> In article <199310050340.AA24767 at kepler.unh.edu>, dmn at kepler.unh.edu> (There's a seeker born every minute.) wrote:
>> > Presumably there are at least a few of you out there who'd like to post about
> > taboo or unpopular topics in neuroscience but are afraid to do so in fear of
> > being ridiculed by your peers or having your funding cut off. Excuse my
> > ignorance if this isn't the case.
>> I find it a trifle hard to believe that merely raising a weird topic would
> bring someone at risk of losing funding. In fact, I find it very hard to
> believe that somone with a good publishing record and coherent arguments
> would feel limited in what they could speculate on, in a public and
> non-official forum.
Have you ever heard of the MK-ULTRA project? (not that it involved
funding cutting) I suspect those scientists involved w/that project
(if it in fact existed) didn't feel free to openly discuss it.
Clearly I'm going beyond whatever was in my original post, but what
Would you hold (not that as a grad student you'd have access to any
of this stuff it it indeed exists) that there is no 'sensitive' work
going on in neuroscience anywhere? In other words, anything Uncle Sammy
funds... neuroscientists can speak freely about with impunity?
>> As a grad student, and a rather odd one at that, I'm often ridiculed by my
> peers and have very little funding to lose. If the taboos you refer to
> breaking are ones about superstition or spirituality, most neuroscience
> professionals either aren't interested in such stuff, at least on a
> professional level.
> If you're referring to ideas of people wanting to do
> experiments with humans that are currently unethical, well, that may be
> another matter. But, merely expressing an interest shouldn't put someone's
> funding at risk.
Points well taken. I concede the funding issue for the moment.
Let's focus on so-called unethical experiments with human
beings. I hate to wear the conspiracy/fringe hat here, but it seems that
there's a tendency among people to either flat-out deny that anything fishy goes
on in (gov't sponsored) neuroscience (i.e. mind control experiments) or to
wholeheartedly endorse any and every crank anecdote/theory about fringe
experimentation. But history seems to suggest that the truth lies
somewhere in-between. For example:
Is it the case that our gov't has never sponsored fringe research
like finding a truth-serum? (allegedly what happened during the 60's w/
the MK-ULTRA project) Or research on behavior control at a distance?
I'm willing to side with the latter folks (the denial group), but
hasn't it been documented that MK-ULTRA actually took place? (documented via
F.O.I.A. documents) And if it that's the case, then surely research
of that general sort didn't stop in the 60's. If not, let's hear the
What I'm saying is that I suspect there's a lot going on in
neuroscience that simply won't be discussed by neuroscientists
publically. Perhaps with good reason. I'm also saying that I'd
like to see some real neuroscientists discuss this more speculative,
para-neuroscience stuff (para in the sense of beside... not in the
sense that suggests anything outside of the materialist's world
If anyone can suggest a good book refuting neuroscience/mind-control
fringe theories, I'd appreciate it. If my concerns are groundless, fine.
If not, I don't want to wait another 30 years to find out what the
state of the art in behavior manipulation is.
>> The funding situation for scientists in the country can be somewhat, er,
> amusing at times, but I don't think posts here could possibly jeapordize
>> Thanks for the advice on anonymous posting, however. I think that the
> information for doing stuff should be available to the public, and that you
> should be commended for bringing it to us.
You're quite welcome.
>> -Russell Mast.