Maybe the thread title should be changed since only the first few posts are on the topic.
Thanks mike, I didn't intend to start another abortion thread. I was trying to broaden the topic wrt what is and is not acceptable to research.
The point of this article, as I took it, is that there are certain topics that although they need to be researched, are just too toxic politically to risk ... unless it supports or attempts to support the accepted PC norms. Just a few from both sides:
climate change - only acceptable if it shows XXXXXXX
gun violence - instead of the guns bad vs 2nd amm., why not look at it from all sides (just a random ex. If you take out the 6 or 7 US cities with the most gun
deaths, the US is extremely low in murder rate etc, but with them, we are very high)
intelligence - Do people from certain areas have differences in brain chemistry, biology, diet, cultural practices etc that influence intelligence and can we use
that potential knowledge to possibly treat brain diseases?
gender - (although I thought biology settled this long ago, I have absolutely no problem studying it)
mental illness - including all risk factors (including homosexuality **as a risk factor**)
addiction - Ex: Some believe that native Americans are more predisposed to be addicted to alcohol. Is this real and if so, why? Is there possibly a gene we
can identify that could be used to screen for or possibly even treat this?
crime - Ex: why are some groups locked up more than others?
abortion - WRT when rights start for an unborn child (if ever)
evolution - Ex: The current model is missing way too much (great evidence for change within species, but not so much for how one species changes to
another. Not at all saying I am skeptical of evolution, just that we are still missing way to much.
Genetically modified foods
I think we should research every bit of this and more. Anything we shouldn't research and why? Thanks