Leave homoeopathy and creationism alone, Blair tells scientists.

[Mojo]

From the Grauniad:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1937504,00.html


In an interview broadcast today, Mr Blair urges scientists to "pick their battles" over important debates like MMR jabs and stem cell research, rather than side issues like homeopathy or even the teaching of creationism in some schools.

Doesn't he understand that the promotion of things like homoeopathy and the opposition to vaccination are part of the same issue?


Asked about two setbacks for scientists during his time as prime minister - MMR vaccinations and the failure to establish genetically modified crops in the UK - he replies: "The reporting of MMR, frankly, was disgraceful. There was absolutely no real scientific basis for the allegations that were made and it has caused a great deal of difficulty."

How is the public to differentiate between pseudoscience the government is prepared to tolerate and pseudoscience the government finds "disgraceful"?

[Mongrel]

See he's got a great catch-all line there
"The reporting of XXXXXXXXX, frankly, was disgraceful. There was absolutely no real scientific basis for the allegations that were made and it has caused a great deal of difficulty."

Why can't he apply it to issues such as Homeopathy and Creationism?

[median]

What do you expect?
Considering both him and that cretin Bush saw the Iraq conflict as some kind of holy crusade >:(

[Blue Wode]

Tony Blair:

"The reporting of MMR, frankly, was disgraceful. There was absolutely no real scientific basis for the allegations that were made and it has caused a great deal of difficulty."

So obviously Andrew Wakefield didn’t make much of an impression at this cosy little get-together back in 2001:

Last night it emerged that Cherie Blair's sister Lyndsey Booth was one of the organisers of a Downing Street meeting attended by Dr Andrew Wakefield, the medical expert who first raised the alarm about possible links between the MMR vaccine and autism. Booth, a former lawyer who now practices as a homeopath, is the second member of Cherie's family to enter the controversy over the risks of inoculation. Lauren Booth, Cherie's half-sister, wrote last week of her fears for her daughter and her own decision to refuse the triple jab.

Blair's fury at media 'invasion of privacy' over Leo's MMR vaccine
Torcuil Crichton, December 23, 2001
The Sunday Herald (Scotland)


http://www.homeopathic.org/news1201.htm

[Cuddles]

But Blair has such a great understanding of science. Why, just today he is coming all the way to Diamond Light Source so he can ponce around pretending he actually understands a single word anyone is saying while getting lots of lovely media photos of him reading pre-prepared answers to some pointless questions.

[Cuddles]

And another gem I just found in the same interview


If I notice creationism become the mainstream of the education system in this country then that’s the time to start worrying. As I’ve said, it’s really quite important for science to fight the battles it needs to fight.

So as long as less than half of children are taught a complete load of bollocks we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it? How did this man ever get put in charge of a whole country?

[tkingdoll]

Ha ha! Today he is pleading for the country's young people to become scientists!

WANKER. >:(

[Admin]

Doesn't he understand that the promotion of things like homoeopathy and the opposition to vaccination are part of the same issue?

Believing in things that aren't real just isn't smart at any time. Be it homeopathy, creationism, MMR causing autism, or whatever.

Hell, if the Prime Minister cannot see the parallel then we might just find ourselves going to war based on the belief that the enemy has weapons of mass destruction!

Why bother with evidence when you already know? - and your ally's leader says that we ought to go to war because God told him to.

Believing in nonsense can seem benign; and it is most of the time. It's when crunch points occur in life (or politics etc.) however, that it does its damage. So no irrational belief should be left alone.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Fuller version of the thing here:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn10422

Now wash your hands.

[Araneus]

I think Blair has a different concept of "science" to the rest of us. He doesn't mean critical thinking and skeptical inquiry (after all, all governments want the populace to swallow their BS), but rather the development of technologies that can be exploited to make money. His view is entirely consistent with that of a religious capitalist, rather than an actual scientist.

[boffin]

When I heard Blair spouting his crap I couldn't believe it - under his government, the quality of the teaching of science and the actual science courses for 14 - 18 year-olds have deteriorated significantly.

The chemistry and physics 'A' levels have been emasculated since much of the deeper (and hence more difficult) concepts have been removed.

Furthermore, the new G.C.S.E. science - where scientifically ignorant students are expected to discuss the scientific topics covered in tabloids - can lead only to a further deterioration of the 'A' level examinations.
How can one contribute to a meaningful discussion on genetic engineering if one's understanding is limited to 'Frankenstein Foods' and 'Cloning Saddam'.
Only when the individuals involved in a scientific discussion have a similar understanding of the fundamental scientific concepts (such as the difference between viruses and bacteria, genes and chromosomes, DNA and proteins, etc.) can the discussion be of value.
But that would involve teaching science properly - oh dear.

[Mojo]

From today's Grauniad: Enemies of science (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1946288,00.html)

[Aardvark]

'A forward-thinking nation loses respect for that free inquiry at its peril. Children taught to disregard evidence when trying to work out where the earth came from; a scientific agency deciding to abandon basic principles; and a government twisting research to fit its ideological message - none of that respects free inquiry. And if you don't stand up for that, you don't stand up for science.'

· Alok Jha is the Guardian's science correspondent

alok.jha@guardian.co.uk

Says it all!