I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.
From Serge Lang
To address questions of scientific responsibility does not necessarily imply that one needs technical competence in a particular field (e.g. biology) to evaluate certain technical matters.
Aside from all that, we recall that antibodies to malaria and other diseases prevalent in Africa show up as HIV-positive on tests.
If Baltimore's view, that scientists who do not take the words of authorities are far removed from the ordinary behavior of scientists, prevails in the scientific community, then something fundamental, very serious, and very disturbing is happening to the scientific community.
Questions have arisen about the policing of science. Who is responsible for the policing? My answer is: all of us.
There exist thousands of Americans who have AIDS-defining diseases but are HIV negative.
What standards are upheld by the scientific community affect the community internally, and also affect its relations with society at large, including Congress.
Of course, there are diseases of which people die.
Questions have also arisen about AIDS being transmitted to hemophiliacs via blood transfusions.
Of course, screening for HIV did essentially eliminate the transmission of this virus by transfusions.
5 perspectives
4 perspectives
3 perspectives
1 perspectives