The psychological profiles of pioneering American physicists are remarkably similar. Frequently the eldest son of an emotionally remote, professional man, he–almost all were men–was a voracious reader during childhood, tended to feel lonely, and was shy and aloof from classmates.

Until it is, I refuse to feel guilty for downloading and sharing music. Every time I listen to a song, or share it with a friend, I’m doing the labels a favor. One that eventually I should be paid for. Until that day comes, don’t even think about trying to tell me that I’m doing something ethically wrong when it’s considered quite legal, with the labels’ blessing, in China.

Scientists have found a way to make an almost limitless supply of stem cells that could safely be used in patients while avoiding the ethical dilemma of destroying embryos.

In a breakthrough that could have huge implications, British and Canadian scientists have found a way of reprogramming skin cells taken from adults, effectively winding the clock back on the cells until they were in an embryonic form.

The work has been hailed as a major step forward by scientists and welcomed by pro-life organisations, who called on researchers to halt other experiments which use stem cells collected from embryos made at IVF clinics.

But while it may not be problematic to have differing opinions on values, it is problematic to argue about opinions due to values. In arguments, people commonly offer reasons, such as evidence, analysis, and compelling examples, to support their opinions. Furthermore, people think these reasons should have a good chance to be persuasive, to induce reasonable listeners to change their mind in the suggested direction. We are often surprised and indignant to see others unpersuaded by what we consider strong arguments. But if it were just a matter of each person having different values, why should arguments change our minds? Try to show people the bad consequences of the policies they endorse: then your dispute is on facts of those consequences. In sum, it can make sense to have differing opinions due on differing values, but not to have arguments on differing values similar to our arguments on ordinary facts. Such arguments indicate disagreement about facts, not just values.

It is a great socioreligious irony — for lack of a better term — that when we consider the fundamental values and moral imperatives contained within the world's great religions, such as caring for the sick, the infirm, the elderly, the poor, the orphaned, the vulnerable; practicing mercy, charity, and goodwill toward one's fellow human beings; and fostering generosity, humility, honesty, and communal concern over individual egotism — those traditionally religious values are most successfully established, institutionalized, and put into practice at the societal level in the most irreligious nations in the world today.

Environmental scientist David Keith talks about a cheap, effective, shocking solution to climate change. Keith discusses why it's a good idea, why it's a terrible one -- and who, despite the cost, might be tempted to use it.