Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Edwards & His Wife's Cancer & The Presidential Race

Edwards & His Wife's Cancer & The Presidential Race
Thread Tools
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 03:00 PM
 
Being an on-the-fence Republican (one of those who voted for Bush and now routinely questions everything the man and his administration does - and disagrees with some of it), I watched the Edwards news conference today where he announced that his wife has Stage IV cancer - but that he still intends to run for president.

I was wondering, would this make some of you Dems more or less likely to vote for him?

Personally, I think his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, is a very warm and courageous person and I think that this will make their public more sympathetic. Honestly, of all of the Democrats possibly running for office, Edwards is the one and only that I'd vote for. His last campaign had one detriment: John Kerry. Other than that, might've voted for him because I vote for the person and not the party.

Wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton in a million years, won't vote for Obama (though he's a very smart guy that one), but might just vote for Edwards.

Thoughts?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 03:59 PM
 
Even before this announcement, Edwards was the only one I'd consider voting for; that hasn't changed. He's spot on, concerning the health care crisis in this country, which is one of my biggest concerns.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
selowitch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 04:02 PM
 
I like them both a lot. It is going to be tough for John to get much traction with Obama and Hillary in the picture, however. I do think he'd make an excellent commander-in-chief, however.
     
:dragonflypro:
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kuna, ID USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 04:40 PM
 
I don't think he really has much of a shot anyway…

That he chooses to continue running is entirely his call regardless of what proponents and detractors say.

That said, is not a choice I'd make if my wife were in the same circumstance.

I wish her the best.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 05:02 PM
 
I wasn't gonna vote for John "Smilin' Bob" Edwards anyway but this doesn't affect my opinion one way or another.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
 (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 05:17 PM
 
I think that he is running more because his wife believes in him and in the platforms that he believes in and/or endorses.

So, would you still run (:dragonflypro if your wife requested that you continue to run?

I would want my spouse to continue on with our goals regardless of my illness.
     
kobi
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 07:40 PM
 
I wish John and Elizabeth all the best luck. Cancer is hard the first time much less the second time around.

Looking at the race, I would stay in if I was in the same position as John; only if I had the blessing of my wife. Having said that, if she took a turn for the worst I would give up everything to be by her side.
The Religious Right is neither.
     
TheWOAT
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 08:00 PM
 
Not to sound like a jerk, but how shallow do you have to be in order to get some face time out of the announcement that your wife has cancer.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by TheWOAT View Post
Not to sound like a jerk, but how shallow do you have to be in order to get some face time out of the announcement that your wife has cancer.
My wife fought breast cancer for eight years. She died at the age of 44. The prognosis for Ms Edwards is not a happy one. I am hoping there are some advances in gene therapy for her. Putting a public face on her illness will I hope put our own lives in perspective. I am an agnostic who is intrigued by theory of Intelligent Design. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...ts#comment?q=1
I have no illusions of there being a heaven or hell. I have come to the brink of death several times in my life. I am healthy a vigorous now but I know every day could be my last. That is why, when I see a pair of eagles fall from the sky in a mating dive, I thank the Lord. A flock of snow geese rising from a cornfield, I thank the Lord. Open my eyes in the morning I thank the Lord. Just my way of showing appreciation, if only to myself. Quite frankly, the disease gets ugly and it would be painful to see a public spectacle. She appears a very courageous woman. Women are stronger like that. I hope John sees the tree and not the forest.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 08:56 PM
 
I truly am sorry to hear of the death of your wife. My brother's wife died of breast cancer at age 50, and it was extremely hard on him.

Could you please explain how one can be an agnostic and thank the lord, and be intrigued by intelligent design? As an agnostic myself, I'm interested.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
My wife fought breast cancer for eight years. She died at the age of 44.

Wow. Major drag.

Sorry.
     
Monique
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2007, 01:38 PM
 
I just loved the sentence, it is not curable but treatable, meaning we are going to butchered her, poinsonned her for a while and she is going to die in horrible circumtances and in a lot of pain. If she is ready to go ahead to stay on earth a little longer, we would love to do that to her.

It is ashamed that something this terrible is happening to this family. Not many people deserves to die from such a sickness.

It proves another thing cancer never goes away.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2007, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by TheWOAT View Post
Not to sound like a jerk, but how shallow do you have to be in order to get some face time out of the announcement that your wife has cancer.
Considering the media automatically assumed he was dropping out when it was leaked his wife had cancer, I think it was an announcement that had to be made.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
wolfen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 06:01 PM
 
I am an independent, currently anti-republican and disappointed with everyone else.

