Voluntary vs involuntary death
It seems to me that there’s a perverse dichotomy in New Labour’s approach to science. On some issues it is firmly anti-science and on others it embraces science like a lover.
For instance, if you are an independent advisory body who has ‘probably carried out the most considered and detailed assessment of ecstasy ever carried out’, the government is going to tell you to go swing when you produce your recommendations. Ecstasy is a potential killer says the government so it stays as a Class A drug.
However, if you’re a scientist whose particular itch is finding new and interesting ways of killing people with sharp and shiny weaponry, then the government will throw millions at you and produce hot ‘n’ horny press releases oozing luuuurve for your engines of death.
What I’m sensing here is that the government doesn’t like you taking voluntary risks with your own body in a UK nightclub but if you’re, say, living in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, they’ll impose the risk on you. Can anybody square this for me?
Posted on February 11th, 2009 at 9:56am under New Labour, Science and progress
| Related posts... • The Times: Investors made millions amid bombs chaos • Arms and the Boy • Jacket required |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 2 Comments |
Yes, Orwell can: “Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own ? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. “
We obviously need a new A* classification for the really hard stuff. Then we can bump everything up a grade to in order to send a message.