Debate on important issues with scientific dimensions often lacks analytical rigour. Frustratingly, it is worrying and regrettable that many people reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
Science is both a body of knowledge and a means by which the physical world can be studied and understood. Science involving experimental observation and theoretical predictions should be an important factor in determining the nature of public policy. Any policy that is contrary to overwhelming scientific consensus is inconsistent with observed reality and consequently ought not be implemented.
Papers with scientific elements will be presented here as they become available.
Fuel quality affects vehicle emissions and hence air quality, which impacts on human health. If human health is paramount and while hydrocarbons continue to be used as vehicular fuel, then improvements to vehicle and fuel quality are necessary in many countries.
Human cloning and the use of embryonic stem cells for research and therapeutic cloning raises similar issues. Is there a valid non-safety argument against human cloning? Many people oppose human cloning because it creates an identical human being. But this argument is not universalisable, because if valid, then identical twins could not be created, as they have more identical DNA (with identical mitochondrial DNA) than human clones. There would seem to be no universalisable non-safety argument against the use of embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes.