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.
> He is a lawyer, and did not even get a science-related degree when he took his bachelor's (BA = Bachelor of Arts)
You cannot infer that a BA is not a science-related degree. Here is how Bachelor's degrees work in the US.
In the US, there is no inherent difference between BA and BS in math and science. What degree a given set of coursework earns is entirely up to the school. All of the following exist in the wild:
• BS is the only choice. (Caltech, for example. In fact, Caltech only offers BS for everything. Even English majors--and yes, there is an occasional English major at Caltech--end up with a BS).
• BA is the only choice. UC Berkeley is an example in this category for math and physics.
• Both are offered, with identical coursework and requirements. You can have whichever you want. Some will even for a small fee give you two diplomas, so you can use whichever seems appropriate for the situation.
• Both are offered, from the same department, with different in-major coursework and aims. One may be aimed toward students aiming to go into research, and one toward those aiming to go into teaching, for instance.
• Both are offered, from different departments. For example, UC Berkeley's College of Letters and Sciences offers a BA in chemistry, and the College of Chemistry offers a BS in chemistry. Computer science can be taken at Berkeley in the College of Letters and Science for a BA, or in the College of Engineering for a BS.
• Both are offered, with the same in-major coursework, but differ in out-of-major requirements. So, the BA and BS would require the exact same science and math courses, but the BA has specific breadth requirements to produce a well rounded education, whereas the BS lets you take pretty much what you want as long as you satisfy the math and science requirements and any general requirements of your school.
In the particular case of Stanford, most Bachelor's degrees in science are BS, but they have a Human Biology program that issues BA, not BS [1], so unless you checked his specific degree, your inference is unfounded.
I'm honestly baffled by the reaction to this. You're absolutely right that it is extremely clear.
It says he is a director at the Center of Law and the Biomedical Sciences at the School of Law and that he is a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the School of Medicine.
It literally says that in his bio.
Yet at least three people in this thread have felt the need to inform HN that "he's not a genetics prof" and then link to the bio of him that lists him as a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the Stanford School of Medicine.
What does the education portion of your comment have to do with my comment? The comment I was responding to said he was not a Genetics professor, I responded by saying that he is a Genetics professor (according to his Stanford bio).
I wasn't saying that he was not a legal expert as well.
I am sorry, if you feel I am being snarky. But "by courtesy" plainly is used as some form of honorary title - if he had it "by merit" they would not use the term.
Given that the title of the article at least, implies that a person with deep knowledge of the science (not the ethics) of genetics is expressing an opinion, it seems fair to point out that there is no indication of deep math skills, or of chemistry, physics, biochemistry, etc. knowledge.
> " But "by courtesy" plainly is used as some form of honorary title - if he had it "by merit" they would not use the term. "
You know why the Stanford School of Medicine gave him that title? It wasn't for merit? And Stanford is using the "by courtesy" term differently than how it is normally defined?
> "Given that the title of the article at least, implies that a person with deep knowledge of the science (not the ethics) of genetics is expressing an opinion, it seems fair to point out that there is no indication of deep math skills, or of chemistry, physics, biochemistry, etc. knowledge."
Just to be clear, are you saying that you see no indication that Greely has a deep knowledge of the science behind his field of study-- based on the title and content of a ~700 word Venturebeat post?
I'm not going to comment on this thread anymore. If you want, you can look through his publications. But I doubt that would change your mind.
Professor is just a senior teaching title. It does not require a degree at all, even though it usually does. All it will tell you is that the school believes he is qualified to do the work he's doing for them.
http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely