Real Brains-in-a-Vat: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Dr. Mengele, call your office...

The human brains being grown OUTSIDE the body: Lab making miniature 'organs in a jar' is revealed

This will NOT stop here. The drive to be recognized as the first to produce some sort of achievement which will put their names in the textbooks will overcome any moral compunction which they might have, deep down.

"The goal for many researchers is to develop a brain exactly like a human's.

But some researchers say this would be a step too far.

Dr Martin Coath, from the Cognition Institute at the University of Plymouth, questioned why anyone would ever want to create a 'real' human brain.

'A human brain that was 'fully working' would be conscious, have hopes, dreams, feel pain, and would ask questions about what we were doing to it,' he said.

'Something we have grown in the lab, but on a much simpler level than a human brain, might be hooked up to electronic eyes, ears, and hands and be taught to do something - maybe something that is as sophisticated as many simple living creatures.

'That doesn't seem so far off to me.'"

There are other elements required for a living, cognitive brain, of course. Not the least of these is a fully connected and functioning vascular system. But that's not all that far behind, either.

The real missing element would be Life, which comes only from other life, as far as we know. Still, these brains are not made from scratch; they are made from living tissue.

"Ethics": This Was Inevitable

British scientist can genetically modify human embryos, ethics committee says

British "ethics" decisions have long been a study in Hegelian slippery slope modifications. Taking one step further into the abyss every year, the committee has abandoned all concepts of stability in ethics, and has slid steadily into the trade-offs of how many lives sacrificed might be balanced by the knowledge gained in their extinction. How does this vary from the Mengele approach? It is the same in kind, varying only in the age of the humans being sacrificed. The British are still at the embryonic stage so far. But what with the slope getting steeper every year, we can expect that to expand as they determine that other ages may be expendable in the search for knowledge. Unless it is stopped, it will expand exponentially. Government grants seem to do that.

Obscene Science and Dr. Mengele

It is becoming possible that in the near future that Dr. Mengele would appear to be a normal researcher by these morphing standards.

Scientists smash record for human embryos grown in the lab in revolutionary breakthrough

"A human embryo has been grown in a laboratory for twice the length of time than was previously possible in a breakthrough that could “revolutionise” medicine but also raises fresh ethical questions about when life begins.

Since scientists first fertilised an embryo in a test tube in 1969, they have never managed to keep one alive for long after the point at which the foetus implants in the womb, normally about seven days.

However researchers at Cambridge University have now grown embryos for 13 days -- a process they only stopped to avoid breaking the current legal limit of about 14 days.

The ability to observe a human embryo as it grows during this “most enigmatic and mysterious” stage of life in a lab should shed new light on genetic diseases and disabilities.

And it could help improve the dismal failure rate of IVF embryos -- currently up to 70 per cent do not successfully implant – and lead to better understanding of miscarriages."

Even though the fetus was obviously alive, and its life is admitted to, the death of that human is treated as just more junk protein laying around the lab. When this is off-shored to Korea or Taiwan, the soulless experiments will be extended, as the redefinition of "humanness" is expanded to accommodate ever more inclusive categories. But that is OK, you see, because they have all the moral authority to decide at what point in a life killing is OK, and how to redefine life and personhood as if that makes it moral.Scientists smash record for human embryos grown in the lab in revolutionary breakthrough

Climate Fraud: The Real Motivation

From IBD

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
The climate alarmists want the public to think they are trying to avoid a burnt world, but what they really want is something altogether different. (AP)

"3/29/2016

Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish — because, as Edenhofer said, “in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas” — while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they “have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

“What if global warming isn’t only a crisis?” Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. “What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

In her mind, the world has to “change, or be changed” because an “economic system” — meaning free-market capitalism — has caused environmental “wreckage.”

This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a “crisis” to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists’ “better world” is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They’ve admitted this themselves."
[Emphasis Added]

If you don't have a crisis sufficient to your purpose, why, just create one. Best of all, do it with the tax money of the commoners you wish to control.

What this means, of course, is that no amount of actual data would change the path of the climate fanatics (fully employed due to the fabrication of "crisis" hysteria). This is Leftist Messiahism in pursuit of a World Order. Gaia is the Victimhood entity, and the entire civilized first world is the Oppressor Class - as well as free enterprise.

This is the equivalent of a cancer which actually wants to consume its host so that the cancer becomes the host. But of course, a cancer cannot self-sustain without a viable host, regardless of how highly the cancer regards itself.

