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.
> "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.
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.
Snail_Commando|12 years ago
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_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|12 years ago
He is a lawyer, and did not even get a science-related degree when he took his bachelor's (BA = Bachelor of Arts).