6 ms·

Hank Greely is not a "genetics prof", he is a bioethicist in Stanford's Law School. He doesn't develop new genetic technologies. This is like calling a film cri

by temphn 13y ago

Hank Greely is not a "genetics prof", he is a bioethicist in Stanford's Law School. He doesn't develop new genetic technologies. This is like calling a film critic a director. http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely

Snail_Commando 13y ago
> "Hank Greely is not a "genetics prof", he is a bioethicist in Stanford's Law School. He doesn't develop new genetic technologies. This is like calling a film critic a director. http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely " I'm not sure your assessment is entirely correct. Here's an excerpt from the same page you linked to: "Greely is also a professor (by courtesy) of genetics at Stanford School of Medicine." I don't know how professorships by courtesy work at Stanford. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_States#Professor_by_courtesy_.2F_affiliated_professor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_State... Assuming that the content currently in that section of Wikipedia is correct and is congruent with how things work at Stanford, he is a "genetics prof". Or we can just take his Stanford bio at face value. Also, we should consider what the man has to say. Whether or not he "develop[s] new genetic technologies" is irrelevant if his opinions are valid and his facts are correct. If you take issue with the opinions he has or the facts he states, then address those head on. The man's thoughts are being called upon because he is a domain expert in bioethics (and, as we've just found out, genetics). I think it would be a good bet that this man has a wealth of relevant domain knowledge with respect to state of the art genetics research, gene sequencing technologies, and genomics startups. Qualification sniping tends to be a poor way of discounting what someone has to say.
- patrickg_zill 13y ago
  It seems extremely, extremely clear from the page you linked ... look at the sidebar: Education: BA 1974 from Stanford, Law Degree. He is a lawyer, and did not even get a science-related degree when he took his bachelor's (BA = Bachelor of Arts).
  - AmVess 13y ago
    One does not need to possess a degree in order to be extraordinarily well educated in a particular field. Conversely, possessing a degree in a particular field doesn't automatically make someone extraordinarily well educated in that particular endeavor.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Professor is just a senior teaching title. It does not require a degree at all, even though it usually does. All it will tell you is that the school believes he is qualified to do the work he's doing for them.
  - Snail_Commando 13y ago
    I'm honestly baffled by the reaction to this. You're absolutely right that it is extremely clear. It says he is a director at the Center of Law and the Biomedical Sciences at the School of Law and that he is a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the School of Medicine. It literally says that in his bio. Yet at least three people in this thread have felt the need to inform HN that "he's not a genetics prof" and then link to the bio of him that lists him as a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the Stanford School of Medicine. What does the education portion of your comment have to do with my comment? The comment I was responding to said he was not a Genetics professor, I responded by saying that he is a Genetics professor (according to his Stanford bio). I wasn't saying that he was not a legal expert as well.
    - patrickg_zill 13y ago
      I am sorry, if you feel I am being snarky. But "by courtesy" plainly is used as some form of honorary title - if he had it "by merit" they would not use the term. Given that the title of the article at least, implies that a person with deep knowledge of the science (not the ethics) of genetics is expressing an opinion, it seems fair to point out that there is no indication of deep math skills, or of chemistry, physics, biochemistry, etc. knowledge.
      - Snail_Commando 13y ago

by temphn 13y ago

Snail_Commando 13y ago

> "Hank Greely is not a "genetics prof", he is a bioethicist in Stanford's Law School. He doesn't develop new genetic technologies. This is like calling a film critic a director. http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely " I'm not sure your assessment is entirely correct. Here's an excerpt from the same page you linked to: "Greely is also a professor (by courtesy) of genetics at Stanford School of Medicine." I don't know how professorships by courtesy work at Stanford. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_States#Professor_by_courtesy_.2F_affiliated_professor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_State... Assuming that the content currently in that section of Wikipedia is correct and is congruent with how things work at Stanford, he is a "genetics prof". Or we can just take his Stanford bio at face value. Also, we should consider what the man has to say. Whether or not he "develop[s] new genetic technologies" is irrelevant if his opinions are valid and his facts are correct. If you take issue with the opinions he has or the facts he states, then address those head on. The man's thoughts are being called upon because he is a domain expert in bioethics (and, as we've just found out, genetics). I think it would be a good bet that this man has a wealth of relevant domain knowledge with respect to state of the art genetics research, gene sequencing technologies, and genomics startups. Qualification sniping tends to be a poor way of discounting what someone has to say.

patrickg_zill 13y ago
It seems extremely, extremely clear from the page you linked ... look at the sidebar: Education: BA 1974 from Stanford, Law Degree. He is a lawyer, and did not even get a science-related degree when he took his bachelor's (BA = Bachelor of Arts).
- AmVess 13y ago
  One does not need to possess a degree in order to be extraordinarily well educated in a particular field. Conversely, possessing a degree in a particular field doesn't automatically make someone extraordinarily well educated in that particular endeavor.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Professor is just a senior teaching title. It does not require a degree at all, even though it usually does. All it will tell you is that the school believes he is qualified to do the work he's doing for them.
- Snail_Commando 13y ago
  I'm honestly baffled by the reaction to this. You're absolutely right that it is extremely clear. It says he is a director at the Center of Law and the Biomedical Sciences at the School of Law and that he is a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the School of Medicine. It literally says that in his bio. Yet at least three people in this thread have felt the need to inform HN that "he's not a genetics prof" and then link to the bio of him that lists him as a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the Stanford School of Medicine. What does the education portion of your comment have to do with my comment? The comment I was responding to said he was not a Genetics professor, I responded by saying that he is a Genetics professor (according to his Stanford bio). I wasn't saying that he was not a legal expert as well.
  - patrickg_zill 13y ago
    I am sorry, if you feel I am being snarky. But "by courtesy" plainly is used as some form of honorary title - if he had it "by merit" they would not use the term. Given that the title of the article at least, implies that a person with deep knowledge of the science (not the ethics) of genetics is expressing an opinion, it seems fair to point out that there is no indication of deep math skills, or of chemistry, physics, biochemistry, etc. knowledge.
    - Snail_Commando 13y ago