That's the sub-title of a particularly superficial article in The Economist this week (usually, the articles there are very good, and The Economist is one of the few unbiased publications left in the world); the article's main title is "Truth in advertising" and it is available at: http://www.economist.com./opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8319505&CFID=101347023&CFTOKEN=b1a06a-5e5a492a-61f9-4c69-b63d-2ddd0a45f223
So why do I scoff at this particular piece?
Becaues the real threat to Internet advertising is not "click fraud" at all.
It is rather that no one I know responds to Internet advertising, except to click it off.
The case for Internet advertising therefore seems to me to be based on an illusion.
That bubble will burst as soon as decision-makers realise the basic facts of the case.
Regretfully, decision-makers (like some of those who write for The Economist) don't seem to know the Internet or Internet users at all well.
Has there been any research will quantifies response rates on the Internet at any level OTHER than "clicks"? Does "clicking the ad off" count as a "click"?
Sphere: Related Content
Friday, November 24, 2006
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Impressions of life in Madrid, Spain
I am about to commit the sin called "American tourismus" - that is, the sin of visiting a city for an hour and giving one's impressions as if they were authoritative:
Having wandered about the city a little over double the amount of time mentioned above, the following are my observations for what they are worth:
1. Surprisingly few Spaniards speak English - even among taxi drivers! That is particularly astonishing when one considers that Madrid is now apparently the 4th-most visited city in Europe - and at least a sizeable number of visitors must be English-speaking in preference to Spanish-speaking (or any other language that might be mutually comprehensible)
2. In many ways, Madrid reminded me of India - e.g. in the relaxed attitude to time and to orgnisation. For example, appointments usually started 10-15 minutes later than scheduled. Further, the air-travel related schedule from my travel agent said that I had to check-in at Terminal 2 and, true enough, the check-in was at Terminal 2, but the flight was not leaving from Terminal 2, it was going to leave from Terminal 1 - which was a substantial distance away. The terminals (as most buildings) are spacious and have lots of marble but, as in India, no one seems to think it worth doing anything about a few missing squares in the ceiling plasterboard or about the long wire lying around.
3. Quality of life seems no lower in Madrid, now, than in Switzerland - at least at the top to middling levels (there are a few drunken beggars about). Being vegetarian, I did not have a lot of choice in terms of food, but there are the usual Turkish small shops which retail Falafel, and that cost Euros 3.30 there (which I reckon to be about a third less than what that would cost in Switzerland). The city has wide boulevards and at least a few large gardens, as well as plenty of museums....And a single Metro ride to anywhere in the city costs only 1 Euro. Sphere: Related Content
Having wandered about the city a little over double the amount of time mentioned above, the following are my observations for what they are worth:
1. Surprisingly few Spaniards speak English - even among taxi drivers! That is particularly astonishing when one considers that Madrid is now apparently the 4th-most visited city in Europe - and at least a sizeable number of visitors must be English-speaking in preference to Spanish-speaking (or any other language that might be mutually comprehensible)
2. In many ways, Madrid reminded me of India - e.g. in the relaxed attitude to time and to orgnisation. For example, appointments usually started 10-15 minutes later than scheduled. Further, the air-travel related schedule from my travel agent said that I had to check-in at Terminal 2 and, true enough, the check-in was at Terminal 2, but the flight was not leaving from Terminal 2, it was going to leave from Terminal 1 - which was a substantial distance away. The terminals (as most buildings) are spacious and have lots of marble but, as in India, no one seems to think it worth doing anything about a few missing squares in the ceiling plasterboard or about the long wire lying around.
