The unscientific Science Czar

“To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building.  The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

So we are not human beings because we are living organisms with human DNA.  Websters defines human as "a bipedal primate mammal, homo sapiens" and a being as "a living thing."  (Human being, get it?)  No, that is much too concrete a definition.  Instead Holdren thinks that we must have proper social interaction and nourishment before we develop into human beings.  Does he mean Baby Einstein DVDs and Cheerios?  Or does he mean the family bed and breast feeding? And when exactly do we get enough family, friends and food to become a human being?  He does not say, but that is okay because he says that "most biologists" agree.  That is good and scientific enough right? 

Either way I can tell he is super scientific and the perfect choice for Science Czar. 

Just in case you were thinking that Holdren must be some social scientist instead of a hard scientist to write such soft, mushy, babble about "human beingness" here is his background:

He earned his bachelor’s degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his doctorate at Stanford.  He worked as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before becoming a senior research fellow at California Institute of Technology. He then became a professor at the University of California at Berkeley before joining the faculty at Harvard in 1996, where he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and director of the Program in Science, Technology and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.