Re: Four in a row"

In message <r16ke2hk194a1kv7is414dfgqnt98lec9e@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:15:24 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

In message <0gpje2hm0ritems7fgifvejlhfadgmf5gc@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:28:12 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

[snip]
You asked me how I costed the life of a small child. I asked you
what your answer to that question was. Not as an abstract
argument but evidenced by the real currency value you placed on
human life through your own actions.

You have refused to answer.


You can't put a cost on it. You should know that.

But I see later on below that you have revealed your valuation.

[snip]

Where do you stand on these issues? You make statements about costs
but are you in a position to do something to help? I could give you
details of where to donate funds if you like.


All donations I make go to animal groups.


So you don't make any donations in favour of human health and welfare
despite your very clear statement on several occasions in reference to
the value of a human life.

amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
"You can't put a cost on it. You should know that."


In your very actions (or more specifically your inactions) you
make a declaration of your valuation.

[snip]
Universities are about research, scholarship and education. All too
often academics get criticised for having an "ivory tower" existence
and for not engaging with the real world.


Fair comment. Although many "Mickey Mouse" degrees are not worth
having.


Just for your reference, since I've no idea what degrees Mickey Mouse
has, I've got a honours first degree in Biochemistry and a PhD in
Molecular Immunobiology

You now seem to be taking the opposite tack because I am attempting
some real world engagement. You present ideas and viewpoints that
are misleading and highly subjective, based on limited information.

I think that's highly subjective.


I'm sure my own subjective assessment could be substantiated with other
learned opinion.

You seems to object when your ideas are challenged and the basis for
your views are challenged.


Not at all. But I do give what I get.


No you don't give what you get, you reply with unsubstantiated
statements when faced with contrary information and evidence.



Ideas are what I carry in my head based on 30 years of research
in my field. However solving complex problems isn't simply a
matter of time and effort. If you double the amount of time, or
double the number of scientists, you don't necessarily double
the productive output.

Agreed but not quite the issue. You could be doing something to
benefit the university rather than playing on the computer.


Explain to me how informing opinion on medical, social and ethical
issues is playing?

You seem to defend your hobbies in university time and on University
machines and energy.


This is one of those things that might be difficult for those who aren't
familiar with universities to understand. Many individuals don't have
defined working hours, or a defined working location, or a narrowly
defined topic of study or scholarship. Instead they have specified
duties to fulfil (e.g. lecturing and examining) and they are then
provided with limited facilities to engage in research and scholarship
in their chosen fields of study. These facilities include libraries,
museums, computing facilities, access to the internet, basic
laboratories. However these do not meet the full requirements of
research and so if we need extra facilities we have to apply for and try
to raise from whatever sources we can the funds to cover our
research. This might entail travel to fieldwork stations in 3rd world
countries, visiting of other museums and library collections, or the
equipping and funding of specialist laboratory facilities.

Regarding "University machines and energy", even here it is not clear to
the public what the actual system is. For example my university provides
a Virtual Private Network facility for staff to make use of. This means
that my home computers (which I pay for), my laptop (which I pay for),
or any other computer facility I make use of in a hotel, internet cafe,
or other establishment, gives the access rights and appearance of a
computer that is physically within the university buildings. This means
I can work from almost anywhere at any time but using my university
identifiers. The university has a fair use policy for governing the use
of these facilities, and it makes available to staff and students from
its own servers many, but not all, of the newsgroups (including the
uk.rec hierarchy).

For most academic and research staff in a university it is a vocation
based on conviction and a desire to contribute. It is difficult to
separate these ideas and convictions, with a clear division between work
and pleasure (or leisure).



You want money spent on safety barriers on land that might
potentially save a few lives a year at most. I want money spent on
medical research and public health that will save many more lives.

Ah, but you take money out of the system by way of salary.

Even here it isn't so straightforward. Most academics I know are hard
working, possess specialist knowledge and skills, and could earn
considerably more in the private sector. Many of them (myself included)
are able to do external consultancy and other commercial work, including
authorship and book publishing, for which we earn self-employed income.
A remarkably high proportion of academics (myself included) make use of
these forms of income to help support their research, scholarship and
teaching.

So whilst we take money out of the system by way of salary, many of us
also put money back into the system through our endeavours both on
behalf of the university and as private individuals.



Have you ever thought of donating money to assist in medical
research or paying for medical treatments of those that can't afford
it?


Have you ever thought of foregoing say 50% of your salary to pay for
medical treatments of those who can't afford it.?

Yes and I do.

[snip]

I'm glad you appreciate the time element. I first started work on
CAMPATH in 1981 and it wasn't until 2001, 20 years later, that it
gained FDA and MCA approval for treatment of CLL. Currently it's
also in clinical trials for treatment of Multiple Sclerosis and it
has also been investigated for treatment of other diseases such as
Rheumatoid Arthritis.

During the 25 year history of that antibody I've been involved in
endless processes, not just laboratory based research, but also fund
raising campaigning, marketing discussions with companies, working
with patient groups, involvement with legal disputes, patent trials.
I've been there, done it and got the T-shirt. CAMPATH is just one of
many therapies that I've worked on and am actively involved with.
Hopefully new treatments will emerge shortly for other diseases.
Currently I'm quite hopeful for another antibody that is showing
promise in the treatment of early onset Type-I diabetes. My
laboratories other research project is based on finding a treatment
for newborn babies suffering from fetomaternal alloimmune
thrombocytopenia (FAITP).


Have you ever thought that in a way by seeking to cure disease you are
contributing towards the demise of the human species on this planet in
terms of maintaining and increasing the human population?

That's more evidence of how you value human life is it?

Strange that you make calls for the introduction of barriers on
footpaths to save lives, and then raise the above criticism of me for
engaging in research that saves many human lives.

As I see it improving the health of those that are alive does not
preclude the human population regulating its total impact on the planet.

Numbers alive at any one time are a product of births and deaths. Indeed
the birthrate in developed countries with a high standard of living
(such as the UK), and a good quality of health, is generally much lower
than in developing countries. In many European countries the birthrate
has fallen below an average of 2 per couple.

[snip]

Many more newborn children are born each year with FAITP and I'd
like to see a cure developed for them. More money given to medical
research could benefit those newborn babies.


See above.


Yes I've seen the admission you've made. You have money you're prepared
to give to animal charities but none you are prepared to give in
support of diseases of newborn human infants. You've now made your
position absolutely clear.

[snip]

Yes but if drugs exist that can definitely save lives and the only
thing that is preventing their use is money shouldn't we be trying
to divert financial resources to where they are really needed and
can do the most good?

Well you should be campaigning against the government money being
spent of fake conservation projects and pressing for it to be spent on
medical research

I've read your diatribes and I've also assessed the evidence for
myself. I'm unconvinced by your rhetoric and indeed you have simply
helped me to reach the opposite conclusions.

I think there is plenty of scope to consider more funding on
conservation and also more funding for human health and welfare. Indeed
I see them as interwoven issues. Quality of life goes along with health
and welfare, and for me the state of the natural world is a quality of
human life issue.

- not forgetting to add half your salary to it.


I haven't forgotten and I've dealt with that very point above.

[snip]

You're the one who keeps going on about the value of a human life
but who doesn't yet say how much of your personal time and how much
of your personal income is diverted to saving of human life because
you think it is so valuable and worthwhile.

I think I have - below.


Yes, you're making your position much clearer at every point.



I've given over most of my working life and expertise and a
considerable proportion of my income to these issues of human health
and disease. I've been carrying out medical research for 28 years,
and teaching and training medical students and young scientists for
16 years.



I've no qualms about that.



When I argued that it was sensible to conduct a cost benefit
analysis it was you that attacked me and my principles saying that I
obviously didn't value human life.

That's not bouncing between extremes. Your opposition to putting in
safety railings where people might fall certainly gives that
impression especially when it is based on aesthetics.


It's a question of sensible allocation of resources and looking at
realistic consequences.


Sure, and I don't think it unrealistic to suggest that danger areas
should be fenced.

But you've made it very clear what your motivation is (or in fact even
clearer is not) behind such statements.


People are dying of starvation and ill health and they don't have
the means to help themselves. By devoting resources to these issues
we can save and prolong lives and improve lifestyles for these
people. If you have money, you can help.

