Looks like a duck . . .

[Gold Winger 9]

The problem is that government has no business singling out the problems of one group over another. Private industry can do that quite effectively.

 

If the government wants to study anyone, it should study everyone. After all, discrimination is discrimination.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Equivocation is equivocation.

[Lisabob 13]

GW, again, I think there is a misconception here. "The government" funds all kinds of research about all kinds of groups of people. If it were the case that the government refused to fund research that had a bearing on a particular group then yes, you might be well founded in your objection.

 

HOWEVER - and it is a big, big, however - that is simply not the case with regard to your example. "The government" engages in research by providing grants for specific projects to different labs and research scientists. One over here might be doing research on breast cancer, another over there might be doing research on prostate cancer, etc., etc.. No one can reasonably expect each researcher or each lab to do it all. The fact that each researcher and lab specializes, however, does not mean that they, or "the government," are wrongly discriminating against other people who are not part of a particular study. And that's what's happening here. The National Institute of Health and various other parts of the gov't bureaucracy commission all sorts of research, including, *but not limited to,* the research being conducted at Pitt.

 

And by the way, one of the better strategies for getting research funding from "the government" is for a lab to specialize, so that they get to be really good at what they're doing in their little area of expertise. Then, they'll be more competitive in grant competitions, and not incidentally, they'll probably also use any money that they are granted in a much more efficient and effective manner, than somebody who isn't an expert in their little niche might do. Non-experts have very high start-up costs and learning curves when it comes to doing any kind of serious and meaningful research.

[Gold Winger 9]

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[SSScout 1615]

Is it possible to do research on Sickle Cell Anemia in Caucasians?

[Lisabob 13]

OK GW, have it your way if you want to. I'm not going to keep trying to explain this to you because it seems rather clear to me that you aren't interested in actual thoughtful discussion based on ideas and evidence. I get the feeling that what you're looking for is a "gotcha" type of exchange instead and I don't have any interest in playing that particular game. Although I find your initial example in this thread to be an exceptionally poor one for the purposes of making your intended point, you are of course within your right to continue on down this path anyway. So I'm done - last post for me in this thread.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Gold Winger 9]

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[scoutingagain 20]

"Is it possible to do research on Sickle Cell Anemia in Caucasians?

 

 

Yes. And this is probably an under studied group, being as small as it is. Sickle cell anemia does effect a small minority of caucasians.

 

Seek and ye shall find.

 

SA

[LongHaul 10]

While I agree with Lisabob's argument, which is why I put a smiley face in my last post to indicate sarcasm, I can't help but wonder. If I allow one public building to display a manger and another a menorah but keep a third absent of all religious symbols am I still discriminating? I think the problem lies with the connotation of "discrimination". Affirmative action is discriminatory. The fact that it is accepted as a means of correcting past discrimination is irrelevant. Two discriminatory acts do not equal one non discriminatory act. The difference is that affirmative action is accepted as having positive results. Just because the "government" supports prostate cancer research does not mean that funding breast cancer research isn't discriminatory. Separate but equal was determined not to be. As a society and a nation we discriminate, it's natural in many cases such as medical research it is absolutely necessary to achieve the objective. Just try to continue this thread, discussing the merits or lack there of in the UoP study without using the word discrimination in any of it's forms. See how long the thread lasts.

LH

[Gold Winger 9]

So what we have established is that some discrimination is okay if it provides for a greater good.

 

$10 million a year to study why atheists suffer from depression would be okay but $10 a year to support BSA isn't okay. Interesting.

[LongHaul 10]

Couldn't even make it past the next post.

LH

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Moderator, if you're going to remove my response to accusations of namecalling (where I point out that I am only purposely mangling his screen name because he intentionally mangles mine), then please edit the original accusation of namecalling. Or at least edit out all the dozens of times snide Boy Scouts have intentionally mangled my screen name in an attempt to insult me.

 

Thanks.

[Kellyr 10]

I thought that this forum was a site that was made up of scouts and scouter. But I must not be in the right forum, because if the scouts and or scouters in my troop acted the way you adults (and I am using this term lightly)are acting I would be looking for a way to get them removed.

I thought that we as "adults" are suppose to set examples for the scouts that come on to this forum and into our units. Setting here reading some of the things that is in here makes me very ashamed to call you friends of scouting.