What's new
By:
Filters
Cystic Fibrosis Forum (EXP)

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Can you help please?

J

journalist

New member
I am a journalist with the Sunday Times in Scotland and I am writing a piece for this week's paper on the legacy of the cloning technology which produced Dolly the sheep. At the time -10 years ago - the scientists involved said they hoped the technology would help lead to breakthroughs in CF therapies. This hasn't happened. The technology has yet to produce any theraputic benefit for humans although it has led to further scientific developments.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this? Do you feel that scientist can too easily use people with medical conditions to justify what they are doing without coming up with results? Are false hopes being raised by this kind of practice? Is it exploitative? Or is this just the way science has to work. You can email me on gillian@bowditch.freeserve.co.uk. I'd be grateful for any replies as I am on a very tight deadline. Many thanks.
 
J

journalist

New member
I am a journalist with the Sunday Times in Scotland and I am writing a piece for this week's paper on the legacy of the cloning technology which produced Dolly the sheep. At the time -10 years ago - the scientists involved said they hoped the technology would help lead to breakthroughs in CF therapies. This hasn't happened. The technology has yet to produce any theraputic benefit for humans although it has led to further scientific developments.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this? Do you feel that scientist can too easily use people with medical conditions to justify what they are doing without coming up with results? Are false hopes being raised by this kind of practice? Is it exploitative? Or is this just the way science has to work. You can email me on gillian@bowditch.freeserve.co.uk. I'd be grateful for any replies as I am on a very tight deadline. Many thanks.
 
J

journalist

New member
I am a journalist with the Sunday Times in Scotland and I am writing a piece for this week's paper on the legacy of the cloning technology which produced Dolly the sheep. At the time -10 years ago - the scientists involved said they hoped the technology would help lead to breakthroughs in CF therapies. This hasn't happened. The technology has yet to produce any theraputic benefit for humans although it has led to further scientific developments.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this? Do you feel that scientist can too easily use people with medical conditions to justify what they are doing without coming up with results? Are false hopes being raised by this kind of practice? Is it exploitative? Or is this just the way science has to work. You can email me on gillian@bowditch.freeserve.co.uk. I'd be grateful for any replies as I am on a very tight deadline. Many thanks.
 
M

miesl

New member
A) Your language is inflammatory.
B) I refuse to believe that a self respecting journalist would have as many grammatical errors as your post does. On a quick read through, I picked up at least five errors, some of them rather significant.
C) Your email is not associated with the paper you claim to work for.
D) From the language in your post, it's already very clear which side of the issue you stand, giving a dissenting opinion is bound to be of little value.

I browsed the paper you claim to work for, and it seems possible that you are Gillian Bowditch (who happens to have an official email, so nice of you to not give it out to us).

I would suggest that anyone who wishes to respond first contact the email given at the Sunday Times to find out if it's actually her.
 
M

miesl

New member
A) Your language is inflammatory.
B) I refuse to believe that a self respecting journalist would have as many grammatical errors as your post does. On a quick read through, I picked up at least five errors, some of them rather significant.
C) Your email is not associated with the paper you claim to work for.
D) From the language in your post, it's already very clear which side of the issue you stand, giving a dissenting opinion is bound to be of little value.

I browsed the paper you claim to work for, and it seems possible that you are Gillian Bowditch (who happens to have an official email, so nice of you to not give it out to us).

I would suggest that anyone who wishes to respond first contact the email given at the Sunday Times to find out if it's actually her.
 
M

miesl

New member
A) Your language is inflammatory.
B) I refuse to believe that a self respecting journalist would have as many grammatical errors as your post does. On a quick read through, I picked up at least five errors, some of them rather significant.
C) Your email is not associated with the paper you claim to work for.
D) From the language in your post, it's already very clear which side of the issue you stand, giving a dissenting opinion is bound to be of little value.

I browsed the paper you claim to work for, and it seems possible that you are Gillian Bowditch (who happens to have an official email, so nice of you to not give it out to us).

I would suggest that anyone who wishes to respond first contact the email given at the Sunday Times to find out if it's actually her.
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
wow, nice work miesl. that's good research. thanks for giving us on the board the heads up.

::::::applause::::::
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
wow, nice work miesl. that's good research. thanks for giving us on the board the heads up.

::::::applause::::::
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
wow, nice work miesl. that's good research. thanks for giving us on the board the heads up.

::::::applause::::::
 
J

journalist

New member
I'm sorry you find my language offensive. I had no intention of offending anybody. Part of a journalist's job is to ask provocative questions. I'm certainly not coming down on one side or another. I'm just keen to hear honest opinions. I gave my home email address as I am working from home today. There is three inches of snow outside. My Sunday Times email is gillianbowditch@sunday-times.co.uk but it gets filled up with spam so quickly that it is not always the best one to reach me on.
Thank you for your trouble. I wish you well.

Kind regards Gillian
 
J

journalist

New member
I'm sorry you find my language offensive. I had no intention of offending anybody. Part of a journalist's job is to ask provocative questions. I'm certainly not coming down on one side or another. I'm just keen to hear honest opinions. I gave my home email address as I am working from home today. There is three inches of snow outside. My Sunday Times email is gillianbowditch@sunday-times.co.uk but it gets filled up with spam so quickly that it is not always the best one to reach me on.
Thank you for your trouble. I wish you well.

Kind regards Gillian
 
J

journalist

New member
I'm sorry you find my language offensive. I had no intention of offending anybody. Part of a journalist's job is to ask provocative questions. I'm certainly not coming down on one side or another. I'm just keen to hear honest opinions. I gave my home email address as I am working from home today. There is three inches of snow outside. My Sunday Times email is gillianbowditch@sunday-times.co.uk but it gets filled up with spam so quickly that it is not always the best one to reach me on.
Thank you for your trouble. I wish you well.

Kind regards Gillian
 
2

2perfectboys

Guest
I did not find your language offensive nor did grammer scream at me as I read it, but that may just be me, I know when I type posts they are not perfect, but then I've never claimed to go to journalism school.

To answer your question, I really can recall hearing Dolly be associated with helping find a cure, but something about how with this technology a lot of scientific advancements could come from it and that it raised a lot of ethical questions. (Cloning humans?) As far as being felt that science exploits people, I would say yes that is sure possible, but I really don't care as long as they don't harm humans. Serious science can be boring to a lot of people but the discoveries that come from it are fascinating. I am a conservative and catholic, but I support stem cell research and animal testing. There has been so many advancements that have been a result of science, but yet so much more that still needs to be discovered and explored.
 
2

2perfectboys

Guest
I did not find your language offensive nor did grammer scream at me as I read it, but that may just be me, I know when I type posts they are not perfect, but then I've never claimed to go to journalism school.

To answer your question, I really can recall hearing Dolly be associated with helping find a cure, but something about how with this technology a lot of scientific advancements could come from it and that it raised a lot of ethical questions. (Cloning humans?) As far as being felt that science exploits people, I would say yes that is sure possible, but I really don't care as long as they don't harm humans. Serious science can be boring to a lot of people but the discoveries that come from it are fascinating. I am a conservative and catholic, but I support stem cell research and animal testing. There has been so many advancements that have been a result of science, but yet so much more that still needs to be discovered and explored.
 
2

2perfectboys

Guest
I did not find your language offensive nor did grammer scream at me as I read it, but that may just be me, I know when I type posts they are not perfect, but then I've never claimed to go to journalism school.

To answer your question, I really can recall hearing Dolly be associated with helping find a cure, but something about how with this technology a lot of scientific advancements could come from it and that it raised a lot of ethical questions. (Cloning humans?) As far as being felt that science exploits people, I would say yes that is sure possible, but I really don't care as long as they don't harm humans. Serious science can be boring to a lot of people but the discoveries that come from it are fascinating. I am a conservative and catholic, but I support stem cell research and animal testing. There has been so many advancements that have been a result of science, but yet so much more that still needs to be discovered and explored.
 
J

julie

New member
Yes, I think that scientists too quickly give people a fals hope by saying that they can find medical breakthroughs when they haven't thuroughly examined all that is required. I DON'T think science has to work this way, and I think that MORE could be done if more types of tests and experiments were allowed to be conducted more freely.

I think that the technology you speak of has benefited the CF "world" in the fact that there have been more discoveries/treatments available as a result of it. But there were statements that they hoped to have a cure by now, those sorts of statemetns are useless and unnecessary and in my opinion breed false hope.

Hope this helps you,
 
J

julie

New member
Yes, I think that scientists too quickly give people a fals hope by saying that they can find medical breakthroughs when they haven't thuroughly examined all that is required. I DON'T think science has to work this way, and I think that MORE could be done if more types of tests and experiments were allowed to be conducted more freely.

I think that the technology you speak of has benefited the CF "world" in the fact that there have been more discoveries/treatments available as a result of it. But there were statements that they hoped to have a cure by now, those sorts of statemetns are useless and unnecessary and in my opinion breed false hope.

Hope this helps you,
 
J

julie

New member
Yes, I think that scientists too quickly give people a fals hope by saying that they can find medical breakthroughs when they haven't thuroughly examined all that is required. I DON'T think science has to work this way, and I think that MORE could be done if more types of tests and experiments were allowed to be conducted more freely.

I think that the technology you speak of has benefited the CF "world" in the fact that there have been more discoveries/treatments available as a result of it. But there were statements that they hoped to have a cure by now, those sorts of statemetns are useless and unnecessary and in my opinion breed false hope.

Hope this helps you,
 
J

journalist

New member
A heartfelt thank you to all the people who responded (even Miesl - it never hurts for a journalist to be reminded of the importance of using language in a diplomatic and sensitive way). I've written the piece. I haven't quoted anyone but I did find your opinions very valuable and they have informed my writing.

Kind regards

Gillian
 
J

journalist

New member
A heartfelt thank you to all the people who responded (even Miesl - it never hurts for a journalist to be reminded of the importance of using language in a diplomatic and sensitive way). I've written the piece. I haven't quoted anyone but I did find your opinions very valuable and they have informed my writing.

Kind regards

Gillian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top