Snips and snarls

Bioethics.net has a cute post today about the origins of Snuppy the Cloned Dog.

But, the editors - and Art Caplan, who is not, but might as well be an editor - can't resist doing what they were complaining about others doing.

On the same day as the note about Snuppy - and many more covering the disaster that is Scientific integrity this year but not too far removed in time from great support for the Korean veterinarian who may or may not have cloned people and dogs, Hwang - Caplan has a signed post attacking the credibility of Wesley Smith and the Discovery Institute. Seems a case of people in glass houses throwing sooty pots.

Jones didn't and can't "discredit" anything. He only ruled against one particular method and declared his opposition to motives.

The court system should be thought of as similar to the reporting on scientific research. We've had a very graphic lesson that first reports in the journals aren't the final word. And not all scientists have the highest integrity and motives. Judges are fallible and can be overturned (Glucksberg on the "right-to-die", Dred Scott on slavery are two cases that come to mind). This ruling will be reviewed.

Science and law should be arenas of ideas, not personalities and personal attacks.

While waiting for the review of the Dover school case, I'm going to look at the beauty of creation, or nature.