LinCA I imagine you have read
research on both sides of the debate on gays raising children and gays actually exhibiting the same «committed relationships» as hetero $ exuals.
I believe there needs to be more
research on both sides of the debate, to safely advocate both options as viable sleeping methods, and so that this parent and doctor based battle can stop.
Not exact matches
On Medium recently Dan Zambonini, the CTO
of research management tool startup Bipsync, took the less popular
side of this
debate.
Third, acknowledging that some
of the blame for the biased and one -
sided media reporting
on head injuries rests with some members
of the scientific community who issue one -
sided press releases and feed cherry - picked results about their findings to selected members
of the media, the authors look to a day when the «harsh division and polarization» in the
research community (an almost inevitable byproduct, unfortunately,
of the intense competition for grant money in Concussion, Inc.), gives way to greater collaboration among researchers and a more «cordial discourse» between scientists via letters and responses to journal editors and back - and - forth
debates at large academic conferences.
As a companion piece to Keith Cronin's excellent article
on the use
of PRP in which the both
sides of the
debate about PRP are presented, and based
on a point - counterpoint
debate conducted via email between the two experts whose views are expressed in Keith's piece, Dr. Nathan Mall, associate physician for the St. Louis Cardinals and Director for the St. Louis Center for Cartilage Restoration and RepairRegeneration Orthopedics, and Andrew M. Blecher MD, a Primary Care Sports Medicine physician and Medical Director
of the Center for Rehabilitation Medicine at the Southern California Orthopedic Institute in Van Nuys, California, here are what Drs. Mall and Blecher have to say about the current state
of the
research on PRP.
«There aren't any
of the political heavy weights that you find in this battle
on the pro
side, at least that I know
of so far,» said Blair Horner
of the New York Public Interest
Research Group, which is remaining neutral in the con - con
debate
Pielke has been something
of a lightning rod in climate
debates, sometimes drawing attacks from all
sides as a result
of his views
on research and policy.
On the other side of the debate, South Dakota strictly forbids all research on embryos regardless of the sourc
On the other
side of the
debate, South Dakota strictly forbids all
research on embryos regardless of the sourc
on embryos regardless
of the source.
In fact, exactly how the gut microbiome «interacts with foods to produce health conditions» is considered a new and dynamic area for further
research by individuals
on all
sides of the red meat - colon cancer
debate.10 For example, researchers at Harvard Medical School are studying fecal samples to assess the impact
of red meat intake
on gut microbes and their byproducts, which the researchers speculate may influence «biological pathways associated with colorectal cancer and other digestive diseases.»
It does mean that we need public
debate that recognizes the mixed nature
of the
research findings rather than a rush to judgment based
on one -
sided and misleading appeals to the preponderance
of the evidence.
And for those who do not sit firmly
on either
side of the charter
debate — such as those curious about the possibilities for pragmatic solutions that might make public education more responsive while maximizing social well - being — waiting for more and better
research also makes sense.
«What we know about teaching and learning has evolved to provide a
research - based alternative that can satisfy people
on both
sides of the
debate: purposeful instruction that supports deep learning in a playful, engaging and fun way.»
Prior
research has come out
on both
sides of that
debate.
Beginning in June, this group
of teachers dissected the initiative, read eight leading
research papers
on charter schools and 20 editorial pieces representing various
sides of the
debate.
«
On Monday, the judge said he had received two «friend of the court» briefs and told the two groups of contrarians to each file a statement by the close of business on Tuesday declaring who paid for their research, whether they received support from anyone «on either side of the climate debate,» and whether any of them were «affiliated in any way (directly or indirectly)» with parties to the litigatio
On Monday, the judge said he had received two «friend
of the court» briefs and told the two groups
of contrarians to each file a statement by the close
of business
on Tuesday declaring who paid for their research, whether they received support from anyone «on either side of the climate debate,» and whether any of them were «affiliated in any way (directly or indirectly)» with parties to the litigatio
on Tuesday declaring who paid for their
research, whether they received support from anyone «
on either side of the climate debate,» and whether any of them were «affiliated in any way (directly or indirectly)» with parties to the litigatio
on either
side of the climate
debate,» and whether any
of them were «affiliated in any way (directly or indirectly)» with parties to the litigation.
You address your question to ``... those
on the co2 AGW
side of the
debate», and this confuses me because the IOP is clearly not addressing the science behind climate change in their submission, but rather the behavior
of scientists and
research institutions.
His pieces
on product management are
researched, reflective looks at all
sides of product management, and he is never one to shy away from
debates over best practices.