Florida State University Conducting Diverse Research Discussion
Florida State University Conducting Diverse Research Discussion
REPLY TO TWO OF THESE DISSCUSION
RE: Wagner pg. 241 Chapter 1 question 2
Top of Form
Based on the reading we do believe that there should be some aspect of government involvement in monitoring such scientific advancement. If there isn’t some form of government oversight to maintain particular regulations to prevent fraud or scientific advancement based on financial gain or incentive would alter the motive for conducting such research. However, we feel that the government involvement should consist of individuals that resemble that of an IRB board, composed of individuals from varying professional fields within the science community to have a well rounded perspective when reviewing proposals for research purposes. It would allow for monitoring the various proposals and would allow for interviews of the researcher to verify that there is no ulterior motive.
If the research is funded by the federal government then absolutely the government should be involved with supervising the experiments being conducted. The viewpoint 7 with Jonathan Kimmelman, Francoise Baylis, and Kathleen Cranley Glass states, “…federal review of research studies, a central registry of all current research and nationally established research guidelines would minimize scientific fraud, financial conflicts of interest, and unrealistic claims about the potential benefits of stem cell technology”(Wagner, 2008). On the other hand in viewpoint 8, Ronald Bailey points out that during G.W. Bush’s presidency the restrictions he set in place regarding federal funding for stem cell research is 2001, “actually galvanized scientific advance: A flood of state and private funding followed, researchers broadened their hunt for alternative sources of stem cells, and competition to fund the most promising (and potentially the most profitable) work increased” (Wagner, 2008).
There are pro’s and con’s to both having government involvement and the absence of it. For one, if the study/research is not funded by the government there is the likelihood that the findings and rights to the research will be owned by a private company, such as Geron, which “holds the exclusive rights to therapies and diagnostics derived from some of the first stem cell lines, may exert a significant influence over the development and availability of stem cell technologies” (Wagner, 2008). This can lead to a multitude of downstream effects ranging from availability of treatments to affordability. This is just one out of countless examples.
Reply Quote Email Author
Bottom of Form
1 day ago
Eric Rhodes INSTRUCTOR MANAGER
RE: Wagner pg. 241 Chapter 1 question 2
Top of Form
Something to think about, when we say “government” what do we mean? Who should be making these decisions? Politicians?
I think that scientists should be making these decisions and serving on these government committees. But not only scientists from the “top tier” universities in the world. They should have scientists who are Christian and other religions to represent a complete world view. Wouldn’t then the committee need the power to set regulations that would come from the government. The government does fund most the research in this country in the health sciences.
Reply Quote Email Author
Bottom of Form
1 day ago
Kailie Montanez
RE: Wagner pg. 241 Chapter 1 question 2
Top of Form
I couldn’t agree more with your explanation. These scientist should be involved in the committees that serve the governments. And as you mentioned not just from one stereotypical “best of the best” universities, not that there is anything is wrong with that. However, no one wants a committee of individuals that have come from the same background making decisions about an entire population. There NEEDS to be a diverse group which would include various ethnic and religious groups. This would provide so much insight into cultural differences from a first hand experience and would allow for a well rounded approach in how to best incorporate practices of varying scientific research advancements, such as the studies involving embryonic stem cells.
I mean if I were to serve on a committee of individuals that all came from a background similar to myself then there would be a limited point of view, compared to a committee that had all sorts of backgrounds. This is encountered in normal daily life so why not incorporate it into the very aspects of how we research with scientific advancement(s)?
Bottom of Form