The need to protest against beliefs that would allow millions of humans to suffer because of the idea that an embryo is more morally important than a human suffering should be clear cut in the scientific community. Such irrationalism may be countered by good science engaged with the public and MPs but the Medical Research Council  seems not to want scientists to go on the offensive as the report below from BBC News indicates:

Hybrid embryos have already been created in the UK

Scientists are being discouraged from attending Parliament on Monday to show their support for proposed embryology and fertility legislation.

Documents obtained by BBC News show the Medical Research Council (MRC) believes any lobbying of MPs would be “counter-productive”.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill contains controversial proposals on abortion, IVF and hybrid embryos.

Opponents believe the measures are unethical and unnecessary.

Having worked with patient groups in supporting the bill thus far we would leave them high and dry if we didn’t give them public support on the day that the bill reaches the Commons Dr Stephen Minger Embryology Bill: Key points

Prominent stem cell scientists had been invited by campaigners to a show of support for the bill, along with patient groups and doctors.

The aim, according to the organisers, is to counter lobbying by groups opposed to embryo research - and to explain the science to interested MPs.

BBC News has learned that the head of policy at the MRC, Tony Peatfield, has emailed the heads of four of its institutes asking them to tell staff that the MRC cannot support researchers involved in the event.

He says that the corporate view is that the presence of scientists outside Parliament could have a “negative impact” and might “actually be counter-productive to the research that (the MRC) would like to see progress”.

Angry response

One of the scientists invited to the event is Dr Stephen Minger - who holds one of the two licences to clone human embryos for research purposes.

He said that he “failed to understand the MRC’s view”.

Dr Minger said that as a result of Mr Peatfield’s note, rather than just turn up by himself he is now urging his entire laboratory staff to attend.

He said: “By giving our support to the bill we are showing MPs that there is another point of view.

“And it was lobbying by scientists in the first place that meant that the government was able to understand why the creation of hybrid embryos was necessary.

“Having worked with patient groups in supporting the bill thus far we would leave them high and dry if we didn’t give them public support on the day that the bill reaches the Commons.”

Dr Evan Harris, who organised the event, described the MRC’s response as “rather absurd and paranoid”.

He said: “It is a valid part of public engagement - which the MRC is supposed to be encouraging - for scientists to come to Parliament and explain their research.”

In his email to institute heads, Mr Peatfield forwarded an earlier note sent by the MRC’s head of clinical research and ethics, Catherine Elliot. This note, he said, “is now the corporate view”.

Dr Elliot states: “The feedback we have had is that the scientists who are speaking about these issues, to MPs and in the media, appear measured, rational, and not pushing their agenda against all odds.

“Again we would emphasise that pictures of apparently protesting scientists is quite likely to undermine this.

“While we appreciate that protest is not the intention of the event that is how pictures may well be interpreted.”

In a statement, the MRC said: “In common with all organisations receiving public money, the MRC has a responsibility to ensure that it uses the most appropriate methods to communicate its policy.

“It is not appropriate for the MRC to undertake lobbying activities such as public demonstrations or protests.

“If scientists supported by the MRC wish to become involved in lobbying in a personal capacity, for example by demonstrating outside Parliament, they are free to do so, but we require them to make clear that this is in a personal capacity, and not on behalf of the MRC.”

All was not well at the American Atheists Conference. Not everything went as planned, and if I am honest the back stabbing reminded me sadly of many organisations. The clash of egos, the public show and then the sideways bickering when out of ear shot. People jockeying for their ideas and presence to take centre stage.

So to hear that Ellen Johnson is no longer President is not a shock. The way she was “surprised” to receive an award and then produced a speech for it made many of us squeal. When she talked about finishing the “Freedom Walk” it went too far, almost hysterical in the show to garner support. Forgive me if it sounds like I am putting the boot in; what I am trying to tell you is that if you were at the American Atheists Conference it felt like knives were shinning for her and that her performance was not exactly helping the situation. 