That said, I am from Mr. Edwards' state of North Carolina. When he was elected he promised he was dedicated to serving the state -- and not just making a run at a federal election. Almost immediately after they put his name on the door he was primarily concerned with a federal post.

Now his wife says she has incurable cancer. I'm sorry, but I cannot sympathize with any delusion that he's still running "for the good of the nation." I don't trust the man.

And as a husband, I cannot sympathize in any way with that decision. His first concern is his to protect and care for his wife and family. The stress & strain of the campaign is one thing -- the fact that he likely has a wife with a shortened lifespan is another. He wants to risk spending her last years in a very high demand, stressful, and obviously self-absorbed role. How can he pretend to be "just a nice country boy" who can relate to people when he's willing to exploit his wife in this way? It's not persuasive in the least.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
selowitch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by TheWOAT View Post
Not to sound like a jerk...
... too late!
Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
And as a husband, I cannot sympathize in any way with that decision. His first concern is his to protect and care for his wife and family. The stress & strain of the campaign is one thing -- the fact that he likely has a wife with a shortened lifespan is another. He wants to risk spending her last years in a very high demand, stressful, and obviously self-absorbed role. How can he pretend to be "just a nice country boy" who can relate to people when he's willing to exploit his wife in this way? It's not persuasive in the least.
That's assuming an awful lot. You accuse John of being selfish, but did it ever occur to you that their decision might have been based on what Elizabeth truly wanted? If we should refrain from judging anything, it should be the manner if which a person chooses to conduct his or her life in the face of cancer. Perhaps her attitude is that to not carry through with the campaign to which she and her husband have devoted their lives would be a surrender to cancer that she cannot abide.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
And as a husband, I cannot sympathize in any way with that decision. His first concern is his to protect and care for his wife and family. The stress & strain of the campaign is one thing -- the fact that he likely has a wife with a shortened lifespan is another. He wants to risk spending her last years in a very high demand, stressful, and obviously self-absorbed role. How can he pretend to be "just a nice country boy" who can relate to people when he's willing to exploit his wife in this way? It's not persuasive in the least.
People are always dying — all the time. You never know when the people you love are going to go. Are you going to quit work and just sit with your wife all day until she dies? I don't think that kind of pathological love is necessary or healthy.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
mac128k-1984
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 08:51 PM
 
I'm not sure about his decision on this. First off, I typically vote republican though when it comes to the presidential elections, I vote for the person and not the party. Anyways back to the subject matter. Life on the campaign trail is incredibly demanding and time consuming, if she accompanies him on much of the travel, it will impact her health. The second issue, is spending time with your spouse. At the end of it all, I'd rather not look back at my life and see a long list of meetings or events that prevented me from spending time with my family. Edward's situtation is more critical as he knows his wife now has an incurable form of cancer. I dunno, my values are more family based I suppose.
Michael
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
Even before this announcement, Edwards was the only one I'd consider voting for; that hasn't changed. He's spot on, concerning the health care crisis in this country, which is one of my biggest concerns.
That's interesting because HE (Edwards) IS part of the problem sueing Doctors based on Junk Science. Lawyers are one of the biggest problems with the healthcare system today. Some doctors are paying close to a million dollars a year just to cover themselves from Malpractice lawsuits from people like Edwards.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
selowitch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by typoon View Post
That's interesting because HE (Edwards) IS part of the problem sueing Doctors based on Junk Science. Lawyers are one of the biggest problems with the healthcare system today. Some doctors are paying close to a million dollars a year just to cover themselves from Malpractice lawsuits from people like Edwards.
This is a tremendous oversimplification and I am tired of hearing it. Medical errors account for tens of thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths in the US alone every year. Who do you think helps keep doctors and hospitals accountable for those? Lawyers. Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. And no, I'm not a lawyer, in case you're wondering — I'm just a realist who recognizes that the malpractice issue is multilayered and certainly is not the sole fault of the legal profession.

The sorry state of healthcare in the United States has many causes, one of which is the insurance companies and their profiteering.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by typoon View Post
That's interesting because HE (Edwards) IS part of the problem sueing Doctors based on Junk Science. Lawyers are one of the biggest problems with the healthcare system today. Some doctors are paying close to a million dollars a year just to cover themselves from Malpractice lawsuits from people like Edwards.
Quite right.

