Doubtful future for Australian stem cell research

Big news at The Australian Stem Cell Centre. According to the newsletter for 23rd October,

'The Australian Stem Cell Centre announced this week an organisational restructure aimed at optimising the Centre’s operational activities.
This follows a review of the organisation to establish the appropriate level of resources needed to effectively meet the Centre’s objectives over the coming years.
As a result of the restructure, eleven positions throughout the organisation have been identified as redundant. The staff concerned have been informed of the Centre’s decision and will be leaving at various times in the coming months.
Acting Chief Executive Officer, David Collins, said “It is with regret that the ASCC takes these measures but it is the right thing to do for the long term. We understand that this is a stressful time for the affected staff and we will provide as much support as possible during this difficult time, including a financial package and out placement training. We thank all of our staff for their patience and understanding during this process.”'

There was more background to this on ABC local radio 

"The Board's decision to sack Stephen Livesey came after a science review of the centre found that many of the researchers were openly competing with each other."...

"The Board itself resigned en masse last month, citing interference by stakeholders as the reason."...

"Federal Science Minister Senator Kim Carr declined the ABC's request for an interview, but his spokesman said a decision is yet to be made on whether the Australian Stem Cell Centre will receive any federal funding in future."

all this after

... "a fierce bidding process involving some of the country's top research institutions, the Australian Stem Cell Centre was set up at Melbourne's Monash University in 2002."

is this what you get with selfless scientific research aimed at improving the lot of humanity?

Xavier muck up

It is good to see that Archbishop Denis Hart is getting actively involved in repairing the damage of the muck up day by Xavier students in Melbourne.

You can talk all you like about youthful enthusiasm getting carried away, and people being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but this is scandalous and shameful behaviour. Apparently one of the boys in year 12 has been regularly bullied, and what sends a chill down my spine is the comment from some of his classmates that he was laughing and enjoyed it. This really is "Lord of the Flies" stuff.

IMHO, the important thing is not just finding the culprits now, but asking what happened (or didn't happen) 10 years ago to cause this behaviour. By chance, a couple of days ago, I saw a large truck trailer in the local public school which is the Life Education  programme in public schools, and this goes to Catholic and independent schools as well. Life education teaches children in primary schools about dangers of drugs, smoking and alcohol. I believe it uses testimonials by celebrities and survivors, and probably is based on a practical harm minimisation ethic.

I would hope that in a Catholic school, the teaching would also involve ideas of rising above "delights" (such as they are) of the flesh, the virtues of self-control and wisdom, giving honour to God and service to our neighbours. I don't have any knowledge of what has happened at Xavier, but my fear is that humanist Healthy Harold from life education is not taken seriously enough, and neither is religious education at the schools. I hope my fear is unfounded, because otherwise, there is a time bomb ticking away in the Catholic education system.

Big Opportunity

I see that in London, the British Humanist Association and Richard Dawkins are paying for ads on the side of London buses reading
"There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7681914.stm

In London, this costs about $A27,300 to put the ad on the side of 60 buses for a month.
We can only hope that someone does a similar thing here in Australia, as it would be a perfect opportunity to put Catholic ads on the side of buses at the pretty reasonable price of about $150 per bus per day. It would be great to start up an ad battle like that.
We should put our minds to what we would put on the advertisement. My first thoughts are:

"The happiest people I know are Catholics. Why?"

"You can always have faith in reason. Think about it"

"Jesus loves you. Yes, you"

Bring in on.

good and bad and Henson

It has been made public that the school which allowed Bill Henson to scout for potential models was St Kilda Park Primary school.

Interestingly, St.Kilda Park has in place classes of philosophy for children. Presumably these are intended to be a model for the alternative to scripture classes in public schools that are often talked about, but rarely exist.

Assuming the principal involved believes in these classes, I would be interested to hear her philosophical justification for turning the school playground into a market place, and a market where apparently only 2 people knew what was going on. Also, I would be interested to know how she sees the role of the children in this case. Are they meant to be active learners, or are they regarded as objects to be organised and arranged by the "artist"?

Another interesting aspect of this case is the discussion about Henson's photos themselves. There has developed a distinction between

1. pornography
2. erotic art
3. just plain art

I don't know where this distinction came from, it seems to have appeared in the last 10 or 20 years in order to justify the existence of "adult" magazines in main street newsagents. I think the supporters of Bill Henson claim that his photos can be classified as 2 or 3.

Now, I'm not sure whether the philosophers from St Kilda Park could explain the distinction between these. I suspect they would base it on whether anyone is harmed by making the images. As far as I know, Christian theology would also consider the harm people can do to themselves by obsession with these images. Before the fall, we were "naked and unashamed" (Genesis 2) but now we have to take care that we see others as made in the image of God, not just a physical object to be looked at.

Whatever turns you on

I was watching the Collectors programme on ABC TV, and they presented a man who collected toy tractors, in front of an audience of what appeared to be grey haired retirees. Now, people are entitled to pursue their interests, but is this the most important thing someone with time on their hands could do? Think of all the other pastimes people do: bridge clubs, tour guides of heritage houses, wine appreciation classes, theatre subscriptions etc. Do these have eternal significance?

