Noteworthy News Briefs

While our bloggers have been churning away blog posts, the news stream just keeps throwing more information our way, giving plenty of food for thought -- here are a just a few summaries and links to noteworthy stories of ethical, legal, and/or societal import:

~ Empowerment enhances cognition (or the flip side, why kicking someone when they are down keeps them down). From the Economist, a study shows that simply putting someone into a weak social position impairs his/her cognitive function. Conversely, “empowering” him or her, sharpens up his mind. Full story here.

~ Most study participants understand research goals. From Reuters: People who take part in clinical trials often do so out of a desire to advance scientific knowledge and to help others, a new international study demonstrates. Access full article here.

~ Some doctors are worried that the early findings regarding a drug that seems to restore speech in Alzheimers' patients will raise premature hopes in patients and their families. More on the story here.

~ Hello, Mr. Roboto -- Do we think that machines can think? From Science Daily, the question of why and under what circumstances we attribute human-like properties to machines and how such processes manifest on a cortical level was investigated. Article accessible here.

~ Creationism rears its ugly head. Again.

~ A Blow to Genetic/Biological Idolatry: Families with Children Without A Genetic Or Gestational Link To Their Parents Do Well. Story here.

~ Good News: We've Seen the Future and We May Not Be Doomed. The story on the UN Report of the Future, here and a link to the Executive Summary here.

~ The American Medical Association, long considered to be the voice of American doctors., formally apologized for more than a century of policies that excluded blacks from the group. Article here.

~ In the category of 'keepin' em barefoot and pregnant': The draft proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would withhold government funds from health-care providers and organizations that don't hire people who refuse to perform abortions or provide certain types of birth control. Story here. Worthy commentary here.

~ The Future of Babies: Artificial Wombs and Pregnant Grandmas. From LiveScience, artificial wombs and experiments on human embryos grown in the lab will be commonplace and no big deal ethically in 30 years, several scientists predict.

Ben Stein's latest entry in the culture wars: creationism

Maybe I'm out of touch, but it was news to me that Ben Stein (former Nixon speechwriter, monotone teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, etc. etc.--if you watch the video below, you'll get to hear him list his many accomplishments) is a strong proponent of intelligent design.



His new film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, due out next month, is positioned as an expose of the controlling, elitist, (etc.) academic establishment, its enslavement to Darwinism, and the terrible punishment that scientists who promote ID have received at its hands. I just watched the trailer, which -- no kidding -- implies that the Holocaust was the result of the theory of evolution. I find it offensive, and also slightly ominous, that Stein is comfortable using imagery of the ovens for his political purposes here. It also appears that he had no compunctions about getting scientists to talk to him under false pretenses, as PZ Myers of Pharyngula reports here--with a funny followup here.

Laugh for the Day: Creationists vs. Angry Atheists

[Via Orac's Respectful Insolence blog] Orac comments that he can't make up his mind about this YouTube clip, whether is it's a slam on Richard Dawkins or a slam of the creationists' perceptions about Richard Dawkins. ProScience? -- I'm not so sure -- personally, I think it's slam of all credos or dogmatism and shows that neither side has a monopoly on arrogance:





But, hey, I'll take my laughs where I can get them and this is funny~ my favorite part: "If I were dyslexic, I'd even hate dog, too." :>)

Having Cake is Different From Eating Cake

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a new book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, to explain the differences between religion and science, and to clarify the currently muddled discussion on matters entangled in the current conflict.

NYT reports:

...it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.

...The 70-page book, “Science, Evolution and Creationism,” says, among other things, that “attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.” And it offers statements from several eminent biologists and members of the clergy to support the view.

In the past year, there has been a significant push-back by prominent atheists and skeptics against dogma-based attacks on science, but this new publication will be key in defusing the artificially constructed conflict between two completely different human endeavors. Hopefully, this year will mark the emergence of a new movement to continue this effort.