3. Quality of life seems no lower in Madrid, now, than in Switzerland - at least at the top to middling levels (there are a few drunken beggars about). Being vegetarian, I did not have a lot of choice in terms of food, but there are the usual Turkish small shops which retail Falafel, and that cost Euros 3.30 there (which I reckon to be about a third less than what that would cost in Switzerland). The city has wide boulevards and at least a few large gardens, as well as plenty of museums....And a single Metro ride to anywhere in the city costs only 1 Euro. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, November 13, 2006
Tackling Poverty: The Roles of Business, Government and NGOs
For my article with the above title, published in ETHIX magazine (the bulletin of the Center for Integrity in Business, Seattle, USA), please go to: http://www.ethix.org/article.php3?id=346
Sphere: Related Content
Training, Coaching, Mentoring
A colleague asks me the difference between these terms, so here goes:
Training refers to any repetitive activity with the objective of making what is considered to be "best" so ingrained as to be subconscious. So does an athlete "train". Equally, one can "train" a horse or a dog. One can have a "Personal Trainer" for physical fitness, or someone can be a "Dog Trainer" or a "Horse Trainer". The purpose is in any case to enhance performance in what might be considered a one-dimensional way. The dog is trained to do certain specific tasks. The horse is trained to obey specific commands. My "Personal Trainer" ensures that I exercise in the best possible way in order to increase my physical fitness. The word "training" has therefore a repetitive and graduated feel to it.
Coaching is provided by a coach (as in "a football coach") in order to enhance a wider range of skills. The term "coaching" has, therefore, a professional or technical feel to it. You can "coach" me in order to try and improve my abilities for example in public speaking or in time-management.
The word "coach" started being used in 1556 for a "large kind of carriage" and comes into English via the Middle French word "coche", as well as from the German word "kotsche", both originally deriving from the fifteenth century Hungarian word "kocsi", meaning a "carriage made in Kocs," the Hungarian village where it was first made. In the 1830s, "coach" came to be used in Oxford University slang for a tutor who "carries" a student through an examination. The use of the word was extended from academics to sports and athletics from 1861. The word "coaching" has therefore a remedial but also an objective-related feel to it, where the objective needs the rather more flexible deployment of a range of skills or abilities.
The "mentoring" has quite different roots. Mentor is the name of the person to whom Odysseus (or Ulysses) entrusted the care of his son, Telemachus, when he set out on what we now call an "odyssey" and which took him, among other places, to the Trojan Wars. Mentor was Odysseus' wise and trusted counsellor as well as tutor to Telemachus. Mentor's name - with a lower-case "m" - has passed into English as a term for a wise and trusted counselor and teacher.
In modern English the term is used in two ways:
First, the word "mentor" refers to a person providing regular or continuous counsel or teaching ("My mentor is Joe Smith").
Second, the word "mentor" is used of an older, influential person who takes a younger, promising person "under the wing," for the purpose of advancing the younger person's career. The older person is then a mentor to the younger one. And the younger person is traditionally referred to as the "protégé" of the older person. This sort of relationship usually comes about for family-, power-, psychology- or relationship-oriented reasons.
In business circles, a new and somewhat inelegant term "mentee" has started being used, where it refers to the person "being mentored" - though the usage is confined to official programmes for such purposes organised within companies.
HOWEVER, the words "coaching" and "mentoring" are increasingly used interchangeably... so much so that some people claim to find no difference between the terms...though I maintain that there is a distinction between the words, "coaching" applying to a rather more narrow academic, technical or professional "objective-related" process; "mentoring" to a wider, life- and wisdom-related process that is more concerned with developing or unfolding the personality.... Sphere: Related Content
Training refers to any repetitive activity with the objective of making what is considered to be "best" so ingrained as to be subconscious. So does an athlete "train". Equally, one can "train" a horse or a dog. One can have a "Personal Trainer" for physical fitness, or someone can be a "Dog Trainer" or a "Horse Trainer". The purpose is in any case to enhance performance in what might be considered a one-dimensional way. The dog is trained to do certain specific tasks. The horse is trained to obey specific commands. My "Personal Trainer" ensures that I exercise in the best possible way in order to increase my physical fitness. The word "training" has therefore a repetitive and graduated feel to it.
Coaching is provided by a coach (as in "a football coach") in order to enhance a wider range of skills. The term "coaching" has, therefore, a professional or technical feel to it. You can "coach" me in order to try and improve my abilities for example in public speaking or in time-management.
