I'm going to answer your last two posts in this one...
As to more harm done, why limit to 25 years?
I was just giving an example of where and how scientists have had a negative impact, and not trying to show that this is always the case. I thought people were making a bit of a holier-than-thou argument with respect to scientists.
You are correct that others certainly have had negative impacts. I have no idea what the respective death tolls are, but it doesn't matter to my overall point.
I would like to know more about your position regarding how dishonest scientists, rather than, or at least supplemental to, political pressure from dishonest politicians, is primarily responsible for the spread of HIV 25 years ago.
Ugh... yes politicians played a negative role to be sure, but I'm not sure how much can be attributed to dishonesty as opposed to simply thinking from a different worldview. My comments address only the fact that scientists are not necessarily honest based on their training, and have contributed to the HIV problem. I don't think there is a thread on this topic and I'm not sure I want to hunt down all the info on it, but I will give you a couple of short examples.
During the primary search for a cause, US and French scientists became embroiled in a longlasting feud over who discovered the HIV virus first. Its a long story but
here is a short recap. It seems a bit one-sided (rather lenient on Gallo), but the conclusion remains the same...
So the controversy ended where it began. Gallo and Montagnier were deemed codiscoverers, with Montagnier the first to identify the virus and Gallo the first to show it caused the disease. What has not been owned up to is that this bitter controversy clouded one of science's greatest triumphs and drained energy from its brightest stars. Who knows the opportunities that were missed or the patients that may have been lost.
What is left unstated of course is what was lost before the feud began as well. Scientists, particularly those working in important fields, can be extremely territorial and competitive. In this case information was not disseminated as freely as it could and should have been (if the goal was helping people). Instead data was horded or disseminated in a piecemeal fashion to hinder the efforts of competitors.
After the virus was identified, tests for its presence have been the obvious next step, as well as actions to stop its spread. Unlike with any other contagion scientists decided to play social politicians and recommended courses of action which did not involve quarantine or aggressive testing procedures.
Apparently being sympathetic to homosexuals (despite the fact that they knew it was not a homosexual disease) they did not want to recommend a course of action which could impact gays (round ups or whatever). This same attitude (though now attributed to caring about anyone with HIV) continues today, for example with the withholding of at home tests as well as denial of aggressive testing regimes.
Only this last year have aggressive testing schemes begun to be talked about, with many scientists still aligned against it for purely politico-social reasons. Thankfully Clinton has broke the taboo to discuss its possibility, and promote its discussion among scientists, within 3rd world countries at least.
Self-administered at home tests in particular could be helpful (fast and easy), but the argument is largely that people who find out they are positive this way will go nuts because they don't have counseling. I'm not kidding. This seems rather an odd concern to have rather than for the as yet uninfected partner.
Here is an FDA infosheet on why people should not use at home tests (which could be used every time you go to have sex), and instead use at home-mail in tests.
Though they mention a difference in accuracy, in addition to counseling, they are a bit disingenuous as:
1) Self-tests are generally created for more false positives in order to avoid false negatives. Thus if they are different it is mainly that they will generate more false positives and as such prevent infection.
2) Mail-in tests as well as those taken at doctors can also give false positives, and the lower rate of such doesn't argue about PREVENTATIVE capability.
3) Having (vaginal/anal) sex with a partner of unknown status with a condom would still be a greater risk than having a self-test come up false negative. Not to mention one could still COMBINE the two for much greater safety.
Their summation:
So, ask yourself what is the best choice for you:
An HIV home test system that has been approved by the FDA for marketing after extensive review and in which you can feel confident about the results?
OR
An HIV home test kit that has not even been reviewed by the FDA and may not provide accurate results about whether you are HIV positive or negative?
Is it worth your time, money, mental anguish and your life to gamble on an unapproved HIV home test kit? Only you can answer that question.
The question one has to ask, besides how scientists could be so poor in logic, is why the FDA is not expediting testing for the self-test instead of shilling for the mail-in? After all they are not stating that self-tests COULDN'T be good, just that they don't know because they themselves haven't tested anything yet. Shouldn't that be a priority given the extent of the crisis?
This is not to mention the scientists who are involved with making money from the disease, and helping people continue suffer in order to maintain a profit.
Your second post...
My personal expeience is that while there are a few scientists guilty of such misbehavior, the vast majority are honest, moral, and (mostly) sane. I would even say more honest, moral and sane than the population at large.
As you point out most of this topic is anecdotal. I'm not sure how much you lived among devout Xians (of the nonscience kind) but the ones I knew seemed just as reasonable/pleasant as scientists regarding every day matters. I'd even put my money on Amish being a bit more pleasant and "moral" on average than scientists. As far as scientists v general population? Eh... the same.
The crime figures you list tend to back up nwr's claim, though in a more general educational way... I agree with your suggested confounding factors.
In my personal experience, I can remember but few incidents of dishonesty related to academic integrity. In all {ABE - but one}, the perpetrator was found out and punished, either flunked or fired.
I agree that scientists have a great (or better) system to handle dishonesty within science research. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it tends to get caught more often and dealt with quickly. Perhaps that makes scientists do it less? I dunno.
In any case that's why I said (in my metaphor) that when cleaning house the scientists have a better vacuum cleaner able to reach some more hard to reach areas. Sure they may end up being more honest in a particular area of life, because there are mechanisms in place which hit those areas. That doesn't do much for anything else in one's life.
As far as Los Alamos goes... didn't Oppenheimer cheat on his wife a lot? I've just seen too many things like that or drug addiction, petty theft, petty plagiarism, etc to view scientists as more above life's pitfalls than others. Except of course when I catch an episode of COPs, I don't remember them ever busting down the door of a scientist.
holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)