Monday, March 09, 2009
I was reading a Washington Post story on Obama's change in direction regarding government funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Got to this paragraph, which I had to read twice because of the misplaced modifier:
"Because of their ability to become any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe human embryonic stem cells could lead to new therapies for many diseases, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and paralysis. But the research is highly controversial because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be immoral."
Specifically, I don't think anyone considers the embryos to be immoral.
On the second read, I attempted in my head to rewrite the end more gramatically:
"... because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which are not considered human by some."
And I realized I don't think I've ever seen the position of embryonic stem cell research advocates expressed that way. To be sure, there are better generalizations of the advocates' positions.
I'm trying to work out whether there is anything to be read into the "some people" to whom journalists often ascribe ideas they are too busy to dig up a source quote for.
In this case, "some people" means "people with no scientific training...", set in opposition to "many scientists."
Sometime "some people" seems simply to mean "this guy I met at a party last Friday night...."
I just now realized with a little less rewriting, I could use the original misplaced modifier to advantage, expressing two independent truths simultaneously:
"... because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be inhuman."
Some people consider the destroying to be inhuman, and some consider the embryos to be inhuman.
Got to this paragraph, which I had to read twice because of the misplaced modifier:
"Because of their ability to become any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe human embryonic stem cells could lead to new therapies for many diseases, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and paralysis. But the research is highly controversial because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be immoral."
Specifically, I don't think anyone considers the embryos to be immoral.
On the second read, I attempted in my head to rewrite the end more gramatically:
"... because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which are not considered human by some."
And I realized I don't think I've ever seen the position of embryonic stem cell research advocates expressed that way. To be sure, there are better generalizations of the advocates' positions.
I'm trying to work out whether there is anything to be read into the "some people" to whom journalists often ascribe ideas they are too busy to dig up a source quote for.
In this case, "some people" means "people with no scientific training...", set in opposition to "many scientists."
Sometime "some people" seems simply to mean "this guy I met at a party last Friday night...."
I just now realized with a little less rewriting, I could use the original misplaced modifier to advantage, expressing two independent truths simultaneously:
"... because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be inhuman."
Some people consider the destroying to be inhuman, and some consider the embryos to be inhuman.