Most third world societies are remaining third world not due to oppression of the first world. They remain third world because they have not thrown off their own cancers which strangle them.

Biased Science Is NOT Science, It Is Just Narrative Confirmation

Science must be rigorously tested and monitored like any business which feeds at the public teat. The ongoing revelations of Leftist corruption reveal what happens in a political monoculture, especially one which is not interested in actual truth, but rather the support of their agenda. Scientism fans will obviously buy whatever sewage the monoculture produces without questioning either methods, data, or premises.

Liberal bias in academia is destroying the integrity of research
NYPost; Naomi Schaefer Riley

How reliable is academic research? Not very, it seems, after noting that the Journal of Vibration and Control, a reputable academic publication, had to retract 60 different papers over the summer.

The editors concluded that Chen-Yuan Chen, a researcher in Taiwan, had created a “peer-review and citation ring.”

OK, it’s not exactly a “Sopranos” plot. But it’s pretty shady for the world of higher education. Chen went to great lengths to make up fake email addresses and even assume the names of other scientists to write approvingly of his own research.

In a sense, though, he was just exploiting the deep flaws of the peer review system. The academy has become a kind of club where friends give friends flattering assessments of research, which essentially guarantees promotions and tenure.

Here’s how the former editor of the British Medical Journal explained peer review:

“The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This … is little better than tossing a coin.”

But it’s not just the clubbiness of academia that is to blame. There is such ideological uniformity in the ivory tower that no one ever questions the important assumptions behind anyone else’s research.

A forthcoming article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press, describes this problem in detail.

The article, whose lead author is New York University’s Jonathan Haidt, finds that academic psychology has lost nearly all of its political diversity in the last 50 years and that the validity of the discipline has been “undermined” as a result.

And while the authors note that greater political diversity would improve things, nonliberals face a “hostile climate and discrimination.”

Just how bad is the problem? It’s not just that few academics voted for Mitt Romney. At a recent meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Haidt asked the audience by show of hands to identify themselves by their political orientation.

He estimates the resulting ratio of liberals to conservatives at 267:1. If anything, it was probably worse, since many conservatives don’t want to be “outed” to their colleagues.

This ideological one-sidedness, according to Haidt and his co-authors, has consequences far beyond the common bullying of conservative students.

They cite, for instance, a paper about the “denial of environmental realities” by some of their colleagues in the British Journal of Social Psychology.

When subjects exhibit the “denial of the possibility of an ecological crisis” or the “denial of the danger of disrupting balance in nature,” the authors characterize them as tapping into a “primitive” belief system.

In other words, if you don’t subscribe to modern environmentalist propaganda, you might as well be Caveman Og, swinging your club at wooly mammoths. Haidt and his colleagues patiently explain how terms like “balance of nature” and “crisis” are vague.

Since they are not “facts,” it’s not possible to be “in denial” about them. “Disagreement,” they write, “is not the same … as denial.” Such concepts are skipped over in grad school, apparently.

RELATED: UNC philosophy professor warns: ‘Progressive privilege’ abounds in academia

Another paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that people “high in right-wing authoritarianism were more likely to go along with the unethical decisions of leaders.”

Forget about defining right-wing authoritarianism. What constitutes “unethical behavior”?

“Not formally taking a female colleague’s side in her sexual harassment complaint against her subordinate (given little information about the case) and a worker placing the well-being of his or her company above unspecified harms to the environment.”

Obviously, if you engage in such behavior, you’re simply a bad person.

Christian Smith, a professor of sociology at Notre Dame, has spent a career trying to combat the groupthink of academia. In his new book, “The Sacred Project of American Sociology,” Smith offers a scathing indictment of his discipline.

In his field of study, the sociology of religion, most professors begin with the assumption that “ordinary people’s naïve experiences of religious faith and sacred practice ought not to be taken seriously on their own terms,” but are better understood through the concepts of “status struggles, coping mechanisms, gender inequalities, class interests, social control, etc.”

In other words, religion is the opiate of the masses. End of argument.

If that’s where you start, it’s pretty clear where you’re going to end up. The only way to combat the production of academic research that simply confirms what liberal academics already believe is by having someone there to question these assumptions.

As Smith tells me, “Knowledge is advanced through the clash of rival interpretations of the evidence.”

The professors must have missed that memo.

What's Wrong Here?

British scientists granted permission to genetically modify human embryos

The scientists want to deactivate genes in leftover embryos from IVF clinics to see if it hinders development.

In other words, the humans here will be modified to see if it kills them or lets them live better. Since the "scientists" don't know what will happen, then they could develop grotesquely badly formed humans, and they will then presumably kill them. Comparisons to Mengele are merely in degree, not in type. And it's all done in the name of "benefit to humanity".

This is permitted under Leftist Atheist moral principles which dominate Britain at the present. Consequentialism is purely Atheist in nature.

Bad Science, and Possibly Even Evil

Are the Global Warmistas Simply Juicing Up the Latest Years' Temperatures With "Adjustments" While Reducing the Temperatures of Previous Years, To Always Make the Current Year "The Hottest"?

Sure seems that way -- and people have noticed this tendency in their ever-changing adjustments to the temperature record.

But now they may have gone too far -- in order to declare 2015 the "hottest on record," they apparently had to revise and "adjust" the previously declared all-time "hottest on record," 1997.

Because 1997 was more than three and half degrees warmer than 2015 -- going by NOAA's published data.

If they've now adjusted 1997's temperature down by three and a half degrees or more -- thus making the former All Time Hottest Year On Record not particularly hot -- this should be the lead, no?

And this would then reveal a lot of about their practices, where the "adjustments" made to the numbers change so much depending on current political messaging needs, and where all the warming comes from the "adjustments," and not the actual temperature records themselves.

It's simply job protection. Follow the money, like in any enterprise. It has never been science in the Empirical sense: there is no check and balance in the form of additional experiments to independently confirm the data. Data is pretty much dictated by entities outside of any critic's control, and data manipulation - career death to real scientists - cannot be questioned.

More Bogus Data Manipulation

Are political polls "science"? They produce data that is supposedly based statistically on observation. Or not. Maybe the pollsters are colluding in manipulating data in order to "herd" voters in the pollster's preferred direction.

The election polls weren't wrong because of mistakes – pollsters deliberately cheated

Professor Sturgiss also points out how this “statistical consensus” was arrived at. “The primary cause of the failure of the 2015 pre-election opinion polls was unrepresentativeness in the composition of the poll samples. The methods of sample recruitment used by the polling organisations resulted in systematic over-representation of Labour voters and under-representation of Conservative voters”. In other words, the pollsters inserted too many Labour voters into their polls, and not enough Conservatives.

Evil Science

University of Hawaii Carrying Out Controversial Abortion Experiments on Minors

"The Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children at the University of Hawaii is currently recruiting pregnant girls and women to participate in second-trimester abortions to measure their bleeding during the operation, with and without antihemorrhagic drugs. According to the Clinical Trials website, run by the National Institutes of Health, participants must be at least 14 years old and 18-24 weeks pregnant.

The controversial study, led by Bliss Kaneshiro, MD and Kate Whitehouse, DO, will monitor bleeding during D&E abortions to determine the effects of the drug oxytocin, commonly used to minimize blood loss and decrease the risk of hemorrhage.

The clinical trial, called “Effects of Oxytocin on Bleeding Outcomes during Dilation and Evacuation” began in October 2014 and is a collaboration between UH, Society of Family Planning and the University of Washington.

The Society of Family Planning funds a number of similar research projects, such as experimenting with the dosage of Misoprostol, a uterine contracting agent, prior to surgical abortions at 13-18 weeks and exploring umbilical cord injections to produce fetal death prior to late-term abortions.

In the UH study, researchers will carry out a “randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials,” to determine the effect of oxytocin’s use on uterine bleeding, meaning that they will either provide or deny intravenous oxytocin to the women.

Reports suggest that some doctors are concerned that withholding oxytocin during surgery may put patients, especially teen girls, at risk.

“This study is reminiscent of Nazi concentration camp experiments. I pity the poor women who are being treated like lab rats, especially those who are denied the drug to reduce hemorrhaging,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.

Dilation and evacuation abortions are surgical procedures that involve dismembering the pre-born baby with forceps, scraping the inside of the uterus with a curette to remove any residuals and finally suctioning out the womb to make sure the contents are completely removed.

After the abortion, the corpse of the fetus is reassembled and examined to ensure everything was successfully removed and that the abortion was complete.

The study is hoping to attract up to 166 test subjects and is expected to conclude in July 2015."

This is a direct Consequence of the court's Roe v Wade, along with Scientism, the worship of science. And yes, it is very reminiscent of Mengele's NAZI experiments, with death involved in every one.