Edwards should drop out of the race. The additional stress and pressures of life during a presidential campaign aren't going to help her. John being away much of the time certainly isn't going to make things better either. He should at least be with her through this all, and the sad truth is that he'll often be away.

I don't know what she told him that she'd rather do, but the decision they made certainly doesn't seem to be the wise one.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by selowitch View Post
This is a tremendous oversimplification and I am tired of hearing it. Medical errors account for tens of thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths in the US alone every year. Who do you think helps keep doctors and hospitals accountable for those? Lawyers. Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. And no, I'm not a lawyer, in case you're wondering — I'm just a realist who recognizes that the malpractice issue is multilayered and certainly is not the sole fault of the legal profession.

The sorry state of healthcare in the United States has many causes, one of which is the insurance companies and their profiteering.
Read up on Edwards' old cases. And while you're at it, talk to a few doctors on why medical care costs so much in the United States right now.
     
wolfen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 01:33 AM
 
My wife said she that she was willing to crawl naked over crushed glass. So I broke the bottles and laid the path. I'm sure she'll be just fine. And after all, I get to be president! Woo hoo!

In short: I couldn't give 2 shlts whether or not she said "It's ok, honey, I support you." He should still have the balls to do what's right for his family. You can say "She wanted it" all you want. In the end, we all know that when we love people we act selflessly. In this case it means that John has to STFU and be a loving husband, not garner sympathy votes.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 01:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Read up on Edwards' old cases. And while you're at it, talk to a few doctors on why medical care costs so much in the United States right now.

While the malpractice issue seems pretty obvious on the surface, last time I got challenged on it I must admit I had a hell of a time finding any actual research that supported the claim that tort reform would have a major impact on costs. The research seemed to indicate the change would be negligible.

Don't know who's right but it certainly gave me pause.

If you got something though, let us have it, I'll work overtime to stick it to the lawyers.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
He should still have the balls to do what's right for his family.
Yup. I was aghast at this announcement. Let's see... you're independently wealthy, and you live near one of the best medical centers in the world, and yet you're going to fly around campaigning (and drag her with you) while your wife fights cancer. Not good. Confirms everything I've ever heard from folks who've dealth with Edwards first hand -- he's all about ambition. Sick.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 03:54 PM
 
From Wikipedia
John Edwards

From new.findlaw.com
John Edwards' Major Cases

John Edwards is clearly a very good lawyer. The Valerie Lakey case brings up a lot of mixed feelings. I cringed when I read the description of what happened to her. Click on the link and you'll read that Valerie (then 5 years old) was sat on the uncovered rain at the bottom of a wading pool and the drain sucked out 80% of her small intestine and 50-70% of her large intestine THROUGH HER ANUS! She'll require a costly medical procedure for the rest of her life, and will never have a completely normal lifestyle. They sued the club, the county, and the maker of the pump and received $5,900,000. They also sued Sta-Rite, a subsidiary of the Wisconsin Energy Corporation.

It was revealed that a few kids were the ones who somehow removed the lid from the drain just a few minutes before the accident happened, making it seem somewhat unfair that the club, the county, and the pump-maker were sued. The family's of the children are the only ones that could seemingly be held liable for what happened, but of course, they weren't as rich as the companies mentioned.

As I said, I have mixed feelings on this case. Someone should've been held liable, but this is a horrible, one-in-a-million kind of accident, and it was decided that someone just had to pay. Sta-Rite began putting warnings on covers in 1987. The accident happened in 1995. The company was sued for not having proper warnings on the lid cover at the club, which was installed in 1987. Surely a replacement could've been ordered in the 8 years before the Lakey incident.

What I do take issue with is many of Edwards' medical malpractice suits. In several cases in the second link provided, it appears that doctors are held to a standard which requires them to be absolutely 100% perfect. This is an unhealthy practice for obvious reasons. No medical practitioner is going to be right 1,000 out of 1,000 times. Yet $43,000,000 was paid out in lawsuits (of the 8 that are listed), and the country sees innumerable amounts of these types of cases presented by lawyers who are out to make a name (or fortune) for themselves.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 06:01 PM
 
The medical malpractice issue has been blown way out of proportion.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2351

Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Not the Cause of Health Care “Crisis,” Public Citizen Report Shows

Public Citizen Recommends Addressing Patient Safety, Preventing Medical Errors and Improving Physician Oversight to Save Lives and Cut Costs

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Despite claims by business and medical lobbying interests and the Bush administration, there is no medical malpractice lawsuit crisis in America, according to analysis released today by Public Citizen. The new report, “The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax,” dispels oft-repeated myths of dwindling doctors and spiraling insurance premiums used to support limits on the ability of injured patients to seek redress in the courts.