The word "coach" started being used in 1556 for a "large kind of carriage" and comes into English via the Middle French word "coche", as well as from the German word "kotsche", both originally deriving from the fifteenth century Hungarian word "kocsi", meaning a "carriage made in Kocs," the Hungarian village where it was first made. In the 1830s, "coach" came to be used in Oxford University slang for a tutor who "carries" a student through an examination. The use of the word was extended from academics to sports and athletics from 1861. The word "coaching" has therefore a remedial but also an objective-related feel to it, where the objective needs the rather more flexible deployment of a range of skills or abilities.
The "mentoring" has quite different roots. Mentor is the name of the person to whom Odysseus (or Ulysses) entrusted the care of his son, Telemachus, when he set out on what we now call an "odyssey" and which took him, among other places, to the Trojan Wars. Mentor was Odysseus' wise and trusted counsellor as well as tutor to Telemachus. Mentor's name - with a lower-case "m" - has passed into English as a term for a wise and trusted counselor and teacher.
In modern English the term is used in two ways:
First, the word "mentor" refers to a person providing regular or continuous counsel or teaching ("My mentor is Joe Smith").
Second, the word "mentor" is used of an older, influential person who takes a younger, promising person "under the wing," for the purpose of advancing the younger person's career. The older person is then a mentor to the younger one. And the younger person is traditionally referred to as the "protégé" of the older person. This sort of relationship usually comes about for family-, power-, psychology- or relationship-oriented reasons.
In business circles, a new and somewhat inelegant term "mentee" has started being used, where it refers to the person "being mentored" - though the usage is confined to official programmes for such purposes organised within companies.
HOWEVER, the words "coaching" and "mentoring" are increasingly used interchangeably... so much so that some people claim to find no difference between the terms...though I maintain that there is a distinction between the words, "coaching" applying to a rather more narrow academic, technical or professional "objective-related" process; "mentoring" to a wider, life- and wisdom-related process that is more concerned with developing or unfolding the personality.... Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Why the fight against poverty is failing: a contrarian view
A very commonsense article by the above title has been published by Abraham George, the admirable founder of The George Foundation:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4114&specialid=1&CFID=1824805&CFTOKEN=37907590
The article is to be commended because it articulates some truths that very much need stating: neither NGOs nor government-to-government assistance breaks the cycle of poverty (that is, neither aid nor charity does so); enterprise isthe only things that can help an individual, a family, a group, a locality, a region or a nation to break out of poverty.
However, Dr. George seems either unaware or unwilling to recognise the fact that that is precisely why ruling elites make it so difficult for their people to start businesses or to flourish in them. Indeed, ruling elites even make it difficult for self-help organisations, mutual-aid societies, micro-finance and NGO-channelled aid to get through to their people.
The reason why countries remain poor is because they are ruled by kleptocracies and worse. There is no other earthly reason today for any individual or community to remain poor. The technology of wealth-creation is well enough understood.
The question that remains is: what aspects of their culture predispose a people to allow thieves and murderers to rule over them?
I guess there is one other: What are the culture-change agencies or modalities or spirit that can enable that peoples to awake from their poverty-creating slumber? Sphere: Related Content
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4114&specialid=1&CFID=1824805&CFTOKEN=37907590
The article is to be commended because it articulates some truths that very much need stating: neither NGOs nor government-to-government assistance breaks the cycle of poverty (that is, neither aid nor charity does so); enterprise isthe only things that can help an individual, a family, a group, a locality, a region or a nation to break out of poverty.
However, Dr. George seems either unaware or unwilling to recognise the fact that that is precisely why ruling elites make it so difficult for their people to start businesses or to flourish in them. Indeed, ruling elites even make it difficult for self-help organisations, mutual-aid societies, micro-finance and NGO-channelled aid to get through to their people.
The reason why countries remain poor is because they are ruled by kleptocracies and worse. There is no other earthly reason today for any individual or community to remain poor. The technology of wealth-creation is well enough understood.
The question that remains is: what aspects of their culture predispose a people to allow thieves and murderers to rule over them?
I guess there is one other: What are the culture-change agencies or modalities or spirit that can enable that peoples to awake from their poverty-creating slumber? Sphere: Related Content
Should English-language writers be considered for literary prizes in non-English language countries?
Visiting the Frankfurt Book Fair a few weeks ago, I was startled to hear the Indian writer Paul Zacharia mention that only three per cent of books are translated into other languages (at least that was how I understood his statement).
Then, at another event at the Fair, I heard the President of PEN in Norway respond to a suggestion that the Norwegian Prize for Literature should be awarded NOT only for a work written in Norwegian, but for work in ANY language written in the country.
After these weeks, I still find myself very divided in my response to the suggestion.
On one hand, if (for example) the work of English-language migrant writers is considered for such prizes, then immigrants in Norway have at least some possibility of winning the national prize - which appeals to my sense of social justice.
On the other hand, would such a possibility not merely strengthen the hold of English as the world's lingua franca?
What is good for English-language immigrant writers is bad for the other languages that are, in principle, threatened by the rise of English. This may seem to be a rather large claim to make, till one considers what has happened since the Second World War to French as the language of international diplomacy. Or to what has happened to German as a language for research publications since the 1980s. Or to what is happening in Switzerland, where the usual second language in schools is rapidly becoming English rather than one of the other Swiss "official" languages - which will have consequences for Swiss unity given a generation or two....
Anyway, my conclusion is that countries may rightly want to recognise the work of migrants writing in their own language, but it is best not to try to do so by putting, in the same competition, migrants writing in other languages alongside natives writing in national languages.
Rather, it is best to recognise literary excellence on the part of migrants writing in other languages by means of a special prize established for that purpose. If migrants write in the national language of their country of adoption, then of course they should rightly expect to be considered for the national prize.
Recognising and rewarding merit in the work of migrants needs to be encouraged, but not at the cost of writers who are from the country and write in a national language.
The case of English-language writers in countries which have English as an official language, such as India, is different - and India has found the best solution to this conundrum by having separate prizes for literatures in each of the languages that are recognised by the country (including English).
Certainly in the West, which is still remarkably free, any individual or group can establish a prize for work in any language. Indeed, anyone can establish a prize for anything. So why not more prizes for work in whatever language by migrants? Sphere: Related Content
Then, at another event at the Fair, I heard the President of PEN in Norway respond to a suggestion that the Norwegian Prize for Literature should be awarded NOT only for a work written in Norwegian, but for work in ANY language written in the country.
After these weeks, I still find myself very divided in my response to the suggestion.
On one hand, if (for example) the work of English-language migrant writers is considered for such prizes, then immigrants in Norway have at least some possibility of winning the national prize - which appeals to my sense of social justice.
On the other hand, would such a possibility not merely strengthen the hold of English as the world's lingua franca?
What is good for English-language immigrant writers is bad for the other languages that are, in principle, threatened by the rise of English. This may seem to be a rather large claim to make, till one considers what has happened since the Second World War to French as the language of international diplomacy. Or to what has happened to German as a language for research publications since the 1980s. Or to what is happening in Switzerland, where the usual second language in schools is rapidly becoming English rather than one of the other Swiss "official" languages - which will have consequences for Swiss unity given a generation or two....
Anyway, my conclusion is that countries may rightly want to recognise the work of migrants writing in their own language, but it is best not to try to do so by putting, in the same competition, migrants writing in other languages alongside natives writing in national languages.
Rather, it is best to recognise literary excellence on the part of migrants writing in other languages by means of a special prize established for that purpose. If migrants write in the national language of their country of adoption, then of course they should rightly expect to be considered for the national prize.
Recognising and rewarding merit in the work of migrants needs to be encouraged, but not at the cost of writers who are from the country and write in a national language.
The case of English-language writers in countries which have English as an official language, such as India, is different - and India has found the best solution to this conundrum by having separate prizes for literatures in each of the languages that are recognised by the country (including English).
Certainly in the West, which is still remarkably free, any individual or group can establish a prize for work in any language. Indeed, anyone can establish a prize for anything. So why not more prizes for work in whatever language by migrants? Sphere: Related Content
Should English-language writers be considered for literary prizes in non-English language countries?
Visiting the Frankfurt Book Fair a few weeks ago, I was startled to hear the Indian writer Paul Zacharia mention that only three per cent of books are translated into other languages (at least that was how I understood his statement).
Then, at another event at the Fair, I heard the President of PEN in Norway respond to a suggestion that the Norwegian Prize for Literature should be awarded NOT only for a work written in Norwegian, but for work in ANY language written in the country.
After these weeks, I still find myself very divided in my response to the suggestion.
On one hand, if (for example) the work of English-language migrant writers is considered for such prizes, then immigrants in Norway have at least some possibility of winning the national prize - which appeals to my sense of social justice.
On the other hand, would such a possibility not merely strengthen the hold of English as the world's lingua franca?
What is good for English-language immigrant writers is bad for the other languages that are, in principle, threatened by the rise of English. This may seem to be a rather large claim to make, till one considers what has happened since the Second World War to French as the language of international diplomacy. Or to what has happened to German as a language for research publications since the 1980s. Or to what is happening in Switzerland, where the usual second language in schools is rapidly becoming English rather than one of the other Swiss "official" languages - which will have consequences for Swiss unity given a generation or two....
Anyway, my conclusion is that countries may rightly want to recognise the work of migrants writing in their own language, but it is best not to try to do so by putting, in the same competition, migrants writing in other languages alongside natives writing in national languages.
Rather, it is best to recognise literary excellence on the part of migrants writing in other languages by means of a special prize established for that purpose. If migrants write in the national language of their country of adoption, then of course they should rightly expect to be considered for the national prize.
Recognising and rewarding merit in the work of migrants needs to be encouraged, but not at the cost of writers who are from the country and write in a national language.
The case of English-language writers in countries which have English as an official language, such as India, is different - and India has found the best solution to this conundrum by having separate prizes for literatures in each of the languages that are recognised by the country (including English).
Certainly in the West, which is still remarkably free, any individual or group can establish a prize for work in any language. Indeed, anyone can establish a prize for anything. So why not more prizes for work in whatever language by migrants? Sphere: Related Content
Then, at another event at the Fair, I heard the President of PEN in Norway respond to a suggestion that the Norwegian Prize for Literature should be awarded NOT only for a work written in Norwegian, but for work in ANY language written in the country.
After these weeks, I still find myself very divided in my response to the suggestion.
On one hand, if (for example) the work of English-language migrant writers is considered for such prizes, then immigrants in Norway have at least some possibility of winning the national prize - which appeals to my sense of social justice.
On the other hand, would such a possibility not merely strengthen the hold of English as the world's lingua franca?
What is good for English-language immigrant writers is bad for the other languages that are, in principle, threatened by the rise of English. This may seem to be a rather large claim to make, till one considers what has happened since the Second World War to French as the language of international diplomacy. Or to what has happened to German as a language for research publications since the 1980s. Or to what is happening in Switzerland, where the usual second language in schools is rapidly becoming English rather than one of the other Swiss "official" languages - which will have consequences for Swiss unity given a generation or two....
Anyway, my conclusion is that countries may rightly want to recognise the work of migrants writing in their own language, but it is best not to try to do so by putting, in the same competition, migrants writing in other languages alongside natives writing in national languages.
Rather, it is best to recognise literary excellence on the part of migrants writing in other languages by means of a special prize established for that purpose. If migrants write in the national language of their country of adoption, then of course they should rightly expect to be considered for the national prize.
Recognising and rewarding merit in the work of migrants needs to be encouraged, but not at the cost of writers who are from the country and write in a national language.
