTC
dude, it's totally on topic and also seems to have make you acknowledge that such a responsibility may actually have been part of their 'job' in that circumstance. now you are only contesting the sentence. and if you read what i actually said, the sentence might not even be something i even agree with. but that they were found guilty for what they were actually charged with - that's what i'm agreeing with.
and please, please explain to me how on earth this "sets a dangerous precedent". how will this lead to more, rather than less scientists being pawns? I think if anything this will highlight to scientists that they actually could face consequences if they agree to be pawns and might, ya know... not let themselves be used in that way. how on earth will it lead to more scientists going: "you know what? i remember what happened to those scientists in Italy! they misrepresented risks to the public! let me do the same...!"
if you meant to say "it will let more politician use scientists as scapegoats"... i think you will find you don't know much about the actual trials in the city. those assholes will land behind bars too. they are not going to get off for their negligence either.
Re: scientist heretiger0rangeOctober 25 2012, 21:45:08 UTC
Okay that reply was so off, I'm thinking you don't even understand what I'm saying.
Read the Nature article. The scientists did not say it was impossible. They said it was unlikely. The Civil Protection Agency gave the more definitive statement. Then they went back and said why didn't the scientists correct them. Well that's just plain stupid.
Look, I worked with BSL 3 organisms. I worked with things that could kill hundreds easily both chemical and biological. I know what society trusts me with and what it doesn't. I work in vaccine development now. If someone asked me my opinion on vaccines and then died taking one. It would NOT be my responsibility it would be the responsibility of the people who marketed the vaccine. That's what keeps the company on track making sure they put something safe out there.
My job is to extend human knowledge. It's not to market or manufacture things for human consumption. It goes with science that I may be wrong . That's why the road from discovery to application is so long and doesn't involve the original scientists for most of it. What we have here is a witch hunt. The Civil Protection Agency is scapegoating the scientists. The truth is that the buck stops with the CPA no matter what advice they were given.
This is a red herring to distract you from the fact that lax building codes were what really caused the high death count.
and please, please explain to me how on earth this "sets a dangerous precedent". how will this lead to more, rather than less scientists being pawns? I think if anything this will highlight to scientists that they actually could face consequences if they agree to be pawns and might, ya know... not let themselves be used in that way. how on earth will it lead to more scientists going: "you know what? i remember what happened to those scientists in Italy! they misrepresented risks to the public! let me do the same...!"
if you meant to say "it will let more politician use scientists as scapegoats"... i think you will find you don't know much about the actual trials in the city. those assholes will land behind bars too. they are not going to get off for their negligence either.
Reply
Read the Nature article. The scientists did not say it was impossible. They said it was unlikely. The Civil Protection Agency gave the more definitive statement. Then they went back and said why didn't the scientists correct them. Well that's just plain stupid.
Look, I worked with BSL 3 organisms. I worked with things that could kill hundreds easily both chemical and biological. I know what society trusts me with and what it doesn't. I work in vaccine development now. If someone asked me my opinion on vaccines and then died taking one. It would NOT be my responsibility it would be the responsibility of the people who marketed the vaccine. That's what keeps the company on track making sure they put something safe out there.
My job is to extend human knowledge. It's not to market or manufacture things for human consumption. It goes with science that I may be wrong . That's why the road from discovery to application is so long and doesn't involve the original scientists for most of it.
What we have here is a witch hunt. The Civil Protection Agency is scapegoating the scientists. The truth is that the buck stops with the CPA no matter what advice they were given.
This is a red herring to distract you from the fact that lax building codes were what really caused the high death count.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment