examining its implications. Genetics was growing explosively as new insights and technical manipulations enabled us to seek answers to questions that were once felt impossible to test. In my own lab, there was growing excitement and pres- sure to exploit the powerful analytic tools of genetic engineering. But I was also acutely aware that this was a scientific revolution with enormous social, economic, and ethical questions that had to be addressed, and if I and my lab were actively engaged in using the new technology, how could I escape the very real or perceived bias of vested interest? In order to be a credible participant in the debate around biotechnology, I delib- erately left an active career in research. After all, I had achieved far more recogni- tion and honour for my work than I ever dreamed, and continue to derive great vicarious delight in the staggering achieve- ments. But I recognized that to examine the technology critically, I could not be directly immersed in it. is what seems to be missing today in regards to That critical examination Opinianss regulation. When the Government of Canada is charged with both promoting biotechnology and regulating it, you know there will be a conflict of interest. And I fear that farmers and consumers will be the ultimate losers. Take the Nature Challenge and learn more at . J.J. “The Republican” McCullaugh The Horrors of Canadian ‘Greatness This is supposed to be the Halloween issue, so this week I’m writing on a truly scary topic: The CBC’s “Greatest Canadian” special. Assuming you’re part of the 90 percent of Canadians who did- nt watch the premier last week, here’s a quick summary. For the last little while, countries all over the world have been doing TV specials in which the entire nation is encouraged to call, fax, or email their choices for their nation’s “greatest” citizen. The sponsoring network in turn tallies the answers, and announces the public’s choice for the Top Ten, followed by a re-vote to determine who should be number one. Britain’s top ten included Churchill, Shakespeare, and Darwin. Germany’s honoured Adenauer, Guttenburg, and Martin Luther. South Africa’s list featured Mandela, Tutu, and deKlerk. Who made Canada’s top ten? Well, our drunken and corrupt first Prime Minister, for starters. Then we have Tommy Douglas, the ex-NDP leader whose “bril- liant” socialized healthcare system remains as fundamentally unstable, over- priced, and unworkable in 2004 as it was when he first brought it to Saskatoon back in the ’30s (interestingly, Douglas’s home province of Saskatchewan now outranks all the others in terms of hospi- tal wait times, with an average wait of 33 weeks per operation. Nice legacy, Tommy). The equally socialistic Pierre Elliot Trudeau made the list too, of course, in a testament to just how success- ful the CBC’s constant revisionism of his Qctaber 27/2004 legacy has been. Rounding out the top ten we have hockey commentator Don Cherry, whose primary contribution to Canadian society has been Rock‘Em Sock'Em videos, and a certain Japanese- Canadian enviro-whacko whose fascinating commentary you can read in this very paper. Okay, maybe I shouldn’t be so bitter. The list also includes two genuinely respectable heroes—Terry Fox and Dr. Frederick Banting. Then again, it also includes Alexander Graham Bell, a Scott whose status as a “Canadian” has gradual- ly evolved from polite nationalistic fiction to an outright historical lie. He was not a Canadian, and if we could dig him up tomorrow, he still wouldn’t have spent enough time in this country to qualify for citizenship. Lester Pearson I can take or leave. Like Trudeau, I think his legacy is subject to a lot of contemporary revision- ism, but he still probably deserves a position in history as one of our country’s MAT 23) Oe S(T two socialist politicians... aims ee eee it aa ele few half-decent Liberal politicians. So, from among this list of half-rate politicians, foreigners, and OP columnists, who am I voting for as number one? Don Cherry. True, I don’t think he’s the next Churchill, but it’s still long overdue for this country’s establishment (i.e.: the CBC) to officially recognize the greatness of someone who doesn’t represent the politically correct, liberal-friendly view on every single issue of the day. The pro-war, pro-America, anti-French, and anti- Liberal half of this country is long overdue for their turn in the spotlight. And who better to represent them than the outspoken and unapologetic Cherry? I’m tired of the way this country’s con- ventional wisdom is fast becoming “the only good Canadian is a liberal Canadian.” For Suzuki, Pearson, Trudeau, or Douglas to win, it would simply be yet another vic- tory for the left-wing establishment of this country in their tireless drive to politi- cize and monopolize Canadian patriotism. Chose from: two selfless heroes.... coy om) baa) a hockey player who lives in the US... ear a ple Bat For Cherry to win, by contrast, would show that Canada is still a nation in which diversity of opinion can actually be applauded, instead of being constantly sti- fled and repressed with accusations of being “anti-Canadian.” Though he may not have invented insulin or jogged across several provinces on a prosthetic leg, Cherry still serves as an admirable role model for what Canadians should strive to be: confident in ourselves individually, proud of our nation, and unafraid of challenging the status quo. By voting for Cherry, I at least can feel confident that I’m casting a vote against political correctness, left-wing hegemony, self-censorship, and all the other ideologi- cal binds that are slowly strangling this nation. All that being said, it’s still hard to escape the fact that I am voting for a hockey commentator as my country’s all- time greatest citizen. Now THAT?S scaty. two Scots.... JOHN A. MACDONALD ALEXANDER G. rie and... uh... Vd JJ. OTHERPRESS |