Railing against The Boston Globe
Dear Sir,
I found your piece in the on line Boston Globe edition titled: “Stem Cell alternatives gain key support” very interesting and worthy of its conspicuous placement. I do have one point of reservation. That is, that you find it necessary to disclose the ideological dispensation of both Dr. Leon Kass MD, and Dr. William Hurlbut who you report represent one position. Yet, you fail to disclose the ideological leanings of “two Columbia University professors” Dr. Donald W. Landry and Dr. Howard A. Zucker, or for that matter, you fail to mention the ideological dispositions of Michael S. Gazzaniga or the “number of other biologists” that hold the opposing position you purport to contrast. I was left with the distinct impression that you subtly, if unconsciously, believe that “conservatives” begin from non-empirical “conservative premises” and reason to “conservative political results”, while the opposing position is the result of untainted “enlightened science”, only coincidentally reflecting the “liberal” position. Granted the referenced article does deal with the political milieu of this issue. Nevertheless, I believe the impact of your piece, in terms of its information and analysis would not have suffered had you chose to omit these references or, in the alternative, chose to disclose everyone’s ideology. What audience did you have in mind when you authored this piece?
I’m not someone that will ordinarily take time to write a note like this but your piece really seemed a bit much.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home