Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tom pope who wrote (17170)	6/21/2005 10:35:43 AM
From: Casaubon	Respond to of 52153

that doesn't equate with genomic causality. The implication has been unconscionable. There's nothing wrong asking the question within the confines of a valid scientific experiment. It's quite another matter to make egocentric claims towards that end. I will not debate this further.

To: tom pope who wrote (17170)	6/21/2005 11:47:53 AM
From: former_pgs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

OT: In the "intelligence" debate, I think it is impossible to separate intelligence and opportunity. I tutored 4th graders at an elementary in inner Cleveland, a predominantly african american area. The kids are not allowed to take books out of the library. Honestly, the chance of one of these kids joining a university faculty in the future is, sadly, slim. But given their circumstance, I'm not convinced it has anything to do with their intelligence or lack thereof. Place some white / asian / indian / jewish kids in that same situation, and you'll get more white / asian / indian / jewish players in the NFL. I think that the diversity among university faculty will shrink in the coming years. It will simply be a reflection of the classes that have opportunity, rather than an accurate sampling of those with "congenital intelligence".