This does lead me to accept the version of events that she was fired. If you are fighting to save your skin do not present yourself with an award. I hope that things will improve within the atheist movement. I only voice my concerns now because the story is out. There are more stories where people’s egos do threaten to undermine the cause of science education and civil rights and a secular society that protects freedom of expression and personal liberty. 

Enough please of the back stabbing and clawing that goes on behind the scenes. This is about a cause and an argument worth advancing. Hopefully all atheist and secularist groups can improve their inter and intra relationships not just so they recognise the benefit of working together (in the past they have competed fiercely with each other for members and status) but realising and releasing the synergy of acting together. Individuals should not get in the way of that process, but groups should not try to protect their status at the expense of advancing the movement as a whole.

Maybe hidden, but God is active in my life as well as those of believers according to Cardinal Murphy O’Connor. Apparently this means that I deserve respect on the basis of a super natural being that is involved in my day to day life - hidden so it cannot be observed, proved and known; only a mystery that can be appreciated as such.

The Cardinal believes that a secularist society is intolerant of religion. When really it is about not allowing religious sensibilities deny others their human rights and access to services and goods as citizens. You do not have the right to treat others unfairly because your faith apparently allows you to do so. Nor to encourage a policy that would reduce the use of contraceptives and increase unplanned pregnancies - a dogma that would make the human condition worse if realised.

If you are going to respect me perhaps try doing so by understanding the position that I hold. That by thinking liberty and freedom so important that a free mind should not be shackled by something which cannot and must not be questioned. That with an ability to reason it is entirely fair to hold any idea or pronouncement to account and ask for the evidence and to scrutinize. That the welfare of a people should not be sacrificed to a sky god whose evidence for existence is the same as if not being there at all. That in the public sphere ideas and principles should be as universal as possible - that is, they do not depend on someone having the same faith as you or believing that only one person or group is right unquestionably. That no human is a prisoner to the beliefs of another - that we are autonomous, individuals at are best when we respect our differences and not intimidated by not being the same.

The full article from BBC News is below:

‘Respect atheists’, says Cardinal

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor urges deeper understanding between believers and non-believers The Archbishop of Westminster has urged Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with “deep esteem”. Believers may be partly responsible for the decline in faith by losing sense of the mystery and treating God as a “fact in the world”, he said in a lecture. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor called for more understanding and appreciation between believers and non-believers. The leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales said that a “hidden God” was active in everyone’s life. The Cardinal’s lecture at Westminster Cathedral comes after a spate of public clashes over issues such as stem-cell research, gay adoption and faith schools.   Mystery of God     He expressed concern about the increasing unpopularity of the Christian voice in public life, saying: “Our life together in Britain cannot be a God-free zone and we must not allow Britain to become a world devoid of religious faith and its powerful contribution to the common good.” Proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor Last year, he complained of a “new secularist intolerance of religion” and the state’s “increasing acceptance” of anti-religious views.   To stem this tide, he said Christians must understand they have something in common with those who do not believe. God is not a “fact in the world” as though God could be treated as “one thing among other things to be empirically investigated” and affirmed or denied on the “basis of observation”, said Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor. “If Christians really believed in the mystery of God, we would realise that proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative. “I want to encourage people of faith to regard those without faith with deep esteem because the hidden God is active in their lives as well as in the lives of those who believe.”

Eddie Tabash just sent me an e mail which confirms his fears about who John McCain would appoint as a Supreme Court Judge.

McCain has sent out an e mail to supporters:

There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges with a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.

If you want judges who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.

I am proud to have played a role in the appointment and nomination of two great Supreme Court justices - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito I need your support now so that as your president I can nominate judges like Justices Roberts and Alito - judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust. Judges who take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives. Judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

With regards Justice Roberts he was opposed by the Council for Secular Humanism not least for his views on church and state and view of Roe V Wade. Judge Alito is a libertarian who is more concerned that secularists and religious people are treated fairly in the same situation - for example a secularist exemption from shaving means that a religious exemption from shaving must be allowed too (that happened).

The reason McCain promotes these particular two judges in his e mail? In short:

• Regan boys at the White House
• Religious
• Personal views on abortion
• McCain needs money from people that like these judges

In short it is a way of encouraging the religious right to support him. To make that clear McCain goes on:

My friends, the future of our country and of the Supreme Court is at stake in this election. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected, both of whom voted against confirming Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, they will elect activist judges. They will elect judges who legislate from the bench.

I’m sure I don’t have to remind you how important even one vote on the Supreme Court can be. Issues concerning states’ rights, abortion, affirmative action, the Second Amendment, and religious freedom have all been decided by a very slim 5-4 margin.

It all depends on how you want to define what secularism is. My own view is a libertarian one - that the state should allow it’s citizens to practice religion as a personal matter. That it belongs in the private sphere, and that government is only concerned with people being free to pursue their own individual liberty in that right. That right includes not having a religion, and not having to take part in religious observations or rites, with no penalty for not doing so nor special favour given by the State to those who do as opposed to when others do not. Why I do see secularism as protecting human rights can be found here.

So McCain reveals his hand. I am sorry I had to part with you; I have admired you from across the pond for some time. I agree that the choice of Supreme Court judge will effect America greatly - and I fear your choices will create one that denies people the liberty to make their own informed choices (from abortion to sex education).

The world has seen what the religious right in America has done on the global stage in that regard also, and more. For this, and many more reasons, I hope that Obama wins the nomination and goes on to the White House. But if any of the Republican of the nominees was to win the White House I would want it to be you - and it is with regret that I would not support you.

Want to know what a religious field trip for home schooled kids is like?

Try this link.

The problem is what they are teaching is based on their faith, not on what the evidence is. They will not know that most religious people may not have to reject evidence in nature based on a dogma, nor that doing so for religious reasons is not a good way about discerning what is true. What they will not realize is that what is true about the natural world must submit to an interpretation of the bible based on a belief.

What they teach here is about reinforcing the presumed accurate belief system in the children, with the view that they will later on reject what science has to say with regard the age of the earth, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the development of species over time by a natural process that we call evolution.

Remember: if recognising evolution took place leads your kids to deny faith in god, and to agree with same sex marriage and porn, some parents will do anything to prevent that possibility. Including denying them a proper education that may lead them to draw their own conclusions based on the evidence.

Thankfully children grow up, and often put away childish things as an adult. Belief that all things must be controlled by a supreme being and not natural processes is one of them.

Thanks to Alex Mabee for the link.

BBC News reports:

Senator Obama won 56% of the vote in North Carolina, while Senator Clinton won 51% of the vote in Indiana.

There are now six primaries left - but polls report that half of Clintons supporters will not support Obama if he is the chosen nominee. Party activists should be alarmed - because while it matters doing the best for your candidate, and making sure candidates are properly tested (Gordon Brown never was with lack luster rivals that there was no need for an election as he gathered enough support from MPs not to need a ballot).

Obama has too much of a lead for the Primaries left to effect the result. He will win the majority of delegates and the popular vote. What will matter is how the Super delegates vote. Hilary is still loaning millions of dollars to keep her campaign going.

In Britain we refer to those with power over these things as the men in grey. These were the ones that told Thatcher to stand down for the good of the party. Howard Dean continues publicly to ask for one of them to stand aside, and Prospect reports that Ted Kennedy had approached Clinton to become Senate Leader is she did so (Ted also supports Obama). It seems publicly there is enough to suggest that behind the scenes much has been made to make this happen - I would suggest by trying to dry up funds for the Clinton campaign. Yet she does have a following and a personal fortune to use.

Yet this is about the candidates to be the most powerful person on earth. Who will appoint supreme court judges that will impact on government and social policy for a generation. To make negotiations and decisions on the national stage. It really matters - and Christian fundamentalism impacting science and the separation of church and state is at stake. The need for a robust Democrat candidate that can stand up for these things is necessary - to their credit I think Obama and Clinton would.

The problem is this divisiveness is breaking the Democratic Party, and allowing McCain a shot at the White House. The irony is that the Democrats having two strong candidates may ruin their chances. McCain is no Bush, and he is a better candidate than George W Bush. The latter won two terms as President.

Eddie Tabash made the comment to me that the Democratic machine has the ability to squander millions on a candidate that stands no chance of winning. It would be an irony if two potentially winning candidates loose because of the nomination process. A winner takes all Primary process so an outright winner is chosen without the need for Super Delegates would stop this situation. Ironically for Clinton, who supported the current system, she would be ahead under that system. The rules of the game choose the winner - thus does the electoral system matter.

Last few days has seen some fine weather - over 25 degrees centigrade (70s for my USA friends) and sunshine. Right now sitting on the front lawn with some wine and also a book currently reading “The Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein. Much of it covers what the Chicago Boys got up too in Latin America and how the economic shock therapy (to cure previous public policy ills) was linked with political repression and torture to make citizens shocked enough to comply.

Will write a blog on that book when I have finished. It reminds me of an exam essay which asked to assess the use of shock therapy in former communist countries in Europe. My response was that citizens needed to be informed of what the policy was about, consent to the use of the policy, and have a means to monitor whether the policy was working or not. I am only 100 pages through the book, but Klein seems to be suggesting that supply side economics only works with a repressed and shocked citizenship - or rather does not work but does end up with repression of people naturally.

The thing is that is not economics - that is politics. And if any economist thinks a dictator is what is necessary for their doctrines to work then they have not understood Adam Smith nor understood the enlightenment principle that people free to choose what is in their own interests with social institutions that make that possible for people is the kind of society that most of us want to live in.

How to know the truth from the gossip that exaggerates a persons views to ridiculous lengths. It seems that this vicar’s fascist sympathies allowed grudges to develop to overblown proportions, and during the Second World war had him incarcerated by village folk that accused him of having two Gestapo agents hidden at the rectory.

The National Archive files on Tibbs’s case have only just been declassified

In the summer of 1940, the sleepy parish of Teigh, barely a smudge on the map of Rutland, denounced their vicar as a traitor and a fascist.

The Reverend Henry Stanley Tibbs, who had ministered to his 72-strong flock for 15 years, was sent to prison accused of being a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Semite who promoted Hitler from the Harvest Festival pulpit.

Their vicar, parishioners said, was a member of the British Union of Fascists, harboured German spies, denounced Churchill and pledged allegiance to the Fuhrer.

The case against Mr Tibbs, just revealed in newly declassified National Archive files, did not look good.

But there was also another side to the story - a tale of small-town grudges, back-biting gossip and anti-fascist fervour.

Dad’s army fascist

The 63-year-old was not only accused of harbouring two Gestapo agents in the parish rectory - and genially introducing one of them to a local farmer - but of helping the spies draw sketches of a bomb silo at nearby Cottesmore Aerodrome.

He was said to have described Germany as “our natural friend” and that a local clergyman caught the Reverend telling his children “that Hitler and Goering were the finest men in the world”.

One witness said he heard him describe Churchill as “a drug addict and a dictator of the vilest kind, in fact the worst dictator in the world and in the pay of the American Jews”.

The charges were extraordinary - a Dad’s Army fascist preaching hate from a Church of England pulpit. But were they true?

‘Nazi views’

Writing from his cell in Liverpool Prison, Mr Tibbs admitted he had indeed, years before, belonged to the British Union of Fascists. They had an excellent agricultural policy, he said.

He admitted that one of his sons, who had also been imprisoned, had joined the party. But he said it was the uniform, rather than the fascism, that appealed to him.

He also conceded he had subscribed to the British Union newspaper, Action.

But, under cross-examination during his appeal, he strenuously denied all other accusations.

[A] vindictive type of man, quite capable of bearing tales about, or putting the worst interpretation on the words of anyone against whom he harboured a grudge Detention appeals panel

Had he expressed “Nazi views” to his parishioners? He replied: “I never did. I have never talked politics to my parishioners, and I have never preached a political sermon in my life.”