The case of English-language writers in countries which have English as an official language, such as India, is different - and India has found the best solution to this conundrum by having separate prizes for literatures in each of the languages that are recognised by the country (including English).
Certainly in the West, which is still remarkably free, any individual or group can establish a prize for work in any language. Indeed, anyone can establish a prize for anything. So why not more prizes for work in whatever language by migrants? Sphere: Related Content
Friday, November 10, 2006
Robot thinks "think we taste like bacon": will robots acquire a taste for us?
By this time, you will be aware of the cute robot, designed by NEC System technologies and Mie University, which has been described as "a metal gastronome" and "an electromechanical sommelier". It is supposedly capable of identifying wines, cheeses, meats and hors d'oeuvres. Upon being given a sample, it will produce in a childlike voice an identification of what it has just been given. The idea is that restaurants and individuals, for example, can be told if a wine is authentic without even opening the bottle. However, when a reporter placed his hand in the robot's omnivorous clanking jaw, he was identified as bacon. A cameraman then tried his hand and was identified as prosciutto.
Reactions to this story have varied from dire predictions of robots acquiring a taste for human flesh and therefore to a "robot holocaust", and through "I told you, robots will never be intelligent enough to take over the world", to stories about all the ills that might result from robot mistakes or malfunctions.
But before we become too terror-striken, let's just pause a moment. Are we sure that this was a mistake or malfunction? Note that the robot did not identify both the humans as the same, but one of them as "bacon", and the other as "prosciutto".
We know that humans often start smelling of what they eat (which is why, for example, some people don't like to consume garlic). Is it possible that the characteristics of human flesh also change, depending on the sort of food that one most eats? Further, is it possible that the reporter was particularly fond of bacon, while the cameraman particularly fond of prosciutto? Or that they had just consumed a quantity respectively of those meats before the experiment?
If so, I wonder what the robot would have pronounced if I had placed my hand there. My guess is that, since I am a vegetarian, it might have identified me as a vegetable!
Any prizes for guessing which one? Sphere: Related Content
Reactions to this story have varied from dire predictions of robots acquiring a taste for human flesh and therefore to a "robot holocaust", and through "I told you, robots will never be intelligent enough to take over the world", to stories about all the ills that might result from robot mistakes or malfunctions.
But before we become too terror-striken, let's just pause a moment. Are we sure that this was a mistake or malfunction? Note that the robot did not identify both the humans as the same, but one of them as "bacon", and the other as "prosciutto".
We know that humans often start smelling of what they eat (which is why, for example, some people don't like to consume garlic). Is it possible that the characteristics of human flesh also change, depending on the sort of food that one most eats? Further, is it possible that the reporter was particularly fond of bacon, while the cameraman particularly fond of prosciutto? Or that they had just consumed a quantity respectively of those meats before the experiment?
If so, I wonder what the robot would have pronounced if I had placed my hand there. My guess is that, since I am a vegetarian, it might have identified me as a vegetable!
Any prizes for guessing which one? Sphere: Related Content
On Corporate Sustainabilty Reports and the Guidelines from the Global Reporting Initiative
Some weeks ago, I received a copy of a "Corporate Sustainability Report" (CSR) from an Indian company, Reliance Industries Ltd. I was fascinated to read that this was one of the few CSRs that is based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines, which were initially published in 2002.
According to the covering letter from Reliance, as of July this year, only 162 organisations in 33 countries, had published reports recognized as "in-accordance" with the GRI guidelines. Nine Indian companies have produced CSRs and only two of them (ITC and Reliance) have published CSR recognised as being "in-accordance" with GRI guidelines. What's more, Reliance's report is the first report from Indian Oil & Gas sector to obtain "in-accordance" status.
