|
Politics |
Politics, freedom, government, and law, with a hacker spin.
|
|
|
Pharmaceuticals, Genomics and Race (Politics)
By minerboy Tue Oct 25th, 2005 at 08:29:57 AM EST
|
|
|
The science of genomics is the study of genes and their function. Recent advances in genomics are bringing about a revolution in our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of disease, and are providing new ways for scientists to develop pharmaceuticals by targeting the specific genes, or the corresponding proteins responsible for the disease. The details of the process are summarized at Decision Resources. They write "Genomics-based drug discovery now offers the improved ability to identify greater numbers of drug targets. Genomics is based on the concept that a gene's function is to generate a certain effect or group of effects in the body. Genes achieve this functionality through the proteins they produce. Although the genes themselves might become therapeutic targets, the pivotal rationale behind this approach is that, by linking public genomic data with proprietary genomic sequence information, pharmaceutical companies can then launch a focused search for proteins expressed from these genes, providing additional therapeutic targets."
The new genomic approach to drug design may have a significant impact on the quality and scope of pharmaceuticals available, it also raises some important questions with regard to social justice, that is, how can you insure that certain groups of people are not disadvantaged with regard to drug development? It is conceivable that the pharmaceutical industry, driven either by profit or prejudice, will avoid developing drugs that will be vital to a minority population.
Full Story (79 comments, 1272 words in story)
|
|
|
Moderate Christian Organization Displays Its Tolerance (Politics)
By codejack Wed Oct 19th, 2005 at 10:57:53 PM EST
|
|
|
In a flash of political genius, the American Family Association has threatened to boycott American Girl, a manufacturer of dolls, books, clothes, and accessories for 7-12 year old girls, over the company's support of Girls Inc., a national nonprofit organization that "inspires girls to be strong, smart, and bold". Much as the misogynists among us would argue with the feasibility of some of these goals, their benevolence seems beyond doubt. So what's the deal here?
Full Story (155 comments, 471 words in story)
|
|
|
McCain passes amendment to end torture of detainees; Bush threatens veto (Politics)
By mcc Fri Oct 7th, 2005 at 01:52:52 AM EST
|
|
|
If you look at the Army Field Manual's section on interrogation techniques, you will find an enlightening little passage on the subject of "coercive" interrogation, which says in part:
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
Here is the short version of the article which follows from this point: Early in the "War on Terror", the Bush Administration made a decision that the U.S. military would not be bound by the Geneva Convention in the fights that were to come. When the fights came, the "detainees" that the military picked up were met with treatment that some supporters of the Bush Administration called "coercive" and some other persons called "torture".Yesterday evening, John McCain passed an amendment to the next military appropriations bill which if followed would end such practices by simply requiring the treatment of detainees to be held to the standards in the Army field manual. Bush claims he's going to veto it. This would mean the first, and so far only, veto of Bush's entire presidency would be performed in support of torture.
Full Story (238 comments, 3144 words in story)
|
|
|
One event, two versions (Politics)
By DarthSilly Thu Sep 22nd, 2005 at 07:31:10 AM EST
|
|
|
Iraqi version
On Monday, two persons were approached for suspicious activity. They fired at police, killing one and wounding another. They attempted to flee in a car, after which they were apprehended and photographed. It was discovered that though the two were in civilian clothes, they were in fact British soldiers. Explosives were found in their car, and it is believed that they were in the process of planting explosives for the purpose of inciting violence. It is for this reason they are believed to have fled from the Iraqi authorities.
These events set off other violence, including the bombing of British tanks, and clashing with Iraq Basra police. UK demands for the release of their soldiers led to fighting between UK and Iraq Basra police. The UK mounted an armed raid, consisting of twelve tanks, and brutally overtook the police station, allowing hundreds to escape and extracting their soldiers. The UK and US is currently in the process of damage control, claiming that the operation was a "rescue" and further attempting to eliminate any other evidence or opposition.
UK official version
Iraqi police had arrested two off-duty British soldiers, and after some negotiations, they were released into British custody.
Sources
Google News
Washington Post,
phillyburbs.com,
Kuna.net,
ABC News (US).
Comments (122 comments)
|
|
|
|