Did he admire Hitler? “I think he is a very clever man, but I think he is a most horrible person,” he said.

But, after 15 years as the vicar of Teigh, what he did know about was village gossip.

For a start, there was the clergyman who said he caught Mr Tibbs praising Hitler and Goering to his children.

Once close friends, the two had fallen out, and Mr Tibbs accused his former friend of being the source of the rumours.

In their report, the appeals panel named another clergyman, from nearby Market Overton, “who had at one time been a great friend of Tibbs, but had some time ago had a quarrel with him”.

Reverend Tibbs was reported to have looked forward to Hitler’s invasion

“Enquiries have been made locally,” the panel added. And Mr Tibbs’s former friend “appears to be an ill-natured and vindictive type of man, quite capable of bearing tales about, or putting the worst interpretation on the words of anyone against whom he harboured a grudge”.

Then there was the local gossip among the farmers and down at the village post office about the German spies hiding out in the village rectory.

But in a parish of 72 souls, could he really have harboured two Gestapo agents? And if so, would he have introduced them to his neighbours?

According to the farmer’s wife who lived opposite him, he could not. She told the panel there had never been two young men living at the rectory.

‘Slippery-tongued’

The appeals panel ordered Mr Tibbs to be released, with the proviso that he remained within his parish, and he returned home in December 1940.

“The committee feel that whilst Tibbs’ detention was fully justified, a mass of rumour and some exaggerated reports have been built up,” they wrote. “Tibbs has now learned his lesson”

Eight months later the restrictions were revoked and a Home Office official described him as “harmless.”

There were many people in the 1930s who admired Germany and admired Hitler and most of them were sensible enough to keep their heads down when war broke out Reverend James Saunders

In another letter, the Bishop of Peterborough wrote: “Mr Tibbs is, in my opinion, a foolish, slippery-tongued fellow, but a harmless one.”

Nearly 70 years later, there are even fewer people living in the village of Teigh.

What does the current vicar think of the accusations?

The Reverend James Saunders said: “There were many people in the 1930s who admired Germany and admired Hitler and most of them were sensible enough to keep their heads down when war broke out.”

But he added: “There’s always a possibility for vicars to fall out with members of the congregation.

Broken man

“At the moment Teigh is a very friendly and easy-going village, but then you are dealing with tiny populations which in those days were much more isolated.

“You lived on top of your neighbours all your life, they are tight-knit communities where rumours and gossip and fallings out arise very easily.”

So what happened in the end to the hapless Mr Tibbs?

According to Mr Saunders, he returned to the village a broken man, slipped into obscurity and died shortly afterwards. The parish was declared vacant in 1943.

“For understandable reasons, he kind of dropped from the village’s memory.”

In Ecuador the constitution is being rewritten, and one of the people involved has suggested that sexual education should be included. This would cover the ability for a woman to be sexually satisfied - thus has it been termed the right to the female orgasm.

However there is a serious point in trying to break down the taboos that exist in the country about sex - not least because half of the country is under 19. The link here shows the positive impact of sex education in Ecuador.

Below is the initial BBC News report that first attracted me to the story. Considering the benefits of sex education in reducing unplanned pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases who would be against it in schools … (answer the usual suspects).

Ms Soledad Vela wants laws covering life, health and sexual education

A woman from the governing party in Ecuador has proposed that a women’s right to enjoy sexual happiness should be enshrined in the country’s law.

Her suggestion has provoked a lively debate in conservative Ecuador.

Maria Soledad Vela, who is helping to rewrite the constitution, says women have traditionally been seen as mere sexual objects or child bearers.

Now, she says, women should have the right to make free, responsible and informed decisions about sex lives.

‘Orgasm by law’

Ms Soledad Vela is a member of the governing party on the Constituent Assembly that is rewriting the country’s constitution.

Its aim, among other things, is to ensure a better distribution of wealth and rights for indigenous communities and the poor.

Women, she believes, should not be left off that list.

But her comments have provoked a lively response - mostly, unsurprisingly, from men.

