Mephisto2

"I support the idea of police protecting me from crime. I just don't want to pay for it."

"I support the concept of a military. I just don't want to pay for it."

"I support the FDA testing and approving safe drugs. I just don't want to pay for it."

"I support... well, just about ANYTHING... I just don't want to pay for it."


/sarcasm


SIGH


Mr Mephisto

smooth

Mr. Mephisto, I heard places like Ireland have been doing a lot of advanced scientific research. Is one of their well developed areas of knowledge stem cell research? I think the swedish government has been sponsoring stem cell research, too. I have no idea about australia.

I'm very satisfied with California's stance in regard to this issue--we've already voted in a measure to fund it.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

ObieX

I'd also be interested in hearing about what other countries are doing with stem cells. We seem to have a pretty international bunch around here, lets get some info. (please)

__________________
We Must Dissent.

jorgelito

With regards to public funding - I would prefer to have the money go to more urgent needs such as border control, education, law enforcement - NOT stem cell research. Let the privates fund it. I also live in California and I voted against it. Especially since ahnold cut my school funding, my health insurance nearly tripled so now I can't afford it, I have less classes to choose from, the police don't come when I dial 9-11, the streets and roads go un-maintained.....on and on and on...

Yeah, there are plenty of things we should be spending on. Definitely not something that's not proven or even guaranteed to work. We can always "borrow" from the Koreans. At least their citizens have adequate education and health care.

raveneye

Well damage is the self-checking mechanism. If an organism is damaged, then there's nothing to worry about because it won't pass its genes on as efficiently as undamaged organisms. And if it's not damaged, then there's also nothing to worry about because no harm has been done. Neither selective breeding nor genetic engineering can bypass natural selection, which is the self-checking mechanism referred to here.

So again: I don't see the problem. I'm not aware of any evidence that genetic engineering "damages" organisms any more than traditional genetic modification that people have been using for millenia. In fact the same argument could be made: if the fear is that "new gene combinations must be monitored because they can damage the organism" then that would imply that a simple cross between two individuals can cause far more damage than a single gene transfer, by a factor of millions. That's because a cross mixes 10s of thousands of genes, while a single gene transfer is just one out of 10s of thousands.

The fear may be slightly different here (damage to the organism rather than damage to people) but it to my knowledge it's equally without any basis in biological fact.

Examples? Why would genetic engineering be any riskier than traditional selective breeding? People were worried 30 years ago by new strains of E. coli that were produced by traditional means: just plate them out over and over again on antibiotics and eventually an antibiotic resistant strain will appear naturally and take over the colony. Nowadays these technologies seem quaint, but at the time people were just as afraid of them as they are now of the new technologies.

frought

Selective breeding is obviously reproduction in the normal manner (on a molecular scale, at least), between to organisms selected on the basis of physical traits and/or behaviour. There's finer scale messing about with "life's little instruction set" (ie the genes within genome).

This is in contrast with genetic engineering, where the genome is directly modified by humans. There are not the biological checks and balances present in the creation of a genome modified in a lab, as there are in nature. Genes often operate not singly, but in a network of other genes. What is more, these networks aren't really understood - there is a great deal of work being done on gene networks in simple organisms, but large scale gene networks in complex organisms like people are not properly understood. The consequences of manipulating these gene networks is difficult to predict without much greater research.

The possibilities are pretty grim - try googling 'thalidomide', and then imagine something much worse. This is a completely different ballgame to selecting Peter and Peta to shag, just because they happen to be bloody good-lookin'.

That said, of course, I'm all for research into genetic engineering, and stem cells (which make the process much simpler). Properly done, it has the ability to create tremendous rewards. At least, it has the ability to reap tremendous rewards for rich people... I think the majority of the worlds people are still dealing with quite basic healthcare issues (which I actually think would be a better way to spend our resources).


I take it you're also more generally refering to antibiotic resistant bacteria, and 'People' are still very worried.

__________________
perl -e 'use Inline C=>q{void frought(){printf("I must be boondoggling again\n");}};frought'

Mondak

Well then, the question becomes "Is there a point at which we are spending too much and need to make choices on what to fund?"

The numbers are thrown around in such a manner that we become numb to it. California (a state that continues to teter on bankruptcy) decided to spend $3 Billion on stem cell research. I live here and feel that there is almost no accountability for that money. As with other such political money, it will probobally go to the virtual brother in law of the chairman of the fund. And what if it was $1 Billion or $10 Billion? What is the prudent amount? People don't want to make choices. Instead, they would like mother government to pay for it.

Police and Military are true public goods that are tough to have a free market solution for although I always tend to favor a local community funding their own police so they can have a say in accountability of their local force. It tends to be a model for spending for me. Now the FDA, I don't see a lot of reason that we can't find a free market solution to its funding. Pharmaceutical companies are making plenty of money and get the benefit of the FDAs work. Maybe a sliding scale where 1st year drugs are "taxed" a little more heavily than in subsequent years but their sales continue to carry a portion of money that goes to an independant FDA. This is one model that I am suggesting as an example - not an ideal. The reason I suggest it though is to show a situation where the heavy user of the service is is proportionally funding its use. Then the money doesn't first wash through the buracracy machine, get pissed away and then funded.

My favorite quote on the subject has a small amount of debate on who said it. Either way it fits the situation really well.

To dismiss those words are to see them come true. Think about them for a moment even if you don't agree that we are too that stage. I think we have crossed the line with spending. I think the only thing I hope for in this conversation is to have folks see that there IS a line, regardless of whether they think we can still spend more or not. I would be interested in your thoughts Mr. Mephisto as I have and continue to see you as open minded and fair.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

Stompy

I support it 100%.

I don't get why people fight for rights of embryos, hahaha. It should be obvious (so no, "oh, please provie it" retorts) as to the difference between a newborn baby and an EMBRYO.

If you were aborted, or your embryo was destroyed, you wouldn't know either way. Your mind hasn't developed, your body hasn't developed. You have no consciousness, you have no feelings. Your existence will still be in the black void of nothing, just as it will be once you die.

It's easy for us who are alive to develop feelings for these clumps of cells, but many of us fail to take them for what they really are: nothing that important.

__________________
I love lamp.

raveneye

Direct modification overcomes some barriers, yes, but I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that overcoming these barriers presents any kind of a danger to the organism or to other organisms, beyond traditional selective breeding. Traditional selective breeding also overcomes many natural barriers and it alters genomes far more than simple insertion of a gene by genetic engineering.

And traditional breeding modifies these networks far more than insertion of a single gene by engineering techniques. Traditional selective breeding can completely break these networks apart, and take a selected line all the way to the limits of functionality. This has been known since the 1920s.

So if someone is worried about interfering with these networks, it seems to me they should be far more concerned about traditional selective breeding than by insertion of single genes.

Sure they are, because of natural selection in human populations in which antibiotics are overly prescribed. It's the selection that people are worried about (or should be worried about) not the mere existence of such resistant variants. It's not genetic engineering per se that's the problem, since these variants both exist naturally and can be created by either traditional means or by genetic engineering.

raveneye

Thalidomide is a human mutagen. I'm talking about consuming genetically modified food. Consumption of genetically modified food does not expose anybody to mutagens any more than consumption of non-genetically modified food (the latter is a misnomer; pretty much all foods are genetically modified).

ngdawg

I am completely for stem-cell research, to the point of, when having to decide what to do with 'leftover' pre-embryos I had stored, I insisted they only be used for research. Of course, part of that decision was selfish-had I chosen donation, the idea of a future sibling of my own children was unsettling. By chosing(actually, telling, since research was not one of the printed options), I did what I thought would benefit others and not waste what had taken me so long to achieve.
The government gives some of the most worthless grants imaginable-take that money and put it to where it may benefit many. Do we really NEED to know and pay for researching the life span of a mealy worm?

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

analog

There are many things I support, but won't pay for, and many things I support, and WILL pay for. A person's opinion on one subject is hardly a call to use that one example as a sweeping generalization of their opinions on all subjects. I think what we're talking about it supporting someone's rights to do something. I support the legalization of marijuana, but i'm not paying for people to toke up. I support gay marriage, but i'm not paying for any marriage ceremony- whether it's homosexual OR heterosexual. I support premarital sex, but i'm not going to pay for condoms or birth control for everyone.

People's opinions on whether or not they support something with their pocket and/or their heart don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, you can't always compare them side by side.

As to the topic directly- stem cell research is good. Some of you people with your unborn-baby bleeding hearts drive me nuts. There are so many incurable diseases afflicting hundreds of thousands of people, people who have lived full lives, could have more years ahead of them with treatment, or really just could live without pain. I wonder how many pro-lifers against stem cell research have ever volunteered in a cancer ward in a hospital, or at a nursing home and seen the how parkinson's, huntington's, diabetes, dementia, etc., ravage the people they affect and ruin their livelihood. How selfish it is to look at a few "unborn babies" (if they insist on saying they're already people) and say they're more important than the hundreds of thousands of americans- and, indeed, people worldwide- SUFFERING life, rather than living it.

FoolThemAll

Justified? Nah. You just stated it.

Level of development. Yeah, fairly obvious. What isn't so obvious is how that manages to translate into "it's not a human being".

There's nothing selfish in it.

The RIGHTS of "a few unborn babies" ARE more important than this research. Obviously. The disagreement is whether there is such a thing as an "unborn baby". Whether we're dealing with a rightless clump of cells or a human being with inalienable rights.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Mephisto2

No research on stem cells that I'm aware of. Ireland has come a long way in 20 years, but in many ways it's still a conservative country.

We recently voted in favour of EU regulations supporting stem cell research, and it created quite a bit of debate in the country. Having said that, I don't believe much research would actually take place in Ireland. I suspect you will see that primarily happening in the UK and France (which has a long and noteworthy history in medical research).

Of course, we're all behind the Asian countries like Korea and Japan.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

So it seems to me, Mondak, that your opposition lies not directly with the research itself, but with the notion of government funding of anything other than the utmost minimum required to keep society functioning.

This appears to me to be an anarchist position (in the political sense) and akin to what I believe the Libertarian Party supports in the US. If that's the case, and I'm inferring correctly, then no amount of reasonable (or unreasonable!) arguing on my part will convince you that state funding of scientific research is a good idea.

Perhaps that's the fundamental question here. I absolutely support the idea of useful scientific research, funded by the government. You do not. History has shown that if it is motivated by profit alone then profit will negatively affect the outcome. Much benefit has accrued mankind by research that is NOT corporatized or capitalistic in nature.

With regards to the topic at hand, I think stem cell research is vital. Many of these embryos will be discarded anyway, so it's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would go one step further and say I even support the use of cloned embryos.

Gene therapy is also a vital area of research. My sister-in-law gave birth to my niece last week and she has cystic fibrosis. The gene that causes this disease was only discovered in 1989, by Government funded research. Her only hope for a life, free from pain and suffering and not tragically cut short, is through gene therapy. Your selfish point of view (and I mean that along pecuniary lines, with no insult intended) would mean that her chance for a long and fulfilling life is doomed because you don't want "your taxes" to be spent on helping save her life. Or, at best, would be dependent upon some mega-corporation discovering a cure and charging the tens of thousands of suffers a hefty fee so they can line their pockets and drive big expensive cars.

Which brings up another point. They are not "your taxes" at all. They are the states taxes and the funds belong to the state. You are obliged to pay taxes and, beyond the democratic right to vote for different political parties, are not entitled to dictate how those funds are spent.

"Letting the market decide" is not a viable option. It is a smoke-screen created by the ultra-rich to convince you and the rest of society that they have your best interests at heart. They do not. They want to make money off pain and suffering and I shall oppose them and their twisted notions of Reaganistic and Thatcherite socio-economics until the day I (and my niece) die.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

There are many things I support, and must pay for, and there are many things I support, and MUST pay for.

I don't subscribe to practically ANY of the policies of the current (so-called) Liberal Party in Australia. Their foreign policy, their industrial relations policy, their environmental policy, their mandatory detention of refugees etc. However, as a member of the Australian public and a reasonable resident (not yet citizen), I still pay my taxes and pay them glady. Why? Because is it my obligation. Indeed, personally I'd be happy to pay higher taxes if the current government had a more reasonable and humanistic social policy. Having said that, I know I may be in the minority there and this is probably a result of my left-wing political leaning and "liberal" upbringing.

Very good points. However, scientific research into saving lives is a bit different from social policy with regards to drug use and sexuality.

Without same-sex marriages, people are not going to die. Without joints, drug users are not going to die. Without a cure for Alzheimers, Parkinsons and cystic fibrosis, people ARE going to die.

Well said.

Mr Mephisto

ObieX

That brings up a good point. The main advantage to government funding of this that i can see is that if the government funding and/or research does lead to a new an innovative method of harnessing stem cells in a useful way then the cost of treatment would be much much lower. If a private company were to find this method it would be patented instantly and no one else would be able to take advantage of it to any real extent. Then they could charge anything they wanted and far less people will benefit. This also worried me a bit when the government was discussing the total ban on stem cell research. Other countries would continue and if they found it you know the rich that voted against the research/treatment here would be the first on line in htese other countries to take care of their problems. But because the less wealthy wouldnt have the money to uproot themselves and visit these other countries for treatment they would get the shaft.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Mondak

I don't think your last point was supported or proved at all and I won't address things like that.

As for my taxes, It is my money, that my work earned and was seized from me with close to zero accountability. Also, I am not sure that history has shown profit as a motive to have negative outcomes. It seems that this is quite obvious to you and absolutely foreign to me. If it is the case, I would like to learn more about this history and see if there are things I can learn from it.

I don't mind the idea of Stem Cell research and think that in our layman's understanding of it, it could be promising. You are right that my objection is that I don't want to pay for almost anything and that I am not singling out this specificly.

One thing I wanted to know most of all in my previous post was if for you, there is an amount of money that is too much for a government to spend. I feel we have passed it and you seem to be advocating spending more. My question is: do you have a line and if so at what point is too much for a government to spend? If not, can a government spend infinitely?

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

Mephisto2

The last point was a rail against the "profit over people" approach and, by its very nature, cannot be proven. Any more than your opinion that "market dynamics" is a better framework for the majority of scientific/industrial progress. You have your opinion. I have mine.

If you honestly believe that the government should not spend any money on anything, then I respectfully think you are deluded. I could list things that have benefited from state sponsored research like car safety (do you honestly believe manufacturers would have spent money on crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, speed limiters etc?), research into proving industrial waste (such as dioxins) were harmful, research into diet & nutrition, into cancer etc. The list is almost endless.

Yet, your position is "if someone can make a buck from it, they will; so we should all sit back and die until the market dynamics make it such that we have no option but to pay a private enterprise for a solution/treatment/cure"

I simply don't subscribe to that attitude.

Here we differ again. I believe it is your obligation, or your duty (which is a term Americans seem to better appreciate) to pay taxes. There is accountability. That accountability is your right to vote for a party that promises to reduce taxes.

Well, how about a few examples?

Pacific Gas & Electric Company's release of the carcenogen hexavalent chromium into the Hinkley area? This was made famous by the Hollywood movie. Many people died or were made very ill, as the company valued their profit over people.

The refusal of tobacco companys to accept that their product kills people, when we all know that this is the case

The examples of Enron, MCI etc where greed was so great as to cause the company to act illegally.

The attempts by many multi-national pharmaceutical companies to prevent "generic" anti-AIDS drugs from being manufactured in Africa, because it would negatively affect their bottom line.

And these are just off the top of my head. I am sure I can come up with an almost endless list of examples.

Using human greed as a motivating factor towards progress is not a solution. I'm not saying the market economy should be abolished. Far from it. But we should not rely upon it alone, for to do so is to doom ourselves to exploitation and financial rape at the hands of those who care only for "the Mighty Dollar" and care not a whit for our health, safety and well-being.


You can start be reading the book The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers (http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ma...503_bigfix.cfm); researching the Anderson vs Pacific Gas & Electric (http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials...kovich_ch1.htm), reading about Enron (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...sbn=1586482017). I can provide more examples and links if you wish.

I'm not against an open economy. But I am against using it as the only method of investing in the future. You're mistaken if you believe it is the right thing to do.

Well, that's where you and I differ. :-)

I don't mind paying taxes. From a selfish point of view, and in an ideal world, I'd like them to be lower. But I would never deign to call for government funding of medical research to be abandoned because I'm willing to let a private company undertake it all.

Does it not occur to you that, if you were so unfortunate to have to use a cure "patented" by a private company, you may actually end up paying MORE than the miniscule amount of your taxes that go towards government grants?

No, not necessarily. I'm simply not advocating spending less; or worse, spending none at all.

A government cannot spend infinitely and no one suggested as much.


Mr Mephisto

smooth

Mephisto,

The thing that pisses me off most is that if we are going to fund research with tax dollars taxpayers should:

a. receive commercial goods resulting from our funded research at a discounted rate

b. receive royalties into the tax coffers until the principle is repaid

c. recieve an excess of what we paid in some sort of reasonable amount, say 10-15%, just like a private lender would do.


Why should tax payers eat crap every time we fund these things. We take the risk by funding things that may never come to fruition, we bear the brunt when we pay for the products that are successful, and then we subsidize other places when they pay less than we do for the things we've developed.

Perhaps the excess I was proposing would go into an R&D coffer for future development. What a small and reasonable shift in funding policy and how much good and knowledge it would produce, in my opinion.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mobo123

There is only one response possible. Support the research. get rid of religious zealots.

Mephisto2

Why?

Do you believe research into, say, the carcogenic features of nicotine should mean you get cheap cigarettes? Or research into global warming should result into you getting a free day-pass to Yellowstone Park? How about statistical analysis of road deaths and work on better vehicle safety offering you cheaper petrol?

Why the American obsession with profit, fiscal return on investment (as opposed to knowledge return) and "capitalist market dynamics"?

What's wrong with, once in a while, just investing in research, just because we need to know?!


I would consider gene therapy research that resulted in a treatment for my niece, so she doesn't die in her 30's, as a shit sandwich I'd gladly eat.


So what? That sometimes happens. How about just disbanding schools, because not everyone makes it to college?!

I'm not sure I understand that point, but what I do understand is your position (and that of Mondak) has nothing to do with "we" and everything to do with "I". So what if some of "your taxes" (though I refuse to believe such a concept exists) are spent to help others? Are you really that selfish?

Again, I've lost you here. Could you rephrase?



Mr Mephisto

smooth

Mr. Mephisto,

I thought I clearly limited my statements to research that produces commercial products. If taxpayers fund research for commercial products, such as cures/medications, then we certainly are entitled to a concession on the price of the merchandise or a return of our initial investment.

This is not "I," it is about "we" since we funded the research in the first place. Your position is insulting to me since you are otherwise advocating that taxdollars be utilized to fund research and then corporations reap the profits from the commercial goods we funded the R&D on.


How you warped that into support for cheaper tickets into state parks or cheaper cigarattes after we funded research into determining their harmful effects is beyond me.


I think you need to clarify how you consider opposition to corporations profitting from taxpayer funded research, at the expense to the taxpayer, a greedy "I" statement before you ask me to clarify any more of my statements.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mondak

<i>Well, how about a few examples?</i>

I could counter with examples of governement waste, or with examples of countless corrupt governements that come to power...I won't. This is not a game where the person with the most examples wins.

Fundamentally, trying to create a government or system that is contrary to human nature to act in their own self interest just doesn't work - they just work within that system instead to the same end. When you allow people to work in their own self interest and incent them to do so to, they can address things like research, and they do.

Not sure if you were able to read some of my previous posts or not, but ultimatly when it is "government" research, the people who decide who the money goes to still act in their own self interest and not in the interest of the best research or best science. Gosh, I WISH that we had some trustworthy politicians to run things. Ideas like yours would be very nice and we could really get some things done. Unfortunitly, the fellows who hold the purse strings are a band of thieves.

The only thing I can trust is if I tell someone with money that a potential new branch of science out there can help millions of people, that person will take their money and invest it in those that use their resources most efficently so that they maximize return. They worked in their own self interest, but also made something that millions can benefit from.

As to sitting back and dying waiting for market forces to act? The market is the most responsive system on earth when unencumbered. Some things are popular because they give hope, but not because they have actual science. Popular does not equal good science. Now I certainly hope that stem cells heal all that ail us, but I am not close enough to know if they will ultimatly pay off. Money will want to be first to market and chase good (not popular) science. A popularity contest will take years to brew in the media and longer to move a government. In short, money will chase good science faster than government can with better results.

I will happily pay for a cure and hope that the company makes money from me. This way they can have the resources for new research. Their investors get a return on their investment, making it attractive for others and so they get exponentally MORE money for research because they were successful and therefore have proven that they have the ability to do inovative things to find new cures. They had to chase down thousands of substances that failed before finding a cure and next time they can be even broader. Since they have a lot of resources, they can attract the best minds rather than have them go into other fields. Neato! The best folks are now able to be compensated for being innovative, creative and saving lives. I sure like that as well. To protect all that investment and be sure that the company gets a return on all that, we grant them a patent so that they will be incented to act this way again.

If I didn't have to pay 70%+ of my income before doing so, it would be all the better. The taxes I pay are in no way miniscule. It would be gratifying if the money I spent on taxes actually got to some of these sources. In reality, about one dollar in ten actually gets spent on any of these things. Most gets spent on servicing the debt that that these fools have run up, "running" the goverment, and invading other countries to spread the world bank aka democracy.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

samcol

Great post Mondak. I've been trying to make a post similar to yours but just couldn't find the words.

This issue is best left to the free market and not another government spending burden.

Mephisto2

Perhaps you did, but if so I didn't notice.

I suspect you'll find that most government funded research is not aimed at commercial gain by private corporations. That's why private commercial operations undertake their own research.

What I have heard here so far seems to be complaints about taxes being spent on research and that the "market economy" better addresses the need for scientific progress. I disagree.

Let me state again that I am NOT opposed to privately funded research. But I AM opposed to abandoning all state-sponsored, state-funded research and relying only on private corporations.

If that was the case, they would focus only on what would return the most benefit. Terrible disases that may not have hundreds of thousands of suffers would be ignored, because the "potential market" would be so small. It beggars belief that some believe this is the best way forward in scientific medical research.

I wonder how much money was made by Rutherford when he led the Cavendish Laboratory in the 20's and 30's investigating the workings of the atom? Very little, but this work has had almost immeasurable benefit. How much money was made by Alexander Fleming due to his discovery of penicilin? I would hazzard a guess that he did not make much money, and that he undertook this research (with state funding) for the benefit of mankind.

There are many many examples. Sure, let the big companies concentrate on erectile dysfunction, but when it comes to discovering a cure for cystic fibrosis, Parkinsons or cancer, I'm still very happy that there are many non-private, state-sponsored research labs working away diligently at this problem too.

Not so. The government funded the research. How are you to know that the actual dollars from the taxes you paid were not spent on traffic lights outside a school and the scientific research was paid for by import duties on Russian steel (for example)?

Governments have many sources of income, if you will, and they apportion this the best way they see fit. It is not really accurate to point at one area of expenditure and say "my taxes [sic] paid for that".

I am not advocating that at all. I'm arguing against Mondak's assertion that the government should not fund any scientific research at all, and that it is left to the private sector entirely.

Also, I never intended to insult you. I disagree with your assertions, but I'm not insulted by them.

It was an analogy.

I asked you to clarify your statement because I simply did not understand it. I fail to see how you could take umbrage at my trying to ensure I better understand your position!

With regards to the statement above, where have I stated that government funding should result in profit for private companies at the expense of taxpayers? Indeed, the position I have is almost the opposite; to whit that I believe relying only on private sector research will result in MORE expense to the people.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

I offered some examples as you said you were unsure that that profit, as a motivating factor, has had negative outcomes. It patently has. To argue otherwise is to hide from the facts. That's not to say that profit taking and private investment, with an aim of financial return, has not had positive outcomes. It has had this result also. But to assume that profit is only a positive motivating factor is naive.

If you are referring to this thread, then yes I have had a chance to read your previous posts.

With regards to distrusting government fundamentallly, and assuming they never have the "common good" in mind, then you and I disagree. As I said earlier, this political theory is akin to anarchist thinking and itself has proven to be unworkable. Governments exist, and there's nothing much you can do about it. Though they may have slightly different ideologies around the world, they all share some basic characteristics. One of those is their right to spend money as they see fit and not to rely entirely upon the private sector, or capitalist economics, to achieve scientific progress.

It seems to me that your opposition is to the concept of a centralized, tax-payer funded government itself, and not directly related to the topic at hand; it being only one example of how "the government spends money".

And how would that result in the scientific advances that man has achieved to date? It is only in the past 50 years or so that massive corporations have entered the area of funding scientific research with a view to achieving private financial gain. Private citizens and state funded research labs have discovered much prior to that, and since that shift.

I doubt you pay 70% of your income in taxes. You may pay 70% of a proportion of it, but if the US has a scaled tax system (as I assume it does) I can only assume you pay no tax on some it and less than 70% of some it etc.

I never said they were. I said that the amount of you taxes that goes to fund scientific research is miniscule. There's a very big difference.

Mr Mephisto

smooth

Mephisto,
You are incorrect in your assumptions.

There is no two-tiered system of R&D in the united states, as you seem to assume. Research by private corporations and large universities is funded by government grants, but no public institute carries out the research and owns the intellectual patents. Private interests own the intellectual patents, even when universities conduct the research.

You've totally warped what I said about taxation. You claim that it isn't my tax money, whereas I specifically said that it is "our" money, society as a collective. I know for a fact that taxpayer money was used on tax funded research, I never said anything about my own money--you shoved that into my post. That is why I state that, as a whole, taxpayers are entitled to benefit from any advances they fund.

But I'm over this discussion. You aren't making very much sense to me. Mondak and I are arguing from two opposite perspectives, and you are disagreeing with both of us. Your argument doesn't sound consistent as a result of that fact.

Maybe rereading what we've all posted after a few days or a week will illuminate something in either of our arguments.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Fourtyrulz

I didn't think the issue was with private vs. government funding. I was under the assumption that the main issue was with the United States government limiting through the legislation the ability to even work with stem cells by choking off access to stem cell lines. No matter where the funding comes from, we need to have a country that does not make it illegal to pursue ground breaking research such as this.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

raveneye

My understanding is that the debate does to a certain extent involve funding: Bush is opposed to using federal funds to support any stem cell research that involves destroying an embryo. That seems to be his position. He seems OK with the idea of doing the research in principle, as long as federal funds are not used for the destruction of embryos. He stated in his recent speech that stem cell research on previously destroyed embryos is ethical.

The difficulty is that the 78 U.S. stem cell lines that Bush approved for research (because they were made from previously destroyed embryos) were found to be tainted, so they can't be used. So at present we're at a dead end; embryos need to be destroyed in order to create new stem cell lines, but Bush won't allow federal funds to be used for this purpose. Presumably private funds could be used, but at present there isn't any private support (as far as I know -- anybody know of private sources funding stem cell research?).

Then the House voted to ease restrictions of federal funding, which would allow new stem cell lines to be created. Bush is adamant though and has promised to veto the bill.

And into this mix a Korean lab just demonstrated that stem cells can be created by cloning: you take the DNA out of any somatic cell, take an egg cell and remove its DNA and replace it with the somatic cell DNA, induce it to divide, and it can be made to form a blastocyst. So you've created stem cells in vitro, without creating a zygote by fusion of egg and sperm.

Is this cloned blastocyst a real embryo? Well, if you implant it in a womb, it will develop into a baby. But there was no "conception" involved, its DNA was from a skin cell or bone marrow cell or some other somatic cell, not from a sperm or egg. It has no potential to develop into a human because it's sitting in a test tube. So what is it? Bush hasn't weighed in yet on whether he thinks this is a disposable "embryo" or not.

That's where we stand. Other countries are full speed ahead on this research; we're basically sitting waiting.

smooth

We aren't sitting and waiting. California is currently funding stem cell research.

Are you sure that Bush said research on previously destroyed cells was ethical? From his position, or more readily accessable, the position of his vocal base, that wouldn't be ethical although it would be permissable. That is, they aren't responsible even though they don't agree that embroyos should be destroyed for research.

There are private research centers and there are government projects other than the feds, well at least one now being California's. Even still, private interests are tied to the bids even though the regents will decide who gets what funding.

Meaning, even though California taxpayers are paying a few million for the research, we won't receive any direct benefit for our investment.

I agree with funding research. But I think that rationally speaking, publicly funded research should not enrich private interests. The only thing that is different on the federal level is that publicly funded ventures are filed with the Library of Congress. Any person can go and look up the research that has been publicly funded.

I think some people who are interested in intellectual property rights might find some really interesting dissertation material in this realm since the looming legal battles are over IP rights and this will become even more interesting, in my opinion, as we continue to see publicly funded research being melded with private enterprise. (public funds research, private holds patents)

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mondak

Just as a matter of course, that never happened. All the furor was over the government not spending the money - not over limitiations on it being done at all.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

raveneye

Here's a transcript of Bush's speech on stem cell research, in the East Room on Tuesday. His view that already-destroyed embryos are fair game ethically for stem-cell research is highlighted in yellow.

And here are his original remarks from Crawford on August 9, 2001. Again his position is highlighted in yellow:

I agree, it's an exaggeration to say we're sitting and waiting. But the U.S. is hampered by lack of federal funding on account of Bush's policy, which is opposed by the majority of the American public, and other nations are ahead of the U.S. in this research.

samcol

Here's a response that Ron Paul wrote regarding this issue. The title says it all. Btw, he's the only one who voted aginast the bill.

Missing the Point: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research

xepherys

Yay stem cells... no really!

martinguerre

there are certainly ethical issues involved, but it is a deriliction of our duty to help one another to close off this avenue of research. a passage i think is germaine to this debate:

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Mephisto2

When he decides to give up his seat, with its very healthy salary, and retires to live in a shack in the wood, with no electricity, no health care for he and his family, no police to protect him, no roads (bar toll-roads) to transport him on his cart (no automotive industry or petro-chemicals) and carries his own shit out and buries it (no sewars), I might just listen to him.

Or I might just think "There goes another, hypocritical, crazy."

Hmmm... I wonder which one?



Mr Mephisto

samcol

Let's look at that statement because that response was pretty off target I believe. He's saying the worst thing about centralized government is personal liberty. This means that this is NOT a federal issue. Constitutionally the Federal Government has no business making this decision, and anyone who is against this had their personal liberty sacrificed because of it.

If this issue was left to the states, you can have for instance a CA, NY, or other STATE fund this, while maybe a red state like IN or TX might not be in favor of it. This allows a greater number of people be represented which is the way it was intended by the Constitution.

Again you're Missing the Point just like the good doctor said. His policy is to only vote for things that are authorized by the Constitution, what's so crazy or hypocritical about that?

jwoody

I'm most proud to inform you that my city houses one of the worlds leading genetic research centres.

http://www.centreforlife.co.uk/index.php

Mondak

That really doesn't seem rational at all. Why exactly does not wanting to fund Stem Cell research have to be tied to living in a shack, having electricity, health care (consumers pay for the last two), police, roads, sewage, oil or an auto industry?

Would you REALLY listen to him after he did these unrelated things?

There are a few things in this world that are true public goods - things that the cost cannot easily be distributed to those who consume the good. Saying that our government has pushed the definition of public goods too far and this was something that he did not want to pay for (particularly when our government is in massive debt) simply reflects choices and not hypocrisy.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)