4 ms·

> "not a genetics prof - a law prof. http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely " From the page you linke

> "not a genetics prof - a law prof. http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely " From the page you linked: "Greely is also a professor (by courtesy) of genetics at Stanford School of Medicine." It seems that he is a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics, he is on the Steering Committee for Biomedical Ethics, and is a director at the Center of Law and the Biosciences. Here is my other comment on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994518 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994518

sampo 13y ago
Normally you would assume that if someone is a genetics prof., they would have some formal training in genetics. Which in this case is not true. He was trained in a law school, but is now cooperating with genetics and medicine people.
- Snail_Commando 13y ago
  The only thing I disagree with in your comment is the "Which in this case is not true." portion. We cannot make that inference based on the information in the article and the bio that has been linked exhaustively in this comment section. Please see the comment from 'tzs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994924 If someone has more information, I suppose they could step forward; but I really think we should hew in the direction of addressing arguments instead of dissecting qualifications. That's not to say you should never question qualifications, it's just that it's so much better to address arguments. And it was really weird that people short circuited to dissection mode, as though we should simply ignore the man and move on. (I'm not trying to imply this about your comment.) The rest of this comment isn't really directed at you, I just want to append the rest of my thoughts here. I was really surprised to see some of HN get so hung up on the formal training of an interviewee in an otherwise relatively benign article. It seems like the kind of thing that HN would usually embrace. After all, are we really going to ignore the 115+ publications that Mr. Greely has either been an author or co-author of? Many of which are in leading journals of fields relative to this discussion. Are we going to discount the decades he has spent studying and interpreting this domain? Does the fact that, for whatever reason, Stanford has acknowledged his expertise in multiple areas relevant to this discussion not count for anything? How exactly do we weight this demonstrated experience vs. formal qualification? What is frustrating to me about a couple comments here is that they got hung up on the wording of the venturebeat post and then short circuited to qualification sniping mode. I think it would be more productive to address the interviewee's related opinions and stated facts.

sampo 13y ago

Normally you would assume that if someone is a genetics prof., they would have some formal training in genetics. Which in this case is not true. He was trained in a law school, but is now cooperating with genetics and medicine people.

Snail_Commando 13y ago
The only thing I disagree with in your comment is the "Which in this case is not true." portion. We cannot make that inference based on the information in the article and the bio that has been linked exhaustively in this comment section. Please see the comment from 'tzs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994924 If someone has more information, I suppose they could step forward; but I really think we should hew in the direction of addressing arguments instead of dissecting qualifications. That's not to say you should never question qualifications, it's just that it's so much better to address arguments. And it was really weird that people short circuited to dissection mode, as though we should simply ignore the man and move on. (I'm not trying to imply this about your comment.) The rest of this comment isn't really directed at you, I just want to append the rest of my thoughts here. I was really surprised to see some of HN get so hung up on the formal training of an interviewee in an otherwise relatively benign article. It seems like the kind of thing that HN would usually embrace. After all, are we really going to ignore the 115+ publications that Mr. Greely has either been an author or co-author of? Many of which are in leading journals of fields relative to this discussion. Are we going to discount the decades he has spent studying and interpreting this domain? Does the fact that, for whatever reason, Stanford has acknowledged his expertise in multiple areas relevant to this discussion not count for anything? How exactly do we weight this demonstrated experience vs. formal qualification? What is frustrating to me about a couple comments here is that they got hung up on the wording of the venturebeat post and then short circuited to qualification sniping mode. I think it would be more productive to address the interviewee's related opinions and stated facts.