ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













The Network Central

The Network Central


Updates on the blog network and news from the science blogosphere.
The Network Central Home

#SciAmBlogs Monday – Craigs List Avenue, Religion and Medical Care, Words With Rocks, Bad doctors, Futuristic Foods and more.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Most important news of the day – we have a new blog! Check out Rosetta Stones!

Second, as it is Monday, we have a new Image of the Week.

I think these four posts had something to do with yesterday’s date – you decide:

- Darren Naish – Amphisbaenians and the origins of mammals

 

- Ferris Jabr – Neuroscientists: We Don’t Really Know What We Are Talking About, Either

 

- David Bressan – Strange Skull rewrites History of Man

 

- Janet D. Stemwedel – Who profits from killing Pluto?

 

And now for the serious stuff:

- Cassie Rodenberg – Strolling “Craigs List Avenue” for Drugs: Tatiana’s Story

 

- Judy Stone – Molecules to Medicine: When Religion Collides with Medical Care: Who decides what is right for you?

 

- Dana Hunter – Words With Rocks

 

- Ilana Yurkiewicz – “Bad doctors” and bad habits

 

- Christina Agapakis – Foods in the Year 2000

 

- Jennifer Frazer – Another Bat Die-Off Leads to Discovery of First European Ebola Virus Relative

 

- Scicurious – Can amphetamine and caffeine make you a slacker?

 

- Kalliopi Monoyios – Paleo Dream Jobs: Bringing Dinos Back to Life

 

- DNLee – Tackling student loan debt – Serve your way out of debt

 

- Caleb A. Scharf – Raw Footage From An Alien World

 

- John Horgan – Christof Koch on Free Will, the Singularity and the Quest to Crack Consciousness

 

- Carin Bondar – A Jason Mraz Tune Gets Geekified! Monday Music Video

 

- Jason G. Goldman – Sunday Photoblogging: Locals, Tourists, and Data

 

- Wayne Maddison – Spiders in Borneo: Scattered literature

 

- Elizabeth Iorns – Leading a Movement to Change the Pace of Scientific Research

 

- Bora Zivkovic – Anthropologists love Scientific American and Best of March at A Blog Around The Clock

 

- Bora Zivkovic – Welcome Rosetta Stones – the newest blog at #SciAmBlogs and Open Laboratory 2013 – submissions so far

 

- Gary Stix – Psychological ‘Growth’ Through War and Disease: Sometimes It’s Just a Cruel Delusion

 

- Katherine Harmon – Routine Mammograms Lead to Overdiagnosis of Breast Cancer

 

- Kate Wong – Humans Tamed Fire by One Million Years Ago

 

=======================

Conversations on our articles and blog posts often continue on our Facebook page – “Like” it and join in the discussion. You can also put our official Google Plus page in your circles.

You should follow the Blog Network on Twitter – the official account is @sciamblogs and the List of all the bloggers is @sciamblogs/sciambloggers.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. sunspot 7:35 pm 04/4/2012

    Regarding the above mentioned: “Judy Stone – Molecules to Medicine: When Religion Collides with Medical Care: Who decides what is right for you?” The following comment from the blog page also applies to Bora Zivkovic, who allowed the article to be posted here.
    ********************************
    Judy Stone, and SciAm Editors:
    It’s very simple to disprove most of the “Big Lies” in this clearly anti-Catholic propaganda. The most obvious rebuttal, clear to any rational reader, is based on your statement that “In twenty-two states, Catholic hospitals account for 20-30+% of admissions.” The smart reader will realize that Catholics care enough about people to build hospitals where others refuse to build them. Imagine what health care would be like in those regions if Catholics had not sacrificed to build those hospitals.

    This biased rant is filled with partial facts like: “religious health systems received more than $45 billion in public, taxpayer-supported, funds”. Any scientifically-minded reader will realize that it is the patient who receives the support from the funds! Taking away public funding implies that patients would have to cover the entire bill unless they go to a secular hospital. Now that would be forcing secular beliefs on patients!

    In fact, your biggest lie is the claim that any beliefs are imposed on patients. You claim to know all about Catholic beliefs, yet you call foul when those who are caring for your mother will not take precious time to explain to you the details of Living wills that conflict with hospital policy. I believe that this fits the definition of Chutzpah!

    On the contrary, YOU attempt to impose YOUR beliefs on the readers by hiding the full story. But most of all, shame on Scientific American for giving you this science platform to present a “distort-the-facts” rant against Catholic hospitals. It’s clear that some influential people at SciAm are trying to impose their humanist/atheist beliefs on the readers.

    SCIAM editors : Go back to Science!

    Link to this
  2. 2. Bora Zivkovic 2:55 am 04/5/2012

    Yes, I saw your comment there. I edited the piece. I stand by it. The piece, unlike some of the emotional commenters, stands by science.

    Link to this
  3. 3. sunspot 8:13 pm 04/5/2012

    To Bora Zivkovic and SciAm editors:
    It insults the intelligence of any rational reader to believe that you edited this article with an unbiased, scientific attitude. Only a few examples are required to prove that your claim to be unemotional and scientific is entirely false.

    1. You said: “Demanding exemptions from providing comprehensive health care for women on the basis of religious beliefs is one of the most recent assaults on women.” Do you call the phrase “assaults on women” scientific or inflammatory? The phrase “disagreements with some women” would be more scientifically accurate, but you chose to use the emotionally charged phrase.

    2. You said: “no matter the cost to the health and well-being of women and infants”. Really, are you claiming that the phrase “women and infants” was picked for its scientific accuracy. I ask the readers. Isn’t this the kind of phrase used in war propaganda to stir up an emotional response to “Defend the women and infants!”?

    3. In the case of Elliot Hospital in Manchester, NH, you quote the biased report in MS. Magazine’s “feminist wire”. Even then, you left out the vital information that the complaining doctor “did not give the hospital staff enough time to review the case.”. Did you omit the other side of the story to be scientific?

    Even your title is emotionally charged: “Religion collides with medical care”; in fact, religion is the reason that any of this medical care exists in the first place! Your choice of inflammatory rhetoric is more reminiscent of negative political campaigns, than a scientific discussion.

    I repeat:
    SciAm editors -return to science!

    Link to this
  4. 4. Bora Zivkovic 11:19 pm 04/5/2012

    You did not read Dr.Stone’s article. You read INTO it. Practice reading comprehension. Then come back, re-read slowly and carefully, think, reflect, self-reflect… all good exercises.

    Link to this
  5. 5. Bora Zivkovic 11:28 pm 04/5/2012

    BTW, I have no time or interest debating re-writes of history with people with clear religious bias and political agenda. Banning is quicker.

    My rules are well known: three strikes and out. If you have any intention of becoming a CONSTRUCTIVE commenter, you have one more chance. If not, the World Wide Web is really wide – freedom of speech gives you the right to start your own blog, but not the right to comment on other people’s sites: it is their “home” where they set the rules. Here, I set the rules. Deal with it.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Black Friday/Cyber Monday Blow-Out Sale

Enter code:
HOLIDAY 2014
at checkout

Get 20% off now! >

X

Email this Article

X