In case you don't know what to talk about, here's some stories to break the ice:

Robert P. George, Council of Bioethics at Princeton University: "I Was Wrong About Peter Singer" (HT: Positive Liberty). George has always defended Singer. Not his opinions, since Singer supports bestiality and the killing of infants, but his integrity in always representing his opponents accurately. See what made him change his mind.

More ancient genes: "Although lampreys and humans shared their last common ancestor some 560 million years ago, it turns out that the SoxE family of genes is involved in facial development of lampreys during neural crest development, just as SoxE is responsible for formation of the human pharynx and parts of the jaw." (HT: Red State Rabble)

"Parallel Evolution: Proteins Do It, Too": "Wings, spines, saber-like teeth - nature and the fossil record abound with examples of structures so useful they've evolved independently in a variety of animals. But scientists have debated whether examples of so-called adaptive, parallel evolution also can be found at the level of genes and proteins."

I don't see this blogged, so I'm jumping into the fray (with my usual liberal dose of righteous indignation at this sort of thing). I think this is an important developing story - the Dead Date is April 30.

Despite the Shiavo fiasco we all recall - when the President interrupted one of his frequent vacations to return to DC and call a special session of Congress to prevent the euthanasia of a Florida woman with brain damage - a hospital and insurance company drafted bill G.W. Bush signed into law as Texas governor in 1999 is once again being used to kill. This time it's a 54-year old woman who is not in a coma, is not terminally ill, and whose brain damage from hemorrhage suffered after heart surgery does not compromise her higher brain functions. It just compromises certain motor control, which requires her to breathe by mechanical assist (ventilator). The patient and her family have registered strong objection to this planned "mercy killing," but a single doctor has decided their wishes don't count.

Senior DI Fellow Wesley J. Smith is so far one of very few who have taken up the cause, arguing that the treatment isn't being removed because it doesn't work - it's being removed because it DOES work. He also lists a host of other objections, and lodges substantial criticisms of the Texas law.

Houston Hospital Votes to End Woman's Life with Bush Law
WorldNet Daily: Hospital to Kill Sick Woman

Read it and weep…

I came across an old textbook entitled, The Principles of Heredity. It was written by geneticist Laurence H. Snyder and published in 1935 (Boston, New York [etc.] D.C. Heath and company). The book was intended as a text for "the beginning student of heredity." The textbook has a chapter on Eugenics that provides us a glimpse of one portion of our American and scientific history. Given that this material was being taught to students, as promised, I've transcribed this chapter and offer it merely as a service for those interested in the history of eugenics.

Here

I hope to comment at a future date.

What can I say on Independence Day? Well, I have an old textbook on genetics, entitled The Principles of Heredity, by Laurence H. Snyder. It was written in 1935 and thus, toward the end of the book, we get a chapter on eugenics. In the future I will transcribe the chapter and post it on Telic Thoughts so some people can see how eugenics was being taught to students. Suffice it to say that you find that standard arguments for eugenics: lots of behavior has a genetic basis; lots of that behavior is bad for society; society might want to intervene and slow down the propagation of such traits, etc. What does this have to do with July 4? Well, consider the last of the chapter's "problems" for students to work on:

7. The Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"¦." Discuss this statement from the genetic standpoint.

In their letter to Nature, Coyne et al. write:

The real business of science teachers is to teach science, not to help students shore up worldviews that crumble when they learn science.

Okay, so what might be a "scientifically approved" worldview? Perhaps we should look to one of the signers of the letter "“ James Watson, the Nobel Laureate who helped decipher the double helix model of DNA.

Read the rest of this entry »