| Scientists: We've cracked wheat's genetic code By RAPHAEL G. SATTER 2010-08-27T16:13:36ZLONDON (AP) -- British scientists have decoded the genetic sequence of wheat - one of the world's oldest and most important crops - a development they hope could help the global staple meet the challenges of climate change, disease and population growth.... hosted.ap.org |
Thank God (and Richard Dawkins) I'm no longer an 'angry atheist' It's all too easy for atheists to imply that people who believe in God are stupid. That's a shame, because fanatical atheism can be as ugly as religious fanaticismThe front page of guardian.co.uk recently featured a picture of Richard Dawkins with the headline "The Dick Delusion". It saddened me that anyone at the Guardian would think it was appropriate to ridicule Dawkins in this manner and I was further disappointed by the accompanying article by Jonathan Jones which was a weakly argued personal attack on Dawkins, using poorly researched material to deliver the pathetic notion that Dawkins "just wants to be the cleverest kid in the class". The irony of the piece was that it smacked of having been written by someone desperate to prove his own cleverness.As much as I hated Jones' article, I can understand what might have prompted it. I have in the past criticised Dawkins' approach myself and I'd like to think I'm not part of the "angry atheist" brigade. It can be all too easy to fall into the trap of being perceived as a "dick" when challenging people's beliefs. Many atheists and "skeptics" seem to have a habit of implying, if not directly stating, that people who believe in god/homeopathy/psychics are stupid. They seem to think that tackling such beliefs is a question of dispelling ignorance, of educating people in the "right" way of thinking.Sadly, it's not that simple. Such atheists and skeptics would do well to remember that we are all capable of holding irrational beliefs and that there are myriad social, economic, cultural and educational factors that determine what and how people think. Heck, I'll go out on a limb and suggest there might even be genetic factors involved in determining the extent to which people may or may not be susceptible to holding religious beliefs.Atheists and skeptics can feel incredibly frustrated by the beliefs of others and feel that they have to "correct" them, and in doing so they can come across as condescending, patronising and aggressive. It's not always accidental. Several prominent atheists and skeptics have been accused of deliberately behaving like "dicks"; let's face it, calling believers "deluded", as Dawkins famously does, is not exactly diplomatic. The backlash against this kind of behaviour is not just coming from believers but also from within the atheist and skeptic communities – there are various corners of the internet where atheists and skeptics are engaged in heated discussions about whether or not to be a "dick". I have to confess to finding it somewhat amusing that much of this debate seems to have descended into the kind of argument you might hear in a school playground: "You're a dick", "No, you're a dick for calling me a dick".On a serious note, I have been guilty of being a "dick atheist" myself, albeit unwittingly. I'm hoping this is a thing of the past, and for this I owe thanks to a good friend of mine who confronted me over my attitude by saying "you think I'm stupid because I believe in God". She was incredibly upset at some of the things I had been saying as part of what I thought was just casual banter over a cup of tea. She pointed out that, from her perspective, the views I had been expressing about religion were offensive to people like her. Of course, I don't think this friend of mine is remotely stupid but I had to concede that the things I had been saying might have suggested otherwise.Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to offend people when the circumstances demand it, but I've got no desire to go around upsetting people I like for no good reason. Seeing my friend upset really made me stop and think about how I was coming across to other religious friends and I have since made much more of a conscious effort to consider where other people might be coming from before spouting off about my atheism. Fanatical atheism can be as ugly as religious fanaticism.I'm not suggesting that atheists don't talk about religion or that they don't continue to argue with believers. I think there are all sorts of things that would be better if religion were not such a powerful force in so many people's lives. I'm often asked "why do you care what other people believe?" My answer is that I care because I care about the things that make our world tick. I care because our beliefs are defining qualities that play a huge part in our relationships with other people and the world at large. I care because what people believe determines how people act.So I'll carry on talking about my beliefs and challenging people about theirs and I'll look forward to the continued work of Dawkins and others like him. However, I would encourage "campaigning" atheists and skeptics to think about the tone they use to deliver their messages. It should be obvious that how we say things is often as important, if not more so, than what we say.Richard DawkinsReligionAtheismCharles DarwinPeople in scienceAlom Shahaguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Study shows latest government spill estimate right By SETH BORENSTEIN 2010-09-23T18:01:39ZWASHINGTON (AP) -- After several missteps, the federal government finally got it right, accurately estimating how much oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, an independent scientific study found.... hosted.ap.org |
Record numbers flock to Paroo-Darling National Park A record number of people visited the Paroo-Darling National Park last month. abc.net.au |
Cuts threaten work on animal test alternatives Cuts to medical funding bodies threaten research aiming to reduce number of animals used in experiments, scientists sayResearch that aims to reduce the number of animals used in scientific experiments is in danger of being marginalised by funding cuts, scientists have warned.More than £4m is earmarked this year for projects designed to develop alternatives to the use of animals in research, but cuts to medical funding bodies will put the studies at risk, the academics claim.In a letter to the Guardian, 13 scientists including Philip Stephens, a professor linked to the Wound Biology Group at Cardiff University, and Michael Coleman, professor and toxicologist at Aston University, said work in the area would become "stifled" if funding bodies suffered signficant cuts."There are some medical problems where progress is extremely slow despite decades of animal work," said Coleman. "Replacing animals with new technologies that allow us to better replicate and study human disease, can often unlock new answers, particularly in apparently intractable diseases of current concern, such as neurodegenerative conditions."The government set up the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) in 2004 to find ways of minimising use of animals in research. The independent scientific organisation, which is supported by research councils, the Home Office and other departments, has backed research into multiple sclerosis, influenza, drug addiction, cancer cell biology and epilepsy."The societal benefits of exploiting such techniques will be lost if the funding environment becomes so squeezed that there is little room left for taking research risks," the scientists write.Wendy Higgins, of Humane Society International, said: "If we want our 3Rs scientists to continue inventing the future, funding security is absolutely vital."Animal researchMedical researchAnimal welfareSpending review 2010Tax and spendingPublic sector cutsIan Sampleguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |