Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Dr John Boockvar, a leading stem cell expert at Weill Cornell Medical College, said: "The biggest source of funding for academic research is the government, and we need the government to support research."
[REF: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4580299.stm]
Using your argument against state funding, are you also against research into cancer? NASA? Particle physics and defense spending?
Mr Mephisto |
Well to get to the core of the matter - I don't want to pay for anything that there is a way that a free market can't pay for it instead. Defense is a good example of something that a nation pretty much has to spend tax money on as there is not a really good way to assign the cost to those who get the benefits. On the other hand, Pharmaceutical / Biotech firms are getting humongous profits from sucessful drugs and treatment methods that they invested in - as I think they should for their risk.
If it is a viable treatment method (c'mon - lets face it - there is almost no way that anyone on the tfp has firsthand knowlege of this) then the dollars for research will follow it. I confess that the idea of it makes sense to me. That being said, why don't I (or those who feel most strongly about it) take their money and invest in a series of firms that are working hard on Stem Cell research. You can feel good about forwarding something you believe in plus you get the added benefit of massive returns if the research does end up panning out. In addition, if one stem cell research firm decides to spend all their money on say fancy cars and rolexes for the management, and another pours it all into actual research - you get to CHOOSE the firm that is using their money the best.
Most of the time, government money goes to people / organizations who know how to work the government for money. Now maybe those are also the very same firms that are the best at doing actual research, but my suspicion is that staticticly they would not tend to be. Working the government for money whether it is hiring lobbiests or underhanded bribes / favors / political contributions costs money. When those firms get the money - the government (AKA you and me) have paid for that stuff instead of the research that we hoped we would get.
As to the good Doctor Bookvar, I would think that a person in his position WOULD say that sort of thing. Private firms are happy to fund research when they think there is a return. Government funds tend to go to what is popular rather than what is good at best (see above). Maybe it is the pharmaceutical firms who are whooping up all this about stem cells in the media and congress so that they don't have to pay for it themselves. If the public can get into enough of a froth (or more importantly a Percieved Froth) about an issue, the pharmas and biotechs get free windfalls.
Personally- I am for the most efficient use of capital on all fronts. Self interested money will persue its best use. I am not a biophysicst and don't profess to be. Keep me, the undereducated public and the government out of things that our noses don't belong and the best inovative treatments will come of it.
Oh yeah - I pay an effective tax rate of 70%. How about we at least cut out some real spending from something else before we go throwing money around on another crucial issue.