The real problems are a lack of attention to patient safety, the high incidence of preventable medical error and the lack of accountability for a small set of doctors who account for a majority of medical malpractice payments, the report reveals. The report also presents several recommendations for Congress, state governments and hospitals to reduce health care costs and save lives.

“Over the past few years, the Republican-led Congress has repeatedly attempted to curtail the legal rights of medical malpractice victims by capping damage awards and imposing other limits on access to the courts by consumers,” said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. “This report shows that lawmakers were misguided; in fact, Congress should work to reduce medical errors.”

Public Citizen reviewed publicly available information from 1990 to 2005 from the federal government’s National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), which contains data on malpractice payments made on behalf of doctors as well as disciplinary actions taken against them by state medical boards or hospitals. According to the analysis, the total number of malpractice payments paid on behalf of doctors, with judgments and settlements, declined 15.4 percent between 1991 and 2005, and the number of payments per 100,000 people in the country declined more than 10 percent. In addition, the average payment for a medical malpractice verdict, adjusted for inflation, dropped eight percent in the same period.

The numbers show that patients do not win large jury awards for less serious claims but that payments usually correspond to the severity of injury. In 2005, less than three percent of all payments were for million-dollar verdicts and more than 64 percent of payments involved death or significant injury – while less than one-third of one percent were for “insignificant injury.”

“Despite assertions by the medical and business lobbies that physicians are leaving practice because of burdensome malpractice lawsuits, the number of doctors is increasing faster than the population,” said Laura MacCleery, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch group. “In recent years, medical malpractice insurers have been reaping huge profits, not paying out excessive jury awards. The false claims of a malpractice lawsuit crisis are really about putting profits ahead of patients. They distract from real health care reform designed to improve patient safety, enhance efficiency and cut costs.”

Public Citizen’s analysis indicates that to limit preventable patient deaths and injury and rising health care costs, reforms should reduce medical errors and tighten lax doctor discipline and oversight.

To improve patient safety and prevent errors, Congress should establish a national mandatory adverse event reporting system so that hospitals share information that can help them correct faulty systems and practices. To combat medication errors, hospitals should invest in computer physician order entry systems. This would avoid mistakes associated with illegible handwriting and automatically check for errors or bad drug interactions. Despite a 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine concluding that medication error is one of the most common preventable mistakes and costs as much as $3.5 billion annually, fewer than five percent of hospitals have implemented such a system. Hospitals and medical practices should also limit physicians’ workweeks to reduce fatigue-induced error.

Improving physician oversight is vital to addressing the small percentage of repeat offenders who continue to practice despite being responsible for a majority of malpractice claims in America. The report documents that just 5.9 percent of doctors have been responsible for 57.8 percent of the number of malpractice payments from 1991 to 2005, with each of these doctors making at least two payments. The vast majority of doctors – 82 percent – have never had a medical malpractice payment since the NPDB was created in 1990. State medical boards, which are largely responsible for doctor discipline, should be given greater funding and staffing, and be required to provide stricter oversight to prevent dangerous doctors from practicing in their own or other states.

Greater disclosure of offenders would also provide consumers with the information necessary to make informed decisions about their health care. Congress should lift the veil of secrecy on the national database by allowing the public access to the names of doctors – which are now kept secret – and state legislatures should require state medical boards to improve their Web sites to provide better quality and accessibility of information about doctor discipline.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 07:58 PM
 
Good thing Public Citizen has a long-standing history of being 100% objective.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 08:30 PM
 