Then I thought of the grey haired ordained and religious people nearing retirement. Maybe they should be thankful that they do have the chance to spend their time on things that matter.

Then I heard a story about Andrew Forrest, who is Australia's richest man. Maybe that has changed a little since the stockmarket changes recently, but he is still wealthy. Andrew Forrest has plans to support aboriginal communities by offering employment. He has also told his children that he plans to give away much of his wealth, so they will not inherit all his billions.

A little internet investigation of his motives shows that Andrew and his wife Nicola are Christians and attend an evangelical church in Perth. This is a sort of reverse "prosperity gospel". Make the money first, then give it away. I suppose there are atheist philantropists, but they seem to be few and far between. It seems that eternal values are needed before people are inspired to change their lives.

light bulbs

I have now read the Good Weekend extract from David Marr's book about  Bill Henson. To answer my question at the end of the previous post, this extract doesn't spend much time criticising the people who have questioned Bill Henson's photos, its main purpose is to depict the photos as being an act without any victim, and therefore above criticism. There are long and laborious descriptions of the process of Henson finding his models, talking to parents, setting up studio sessions etc, all with the intention of portraying them as morally neutral actions which have no victim.

First of all, from a Christian viewpoint, this ignores the idea that people are more than their bodies, and obsession with physical bodies distracts us from considering each other as made in the image of God, with an immortal soul, no matter how beautiful or repulsive our physical appearance may be. I assume Bill and David will disagree with this idea.

That said, the article reveals its assumptions and obsessions eg:

"Henson doesn't claim to understand exactly why his models work for him or exactly what they get from the experience, but he believes the kids are stronger for it: "They gain some strength because it's a big decision to make, and really no one else can make it for them."

Well Bill, they are children, and they are being influence by the adults around them, including yourself, even if you don't realise it.

"Though Henson often promised me access to the world of his former models, it never occurred. He put this down to shyness and fear of the press"

Bill, it might be a good idea to think longer about this shyness and what prompts it. Maybe they have regrets.

As for the internet,  "He won't have a bar of those he calls scaremongers for being as terrified of the internet as primitive man was of the wheel. He's happy for his work to be seen on the net."

Bill, it's good you are happy. What about the children? What about the potential child molesters who cruise the net?

"What matters is art's impact. 'It's a force for good. That's my answer to the internet thing'."

In other words, Bill says art always trumps the concern of parents and society to protect children. Sorry, Bill, that's not good enough, art has its own responsibilities.

Finally, of course, there is the issue of the Melbourne school principal who allowed Henson to wander around the playground looking for subjects. What is the motive behind Marr and Henson revealing this behaviour? Of course it is all over the media today and will be brought up in federal parliament.

If Marr and Henson are really surprised by this reaction, they are truly not the brightest flashbulbs in the bag.

Henson outrage

I see that David Marr has written about the recent investigation of Bill Henson's photos of a young girl. A preview article was published today in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Marr says that "Henson was having trouble finding the models he needed for the Sydney exhibition due to open in May." I suppose that would be because the models don't last long, being unusable once they get older than 14 or thereabouts.

Then, according to Marr, "Friends introduced him to the principal of a Melbourne primary school." Henson says "I went in there, had a look around at lunchtime, just wandered around while everyone was having their lunch. I saw this boy, and I saw a girl too, actually, and I thought they would be great and the principal said, 'Fine, I will give the parents a ring and let you know.'

I find the idea of Henson wandering around a school playground looking for children "who would be great" a little creepy. Nevertheless, I would be interested to know what made these two children "great" and the other children less than great.

But Marr says there is no problem because "the child's mother explains for the first time how her daughter - whom we'll call N - came to know Henson many years ago and agreed to model for him earlier this year." I see, Marr thinks the child could give consent, but she can't be named. Why is this anonymity necessary?

Well, anyway, we can all read Marr's article in the Good Weekend tomorrow, and the SMH tells us helpfully that "Henson's photographs of N appear in Good Weekend with the model's permission." Oh good, I suppose the SMH hopes that will attract lots of readers to the Good Weekend.

Personally, I would like to see the girl ask Bill Henson to take his clothes off so she can photograph him. I think that would be art, but I think it is unlikely to happen. I wonder why?

Clive Hamilton has discussed this case in an article in crikey.com.au

Hamilton does not think the photographs are pornographic, but discussion of them is justified, especially as they were published in the internet.

"If artists have a responsibility to push at the boundaries of the acceptable, society has a responsibility to push back. After a decade or more in which children have been increasingly exploited, society is beginning to push back and Bill Henson has been a victim: innocent perhaps, but he should have known better."

I will be interested to read Marr's full article. I will be disappointed if Marr plays the victim card and claims people like Henson should be immune from discussion and that any criticism of him proves the base motives of the people offering the criticism.