……

At his conviction in July, Anderson's lawyer asked that the researcher be set free, so that he could continue his scientific work. The article in The Scientist's website states that prior to Anderson's sentencing, a number of scientists, including one Nobel laureate (I really can't help but wonder who this could have been), wrote letters of support, asking that Anderson be put on probation for his actions rather than serve jail time. His wife claims that colleagues had offered to take him in to their research projects to work on diabetes and multiple sclerosis.

The Scientist's news item offers the reaction of one of Anderson's peers at USC to his sentencing.Lawrence Kedes, director of the USC Institute for Genetic Medicine, was among Anderson's supporters at the sentencing. Kedes, too, said Anderson's sentencing is a loss for science. "It really is a multiple tragedy for all the parties concerned."

On the one hand, I am inclined to agree that this is a loss for science--clearly, there is huge upside to gene therapy, and a relatively substantial swath of scientists have taken up its cause in recent years. But this is also a loss for sex abusers--another one is now in jail.

Further, isn't the support of Anderson's colleagues (and the mystery Nobelist) in arguing against his incarceration a statement for the moral superiority of scientists and doctors? I acknowledge that Anderson's work was extremely groundbreaking and benevolent (heroic even). Hell, OJ was a great football player before he was found guilty in the court of public opinion and Michael Jackson was a great entertainer before his large settlement payments.

In this case, Anderson was found guilty of forcing himself on a child. Thus, is he not subject to the same punishment as any other sex offender?

Or how about this: We make him a eunuch--a sort of Alan Turing-style chemical castration, maybe?--and then he can go cure the world of all its ills...Does that sound fair?

下面是一些老美的跟帖评论，我挑了几个比较有意思的贴上来：

Comment from: gilberto rodriguez [Visitor]
loss for science? contributions to society? nobel laureate suppport? i say baloney!. if he really had a "superior mind" he would not have even thougt about doing what he did! let him rot in jail just like any other child molester!

ps. i don't care if he has the solution to the riemann hypothesis, the cure for cancer, and knows how to plug the hole in the ozone layer
February 8, 2007 @ 19:54

Comment from: Chris Christner [Visitor] · http://www.toptechwriter.us/weblog
As I understand it, the scientists and others who wanted Anderson put on probation (a very light penalty considering how horrible was his crime), did so because doing otherwise would be "a loss for science."

By that reasoning, if someone murders a scientist, we should punish the killer more harshly than we would if he had killed, for instance, a bricklayer. Because the lives of bricklayers--and 10 year-old girls apparently--are not as important as those of scientists.

Let's look at it another way: suppose Anderson had the cure for cancer but first we had to kill a young girl to get it. Until today, I'd have thought we'd never consider such an inhuman exchange. But, it seems there's at least one Nobel prize winner who is morally bankrupt enough that he might justify such a tradeoff.

Is it any wonder the public is gradually losing respect for the Nobel prize?
February 8, 2007 @ 13:40

Comment from: E.G. [Visitor]
Both sides are valid, and I think it points out our antiquated judicial system and the sanctions that are levied against crimes. If the best we can think up for 'criminals' is to lock them up, then we really haven't come that far. I think the present trial really highlights our lack of sophistication when it comes to treating the 'criminally' minded, if you can call it that. For example, I heard a story of a 17 yr old boy being sentenced for 10 years for getting oral sex from 14 yr old girl. If thats how we treat our youth, by labeling them as criminal for simply doing what they are ready to do, for doing what they see all around them, then there is something wrong with the law and the system that endorses it. I mean billions of dollars are spent each year to lure children into buying products, whatever they may be, and yet we have inadequate education systems, inadequate healthcare systems, inadequate family systems: the primary places where healthy behavior could be fostered and role-modeled.

No person should be above the law, but the laws should be rational, transparent, and open to debate by all experts who can shed light on the issues (not just lawyers), just like any other idea that supposedly holds the fabric of our society together. We need to apply all of our science, technology, and intuition to the ills we face collectively and come up with solutions that are creative, coherent, and empowering. Incarceration is simply wrong in many situations and hearkens back to previous historical periods when death and suffering were the only options. That is, we still point our fingers at individuals who 'deviate' without recognizing that we are participants in and complicit with the very system that creates them. In the past this was called the inquisition, or the witch hunts, or eugenics, etc. and in each case the people doing the labeling felt perfectly justified. What history has shown us is that making individuals suffer for what are actually our collective failings leads to a dissonance that can only be addressed by convincing yourself they 'deserve' it, a dehumanizing of the 'other'. The law and its sanctions should not be about dehumanizing but about humanizing; coming to terms with what it means to be human and to face the problems that arise in a particular era.

So long as we put people ( and animals IMHO ) in cages instead of finding ways to bring about their humanity and ultimately help them find purpose, we are no better then the people we lock up and who actually commit terrible acts. We just conveniently turn the channel, sip our coffee, and relax in the knowledge that we are 'good' because we would never steal or lie or take advantage of the situation. We would never buy products that are harmful to others or the planet, we would never place money before well-being and enlightenment, and we would certainly never grant human rights to an entity whose only concern is to consume and convert natural resources into waste, pollution, corruption, and money.

Plato had the right idea, we should strive to order our soul with the heavens, whether that soul refer to one man or woman or one city or one country or one beautiful blue planet.
February 8, 2007 @ 03:44
这位老兄真够厉害的，洋洋洒洒的写了一大通，语言逻辑紧密的让我基本看不懂~~~呵呵~~~

Comment from: Sally Jenson [Visitor]
（少有的对事实抱怀疑态度的网友，很有尊老爱幼的美德哦~~~）

I think this scientist was so far up in the science world that he really did not know how to defend himself when he was accused. He is no dumb, he probably thinks all people are good and honest and nice. Like being called a communist or witch or fag, this is a new thing for us all and just getting accused gets you labeled for life, whether ya did it or not.

His attorneys did not seem to be with it. Most girls are abused by their immediate family (dad, uncle, brother), and in court, this was not brought up, I hear. This is odd. She also got coached by an expert female ex-federal attorney for over 3 years. Odd again. For my part, I bet she thinks protecting her family, and probably her real abuser, under pressure from the mother, an employee of the scientist, and everyone involved, is easier than owning up to the truth. She is in some mid-western college now per one paper I saw, away from the media and her real abuser, so as long as she hasn't taken an interest in another scientist, we should be clear. Don't we pay our government to protect our scientists from foreign meddling? Where would we be today if this gal and mom had met Einstein or Oppenheimer? We would be speaking far more Japanese or German, that's for sure.

This man seemed far too old and comes from a generation that simply did not think like we do today. He spent all of his time writing papers and research. No, there is another story here and I hope it comes out before he dies in jail. And I do pray for anyone with a deformed child who may be cured by this man's work.
February 8, 2007 @ 22:47

Comment from: Sam Spielberg [Visitor]
Sally, you are even more disgusting than the convicted child molester.
February 9, 2007 @ 01:45

Comment from: Sally Jenson [Visitor]
Sam, my grandmother said she was treated similarly by people like you in Berlin back in the 30's. She still stood up for people that were maligned by the law and by the public that carted them off.

If you don't like my observations of things I have seen in the papers and on the net that don't add up, meaning you don't want a discussion, then admit you just like seeing a good old fashion lynching. Many people are like that, preferring to discuss why the body burned oh so much more rapidly than the rope did.

Do you find that less disgusting in this forum?

Comment from: PeterS [Visitor]
The fact that the man has a great scientific mind would never justify any acts of pedophilia he may have committed. （句型不错，适合考研作文）
February 9, 2007 @ 07:33