What more objective party are you trusting on the issue?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Good thing Public Citizen has a long-standing history of being 100% objective.
I know, your anecdotal stories are definitely more objective than Public Citizen.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Yup. I was aghast at this announcement. Let's see... you're independently wealthy, and you live near one of the best medical centers in the world, and yet you're going to fly around campaigning (and drag her with you) while your wife fights cancer. Not good. Confirms everything I've ever heard from folks who've dealth with Edwards first hand -- he's all about ambition. Sick.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889146/site/newsweek/

     
selowitch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 10:37 PM
 
There is no single party responsible for the wretched state of medical care (particularly the financial aspect) in the U.S. We all bear some portion of the responsibility. I am part of the problem when I expect others to help me, via the insurance pool, meet costs that probably really ought to be mine to bear alone. Doctors, drug companies, insurers, hospitals, and certainly Medicare and Medicaid all have their part to play in this disaster. The fiasco at Walter Reed Medical Center is symptomatic of a system that is breaking down at an alarming rate. Don't get me wrong: The U.S. is home to some of the most fantastic medical professionals in the world: medical doctors, nurses, physicians assistants, nurse's aides, chirpractors, osteopaths. Many of them are caring, dedicated individuals who work their tails off. But anytime you have a system in which drug companies can exclude studies from the literature that reflect results they don't like, you have to know that something is greivously amiss.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by selowitch View Post
But anytime you have a system in which drug companies can exclude studies from the literature that reflect results they don't like, you have to know that something is greivously amiss.
Speaking along that vein, this should scare the socks off anybody (of course there will be those who see nothing wrong with it). It's not health related, but giant pharmacuetical companies are doing the same thing. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/24/60/

Big Oil Buys Berkeley
The BP-UC Berkeley Research Deal Pushes Academic Integrity Aside For Profit.
by Jennifer Washburn
On Feb.1, the oil giant BP announced that it had chosen UC Berkeley, in partnership with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to lead the largest academic-industrial research alliance in U.S. history. If the deal is approved, BP will give $500 million over 10 years to fund a new multidisciplinary Energy Biosciences Institute devoted principally to biofuels research.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, UC administrators and BP executives immediately proclaimed the alliance — which is not yet a done deal — a victory for higher education and for the environment. But here’s another way to see it. For a mere $50 million a year, an oil company worth $250 billion would buy a chunk of America’s premier public research institutions, all but turning them into its own profit-making subsidiary.

This is shameful. The core mission of Berkeley is education, open knowledge exchange and objective research, not making money or furthering the interests of a private firm. In the last two decades, however, Cal and other universities — increasingly desperate for research dollars — have signed agreements that fail to protect their essential independence, allowing corporations excessive control over their research.

The BP deal magnifies this trend. Most corporations sponsor university research one study and one lab at a time. With the Energy Biosciences Institute, BP would exert influence over an entire academic research center (spanning 25 labs at its three public partners), bankrolling and setting the agenda for projects that cut across many departments.

What’s more, BP would set up shop on campus: 50 scientists employed by the company would work on joint projects with academic scientists at Berkeley and the University of Illinois. BP also would set up private labs on these campuses, where all the research would be proprietary and confidential.

Robert Reich, former secretary of labor and now a professor of public policy at Berkeley, has warned that — because of its size and commercial scope — the BP alliance could be either “a huge feather in Berkeley’s cap or a huge noose around Berkeley’s neck.” The question is, do rules and practices set up to safeguard academic integrity and independence stand up to a corporate deal of this magnitude?

The fine print of the plan, which UC made public only after it was leaked, doesn’t create much confidence. Californians need to know that their public university is dedicated to pursuing the best science, not just science that generates profits for BP. Unfortunately, the plan indicates that narrow commercial criteria could guide much of the Energy Biosciences Institute’s research.

Normally, even when university research is corporate sponsored, professors alone direct and shape it. Often, funds are assigned and research proposals are accepted through an independent, peer-review process. In the BP deal, however, the institute — with a director to be “proposed” by BP and other high-level positions to be filled by BP employees or appointees — would play a major role in setting research agendas and controlling purse strings. The plan touts the company’s role: BP’s “business industry leadership will strongly differentiate the EBI from other primarily academic research enterprises.”

The plan also would hand unusual control to BP in other areas. A bedrock principle of academia is that campus-based research should be published. That’s why Berkeley bans classified military research from campus; the open exchange of information is fundamental to the advancement of science and education. But those 50 BP scientists on campus would, according to the plan, have “no obligation to publish.”

Universities also, as a rule, hold the intellectual property rights in their research, no matter how it’s funded. In order to foster competition and innovation, they generally allow more than one company to use their discoveries for commercial purposes. This plan allows BP to co-own intellectual property in some instances and to receive exclusive (albeit time-limited) commercial licenses as well. The plan itself notes that such terms “deviate from standard policy” and “require exceptions to policy in order to be implemented.”

