SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (13214)8/27/2005 2:57:31 PM
From: Sully-   of 35834
 
We Forgot to Mention . . .

By Patterico on Abortion
Patterico's Pontifications

You remember that study that said fetuses don’t feel pain until 29 weeks? Turns out that some of the folks who conducted the study have connections to abortion and the abortion lobby.

Didn’t you kind of suspect that already?

The L.A. Times reports: Report on Fetal Pain Sparks Debate on Disclosing Authors’ Affiliations:
    A controversial research article about when fetuses feel 
    pain is sparking a heated debate about the nexus between 
    science and politics and what information authors should 
    disclose to scientific journals.
    The report, published Wednesday in the Journal of the 
    American Medical Assn., analyzed previously published 
    research and concluded that fetuses probably don’t feel 
    pain until 29 weeks after conception because of their 
    developing brain structures.

    Undisclosed was the fact that one of the five authors 
    runs an abortion clinic at San Francisco’s public 
    hospital while another author worked temporarily more 
    than five years ago for an abortion rights advocacy group.
Whoops!

I find this interesting:
    Several ethicists said they considered those points 
    regrettable omissions that left readers without important 
    information. Other experts consider the authors’ 
    backgrounds irrelevant.
Who do you think we actually hear from in the article? The several who think the omissions were regrettable? Or the ones who think it’s irrelevant that folks conducting a study like this are in the pocket of the abortion lobby?

If you guessed that the first quote comes from someone who is undisturbed by all of this, you’re right. In fact, we never hear the actual words of any of the “several” ethicists who had a problem with hiding this information. When the article gets around to printing a quote that condemns the omission, it comes from the abortion lobby.

I believe that the late David Shaw (who ran an entire series on media bias on abortion) would have seen this for what it is: blatant liberal bias.

patterico.com

latimes.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News