Opposition assembly member, Leonardo Viteri, accused her of trying to decree orgasm by law.

Another called the proposal “ridiculous” and said that such an intimate topic should stay intimate and not be enshrined in law.

Ms Soledad Vela responded to the criticism, saying she had never requested the right to an orgasm - merely the right to enjoy sex in a free, fair and more open society.

She explained that sex was a difficult subject to discuss in Ecuador and that what she wanted were clearer laws covering life, health and sexual education.

Science funding

Of budgets and black holes

May 1st 2008 | DIDCOT, OXFORDSHIRE
From The Economist print edition

More fancy toys, fewer physicists to play with them

FROM outside, the huge silver doughnut looks like a flight of vain architectural fancy, or perhaps a racetrack for very superior greyhounds. Racetrack turns out to be nearer the truth—but it is electrons, not animals, that are doing laps. Energised by huge magnets, they accelerate to close to the speed of light, before a final series of wiggles persuades them to emit beams of tightly focused, fiercely energetic X-rays. These are then used by researchers to probe the fundamental structure of anything from Dead Sea scrolls too fragile to open, to samples of avian-flu virus, aircraft wings or ancient bones.

This is Diamond Light Source, the newest addition to the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) in rural Oxfordshire, and the country’s most expensive government-funded physics facility of the past four decades. By the time it opened in 2007 it had already cost £260m, with another £120m committed for expansion, and running costs will be steep (its electricity bill alone equals that of a small town). It is just one of the visible signs of a recent splurge on science. Since 2004 total spending on science has risen by 5.8% yearly in real terms, its share of GDP is rising, and further increases are planned until 2011. ISIS, another “super-microscope” at RAL that uses neutrons rather than electrons, is also getting a £120m upgrade.

Yet Britain’s physicists are worried that spending on such fancy toys has meant cutting the money for researchers to use them. They have been up in arms since December 2007 when the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), one of the seven research councils that allocate most government money for science, published its plans for the next three years. An £80m “black hole” in the council’s budget means that British astronomy will wither and ground-based study of space will die completely, says the Institute of Physics, a learned society. University physics will face big cuts, there will be swingeing redundancies and some of Britain’s best scientists will leave for more generous climes. The government is sufficiently concerned to have asked Bill Wakeham, the vice-chancellor of Southampton University, to review the way in which physics funding is allocated.

Now the select committee of MPs that oversees innovation, universities, science and skills has weighed in. In a report published on April 30th it spread the blame widely, but put the lion’s share on the merger that created the STFC in 2007. Previously, the cash for building and running big facilities came from one research council, and grants to physics researchers from another. The two have now become one—and paying capital and running costs for big facilities has squeezed funding for researchers. And by planning and communicating poorly, the STFC made a bad situation worse, say the MPs. At the very least, all cuts should be delayed until the Wakeham review is published in the autumn.

PhD students with grants from the STFC to do research in fields the council is now abandoning say that they feel betrayed. By making the job market for scientists look prone to boom and bust, the cuts may harm science education, which is already in a parlous state. And attempting to renege on international agreements—for example, by letting Britain’s subscription to the Gemini telescope in Hawaii lapse in order to save £4m a year—will damage British science in general by making the country appear an unreliable partner. (The decision has since been reversed.) This matters particularly because much big physics—atom-smashing particle accelerators, huge telescopes—is now run and paid for internationally.

But physics as a discipline may also be experiencing growing pains—and as new research flourishes, the old inevitably suffers. A visitor to Diamond or ISIS cannot but be struck by the fact that many of the hundreds of researchers who use them are not physicists at all. Engineers, biologists, archaeologists, medical researchers and many others are keen on illuminating the substances they study with Diamond’s super-bright rays, or ISIS’s almost-unstoppable neutrons. “We offer big facilities for small science,” says Andrew Taylor, the director of ISIS. What lured him back from America—and reconciled him to a 60% pay cut—was the prospect of running a facility where problems from right across science were solved. It is harsh that physicists are now paying for sharing their toys. But it is only because those toys are so nice that others want to play with them.