Are the GRI's guidelines too easy, so that even Indian tobacco, and oil & gas companies can gain "in-accordance" status? Or are the guidelines too difficult? How does one explain the fact that in 3 years, only so few companies have found it possible to try and report according to the GRI guidelines? Sphere: Related Content
According to the covering letter from Reliance, as of July this year, only 162 organisations in 33 countries, had published reports recognized as "in-accordance" with the GRI guidelines. Nine Indian companies have produced CSRs and only two of them (ITC and Reliance) have published CSR recognised as being "in-accordance" with GRI guidelines. What's more, Reliance's report is the first report from Indian Oil & Gas sector to obtain "in-accordance" status.
Are the GRI's guidelines too easy, so that even Indian tobacco, and oil & gas companies can gain "in-accordance" status? Or are the guidelines too difficult? How does one explain the fact that in 3 years, only so few companies have found it possible to try and report according to the GRI guidelines? Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The US National Academy of Sciences endorses lack of scientific ethics and lack of business ethics
I am astonished to notice that the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has invited Dr. Robert Lanza, a vice president of the California-based Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), to make a presentation at a special meeting at the NAS, exploring the latest developments in embryonic stem cell science and policy.
So Lanza is leading scientist at a biotech firm that misled the world about a supposedly ethical method of obtaining embryonic stem cells. The story is available at several websites, including http://www.lifenews.com/bio1851.html
and at:
http://erlc.com/erlc/article/has-robert-lanza-solved-the-embryonic-stem-cell-research-dilemma
as well as at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5272648.stm
As far as I am aware, neither Lanza nor ACT have apologised for their earlier unethical behaviour. Nor have they announced any determination to avoid that kind of unethical behaviour in the future. In fact, both Lanza and ACT seem determined to continue with their attempt to mislead the world.
NAS's invitation therefore amounts to endorsement of such non-ethical behaviour.
Further, the NAS has a National Research Council which recently published its triennial review of the National Nano Initiative. The review was required by the lgeislation to cover Artificial Intelligence and the enhancement of human intelligence. Bizarrely, the review states that AI and the enhancement of human intelligence are the stuff of science fiction (a weirdly ignorant statement, to say the least). The review also avoids comment on broader ethical issues (merely stating that they are important and need to be addressed). In other words, the NAS's NRC review has produced zero comment on the ethical front, in spite of that being specified by the 2003 legislation.
The National Nano Initiative has, not surprisingly, largely ignored all the ethical issues.
Therefore, as far as I can see, scientists, businesspeople, legislators and politicians are all involved in producing non-ethical nanoscience and nanotech, which will end up unleashing nano-related crimes against humanity ... unless current attitudes and behaviour can be changed sometime soon. Sphere: Related Content
So Lanza is leading scientist at a biotech firm that misled the world about a supposedly ethical method of obtaining embryonic stem cells. The story is available at several websites, including http://www.lifenews.com/bio1851.html
and at:
http://erlc.com/erlc/article/has-robert-lanza-solved-the-embryonic-stem-cell-research-dilemma
as well as at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5272648.stm
As far as I am aware, neither Lanza nor ACT have apologised for their earlier unethical behaviour. Nor have they announced any determination to avoid that kind of unethical behaviour in the future. In fact, both Lanza and ACT seem determined to continue with their attempt to mislead the world.
NAS's invitation therefore amounts to endorsement of such non-ethical behaviour.
Further, the NAS has a National Research Council which recently published its triennial review of the National Nano Initiative. The review was required by the lgeislation to cover Artificial Intelligence and the enhancement of human intelligence. Bizarrely, the review states that AI and the enhancement of human intelligence are the stuff of science fiction (a weirdly ignorant statement, to say the least). The review also avoids comment on broader ethical issues (merely stating that they are important and need to be addressed). In other words, the NAS's NRC review has produced zero comment on the ethical front, in spite of that being specified by the 2003 legislation.
The National Nano Initiative has, not surprisingly, largely ignored all the ethical issues.
Therefore, as far as I can see, scientists, businesspeople, legislators and politicians are all involved in producing non-ethical nanoscience and nanotech, which will end up unleashing nano-related crimes against humanity ... unless current attitudes and behaviour can be changed sometime soon. Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)