If people are dying of starvation it is generally that they have
outstripped their habitat. I believe that all animals should live in
accordance with their habitat and that humans should be no exception.


No, with humans it is more often more complex in that political and
human economic factors have as much to contribute to the problem. It is
not a simple matter of outstripping the habitat.


However there are other issues such as venturing into wilderness
areas where people do have choices, they can decide whether to take
risks or not. They should have the right to choose whether to take
those risks. Many of the sick and starving can't exercise choice.


But you could exercise a choice to give the money to the starving

I do and I do

rather than driving to Ben Nevis or the like for your own
gratification.

Yes I keep back a small percentage of my income for personal pleasure.
However I don't live an extravagant lifestyle. I generally camp, car
share, and my preferred choices of mobility are walking, cycling and
ski-touring (in winter).

How many hundreds or thousands of pounds could you give in a year if
you did that?

See my answers above.

How many hundreds or thousands of pounds could you give in a year if
you did that?

See my answers above.


You bleat for money; provided it's someone else's


On the contrary I give of my time, my effort, my skills and my money,
and then I ask others if they would also contribute to a worthwhile
cause.

I've asked you, and you have made your answers, your principles and your
ethics most clear for all to see and to judge for themselves.


[snip]

There are drugs that are known to save or prolong lives and the only
thing that is preventing their use is money.

There is a price put on human life and those with money and
influence could alter it.


All very fine as long as it's not your money?


I've made my position clear, as you have yours.



[snip]

And we could choose to spend more, just as spending more money on
healthcare and medical research would save more lives.


But there's virtually nothing being spent on safety in the
countryside. And I'm not suggesting the government should pay. It
should be the landlords.


You're agenda, as you have made so very clear to anyone who reads your
statements, is not primarily concerned with safety and human welfare.

[snip]

What about medical research to support your family? Do you allow
your family to have medical treatment? Do you use drugs and
antibiotics?

If you or a close relative needed one of the drugs that was in the
news today and the NHS wouldn't pay for it, would you pay privately?
Would you campaign for its availability for others?


I'll leave that to others.


So you wouldn't even consider paying for the treatment of your own
relatives or campaign for the general availability of worthwhile drugs!

You have excelled yourself in the clarity of your responses and the
revelations of your attitude towards your fellow humans.

[snip]

There are plenty of worthwhile medical research projects out their
that you could get involved with.


Sure there are, so start donating the money you spend ski trips and
mountaineering.

I've made my position clear in my comments above.


Bet you don't :-(


There is plenty of evidence of my personal contributions within the
public domain.


Angus Macmillan

I'd just like to finally say that you have truly excelled yourself with
your full and frank contributions in answer to my questions in this
message and the preceding thread.

Thank you, I am now satisfied that you are a hopeless cause with
respect to an attempt to convert you to a cause of supporting human
health and welfare, but I do hope that in the examples you have set
above of your attitudes towards fellow humans, that you will be an
example that few others wish to emulate.




As Douglas Adams wrote,

Bye, and thanks for all the fish!
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION
    ... I know a female brain surgeon, whose husband doesn't ... yet and may never be and earns no money. ... It isn't for everyone and not everyone lives ... two sons work FAR too much, but then so too do their wives. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: paintball dont look
    ... I don't bemoan anyone who works hard to make the money they make. ... they live their lives as they do only because of their ancestry and it ... WERE to make it to police chief in Alaska, odds are he would be fairly well ... That means his retirement would definitely ...
    (rec.sport.paintball)
  • Re: German finance minister says the stimulus plans are a bit stupid
    ... dementia/incontinence treatment were light years ahead of where it is ... the old people in care homes are those who are ... Those with relatives or money tend to move to ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: 60 Minutes
    ... Actually the typical MSA/HSA deposits money into a checking account with a ... rather than the insurance company. ... they need a treatment or not. ... With the current Medicare payment rates, I often have to beg specialists to ...
    (misc.health.diabetes)
  • Re: OT: AARP
    ... We saved money, invested, and bought a small house we could afford on one income. ... We spend a great deal of money on medical expenses that aren't covered by health insurance, and the health of neither of us is improving. ... If we had bought a house that took two incomes to keep, we would have had to sell it. ... I don't even think cookie cutter lives exist. ...
    (sci.med.transcription)