Ultimately, there is an even more basic question to consider. Would the institutionalization of BP at Berkeley call into question the essential objectivity of the research generated by the collaboration? BP is clearly investing its $500 million not just in public-good research; it’s hoping to advance an energy source it’s already committed to commercially. Given that there is nothing in the plan that calls for truly independent selection of research proposals, can the Energy Biosciences Institute be trusted to pursue research that might prove that biofuels are the wrong alternative-energy choice? Would its social sciences arm freely investigate potential ecological and economic downsides?

UC President Robert Dynes has characterized the BP deal in telling words. “It is my belief,” he said, “that we are reinventing the research university in this public-private partnership.”

Five hundred million dollars is a nice chunk of change, but does any amount of money justify “reinventing” UC Berkeley’s academic integrity? That’s what UC officials should ask themselves before they sign this deal.

Jennifer Washburn is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of “University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education.”
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
What more objective party are you trusting on the issue?
NewsMax






That's a joke, by the way.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 11:38 PM
 
And this random Edwards URL applies how? She slams Rush ... what did you expect? My comment had nothing to do with her, but with her husband. In fact, I'd argue that she cannot, by definition, make objective decisions relating to her treatment and/or life events at this point. Saying that she wants her husband to continue, blah blah is meaningless -- he should do what's right, and that has nothing to do with her opinion.

To put it in a different light:

Suppose Edwards had worked for 25 years to become CEO of a major corporation. What would folks say then? The situation is the same -- he may or may not get the chance to take the position again. Right now, though, his duty is to his wife and young children for crying out loud.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 12:11 AM
 
What do you say to the Rush Limbaughs of the world who have the nerve to judge how you should cope with your disease?

Words don't bother me. If John had pulled out of the race, they would have said, "Oh, he was failing in this race and this was just an excuse to get out." This is a no-win situation with those folks, and you just have to accept it. But what you hate is that other people might listen and say, "Oh, that's right, it's our job to tell them what is right."
See?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
Speaking along that vein, this should scare the socks off anybody (of course there will be those who see nothing wrong with it). It's not health related, but giant pharmacuetical companies are doing the same thing. Big Oil Buys Berkeley The BP-UC Berkeley Research Deal Pushes Academic Integrity Aside For Profit. - CommonDreams.org - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

Big Oil Buys Berkeley
The BP-UC Berkeley Research Deal Pushes Academic Integrity Aside For Profit.
There's nothing in the article that shows academic integrity is violated, other than the author's conjecture.

And it isn't the first time an academic institution has taken money from private industries.

Ground-breaking at Wake Forest

In 1956, Wake Forest University moved from Wake Forest, NC to Winston-Salem.

You may recognize the name Winston-Salem from two brans of cigarettes, Winston and Salem.

You may be interested to note that the move was funded with Tobacco money. (RJ Reynolds)

The state zoo was also funded with Tobacco money. (RJ Reynolds, again.)

Academic integrity has not seemed to suffer.

But then, Big Oil and Big Pharma are so much sexier to fear nowadays.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
And this random Edwards URL applies how?
She sounds pretty determined. And that truly means that the decision isn't a patriarchal "his", but theirs, and they must have a strong partnership. Who are we to get between a husband and wife, or attempt to armchair quarterback their life decisions?
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 10:29 AM
 
I have a hard time believing that anyone who's hating on Edwards for this decision isn't having a partisan moment.
     
selowitch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
And this random Edwards URL applies how? She slams Rush ... what did you expect? My comment had nothing to do with her, but with her husband. In fact, I'd argue that she cannot, by definition, make objective decisions relating to her treatment and/or life events at this point.
What is the possible use of being "objective" when you have cancer, and what is the crime in being "subjective"? Like a typical right-winger, your statements suggest that you have little to no grasp of the true meaning of those words (or any others in the English language).
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Saying that she wants her husband to continue, blah blah is meaningless -- he should do what's right, and that has nothing to do with her opinion.
I see. So, again acting like a typical right-winger, you think women should just keep quiet and let the men make all the decisions. You sicken me, sir.
     
TheWOAT
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2007, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar² View Post
I have a hard time believing that anyone who's hating on Edwards for this decision isn't having a partisan moment.
In my case, Im kinda sick of the 'dog and pony show' aspect of politics.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:46 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,