News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Feb. 18
— Scott Jaschik and Elizabeth Redden
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
I thought I knew a little about nanotechnology research, but I was completely unaware of any controversy surrounding it. What is there to be opposed to? I’m not trying to challenge anyone, I’m just trying to see what the morality issue is. And the notion that only 30% of Americans find nanotechnology morally acceptable stuns me. I’d be surprised if thirty percent of the populatio had ever heard the word.
Jim, at 8:25 am EST on February 18, 2008
If the survey didn’t ask any questions on why a person objected to nanotechnology, then why give your personal opinion. Get down to the real task of educating the public and see if anything changes. Is our good science community falling behind the rest of the world, and instead of doing the hard work to catch up, blaming religious belief?
Yvonne, at 9:45 am EST on February 18, 2008
Oh No! Prince Charles has a comment on modern architecture!! Lets stop worrying about the Iraq war, Darfur, presidential elections, financial aid scandals, tuition raises and everything else to hear what this self-appointed “expert” has to say. If there was there nothing else newsworthy to include on the web, please stop at that point.
Yurling, Executive Director at Suny Plattsburgh, at 10:30 am EST on February 18, 2008
Americans’ views on nanotechnology probably stem more from pure ignorance of the subject than from our religious beliefs. There are many nanotech research programs that have no connection to the biosciences but rather seek to create faster computers, more energy efficient lighting, lighter materials for manufacturing, etc. Maybe Americans are confusing nanotechnology and stem cell research?
Anne, at 11:20 am EST on February 18, 2008
One nugget on general intelligence might have eluded UW researchers; it’s located at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080...at;_ylt=Ao1CSXmX2lHeWhsS2AeLn30uQE4F
...which notes that over a quarter of Brits believe Winston Churchill to be a myth, and over half believe that Sherlock Holmes was real. The poll is mute on whether Brits feel that either Holmes or Sir Winston are morally acceptable.
Oh, wait, Britain isn’t really part of Europe, is it? Europhiles rejoice!
finaidfollies, at 1:10 pm EST on February 18, 2008
Hey WP, whadda ya DOIN???? Investing in the demise of higher education? Wall Street and higher education do NOT mix. Ask CEC.
As to cops....who cares if a donor criticized bad experiences she observed? She’s investing in CJ education, isn’t she? Obviously, she has respect for cops but wants to see improved techniques and further education. Just as in any other profession, there are “good cops” and “bad cops.” That doesn’t doom the whole profession, does it? (I hope not! We need effective, educated, “good cops"!)
kgotthardt, at 1:15 pm EST on February 18, 2008
It look stodgy and old fashioned, a frumpy 1960s style. Plus too much window, must cost a fortune to heat.
Why can’t architects design some beautiful, sensual that makes people happy, like Art Deco/Jugendstil did in its day. Even a neo-baroque building would look better than this “Dr. Who” movie set.
Thomas, at 9:55 am EST on February 19, 2008
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job
The Coordinator, under the direction of the Director of Technology Transfer Operations, is responsible for the day-to-day ... see job
The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) invites applications for the position of Deputy Superintendent for Academics and Dean ... see job
Saint Louis University is a Jesuit Catholic University. Through teaching, research, health care and community service, Saint ... see job
PART-TIME TEMPORARY FACULTY TO TEACH A POLITICAL SCIENCE COURSES Central Michigan University seeks qualified part-time ... see job
The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job
The Department of Art and Design in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Alberta invites applications for a tenure track ... see job
Under the direction of the University Equal Opportunity/ADA Officer, the Assistant Equal Opportunity/ADA Officer will manage ... see job
Saint Martin’s University in the City of Lacey, Washington, is seeking a President to continue the positive momentum that ... see job
Provides one-stop student service to new and continuing students, with specific focus on advising students interested in ... see job
Anti-religious prejudice != data analysis
According to the original article linked above, Dietram Scheufele has absolutely no data to support the claim that religious convictions play any role whatsoever in the differing opinions about nanotechnology. Rather, his opinion that Americans, being more religiously inclined than Europeans (a claim which I do not doubt), must therefore have their views about nanotechnology colored by their religious beliefs. And if those Americans were more secularized like their European counterparts, they’d see the light.
There’s no comment about whether Americans as a whole, religious or otherwise, know enough about nanotechnology to embrace or reject it; for that matter, whether Europeans know enough about nanotechnology to embrace or reject; whether Americans are simply more cautious about radical new technologies regardless of their religious views; whether significant number of Europeans who are religiously active support nanotechnology; or whether there are any intervening possible explanations for the differences in the survey results besides nationality and religion.
Instead, Scheufele has inserted his own views about religious people — namely, that they are just not that smart when it comes to scientific issues — in place of any kind of reasoned analysis of the data. But this is precisely the sort of blind conjecturing and editorializing about data that legitimate scientists are NOT suppose to engage in.
Robert, at 7:15 am EST on February 18, 2008