New at Reason

previous link

next link

Print|Email

New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | October 21, 2004

If stem cell research is so valuable, why do we need the government to pay for it?

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Attention, Beantown Radioheads | Main | Upcoming Choice Events (Bonus: Free Buy-This-Book… →

See all 63 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

|10.21.04 @ 8:57PM|#

Just FYI: Irving Weissman is also a Professor at Stanford University

|10.21.04 @ 9:02PM|#

Love the closing comment.

Never discussed is the medical mary jane angle.

IOW, if the feds decree stem cell research is not cool exactly how does Californicate propose to fund the research without running afoul of the feds?

|10.21.04 @ 9:14PM|#

TWC, I DNRTFA, however the Fed's don't BAN Embryonic Stem Cell Research...they simply don't fund it. YOU got a lab and George Soro's gives you a wad of 20's you're good to go, the Fed's aren't going to do spit to stop you.

Now I think that the CA funding is silly, too. It's going to be wind uup being spent in a struggle between Willie Brown and other politicians, "OH UCSF Med Centre" "NO UCLA Med Centre"... Will the funding be spent well, that's up for grabs. And I have yet to hear any private corporations lamenting the lack of funds for stem research, either.

|10.21.04 @ 9:37PM|#

Federal funding limits on stem cell research are quite prohibitive. Not only do you need private funds to do work with non-approved stem cell lines, but you can't use federal funds to pay for the lab space etc. You need to have George Soro buy your lab space and equipment in addition to paying for the materials.

The money will be distributed on the basis of peer reviewed proposals -- like NIH funds.

I'm not sure that private companies said that they wanted recombinant DNA technology till it was developed.

|10.21.04 @ 9:39PM|#

As a California resident, I'm voting no on most of the ballot initiatives. And considering how bad my state's finances are right now, we really don't need another three billion dollars in bonds. Honestly, part of the problem in this state is that we put too much lawmaking in the hands of voters (and creating a huge accountability problem, in my view).

If people are so worried about the profit motive somehow sullying this type of research, there are such things as private non-profit organizations.

|10.21.04 @ 9:47PM|#

Who's your gubbinator out there, Tim? You should have a word with him.

But to answer the question beginning this thread:
Government is always more than willing to fund solutions to problems government caused. It's called, "Down, down, down, into the burning ring of fire!"

Mark Bahner|10.21.04 @ 9:57PM|#

"You need to have George Soro buy your lab space and equipment in addition to paying for the materials."

Or the Howard Hughes medical foundation. If I recall correctly from the 60 Minutes piece on the Howard Hughes medical foundation, they fund embryonic stem cell research.

If federal funding of stem cell research is so clearly beneficial, why don't we have a Constitutional amendment to make it legal?

|10.22.04 @ 12:25AM|#

I really don't the get the comment about embryonic stem cells being so much better than adult stem cells. I've not read about a single successful therapy using embryonic stem cells, but there have been numerous successful therapies using adult stem cells. What's the deal Tim and Ron? Ron uses an article published in Nature. Dude, don't you know that Nature is a left-wing science rag? Not that they don't publish real science, but they sure seem to pick and choose according to their political biases.

By the way, I have no problem with embryonic stem cell research, but it's just plain silly to put the totally unproven promise of embryonic stem cells above that of the proven promise of adult stem cells.

By the way, Rikurzhen, you're a thieving asshole. Boo, hoo, hoo... The NIH... Boo, hoo, hoo...
Pay for the research yourself, dickhead. Don't ask the government to steal other people's money for it. Statist lefties are fucking thieves.

|10.22.04 @ 12:28AM|#

Government funding is important because companies with the funding capability to handle such projects don't tend to deal in high risk scenarios, regardless of the potential rewards.

Beyond that, this is the wrong question. The real question is, "Why is stem-cell research singled out among diseases to be denied public funding?"

Now, if we get down to the more specific, "Should California amend its constitution to fund stem-cell research?" then the answer is no. Cali's got far too much of its funding already tied up in ballot initiatives, and it badly needs a reform of the referendum system before adding more.

|10.22.04 @ 12:47AM|#

"If I recall correctly from the 60 Minutes piece on the Howard Hughes medical foundation, they fund embryonic stem cell research."
---
"I really don't the get the comment about embryonic stem cells being so much better than adult stem cells. I've not read about a single successful therapy using embryonic stem cells, but there have been numerous successful therapies using adult stem cells."
---

HHMI does indeed fund embryonic stem cell research. I used to have a fellowship from them and at a meeting at their main campus the keynote speaker talked about his work with embryonic stem cells and diabetes. He claimed to have shown a potential medical benefit (potential because it was "pure" research, not clinical) that was unique to embryonic stem cells. That stuff is way outside my area of expertise so I can't say anything about the work, and unfortunately I don't remember the guy's name. HHMI certainly gets the cream of the crop, so it's probably pretty sound. But I don't know anything else about it.

"Beyond that, this is the wrong question. The real question is, "Why is stem-cell research singled out among diseases to be denied public funding?""

This is the question I've always had. A lot of people seem to have a problem with federal funding of this work who don't have much to say about other federally funded science. I'm sure for some of them it's because the topic normally doesn't come up unless it's about something controversial like embryonic stem cells. And I'm sure for some it's because they're applying their principle of no federal role in funding science very selectively.

|10.22.04 @ 1:22AM|#

Wow Bill, at first I thought you were just uninformed, but now I think you're a bad person.

The CA bill would fund embryonic and adult stem cell research. To the best of my knowledge there has been no attempt to unjustly promote ES cell research over adult stem cell research.

The potential benefit of ES cells over adult stem cells is that ES are totipotent (can become any cell) put adult stem cells are not (they are limited in what kind of tissues they can become).

HHMI is not a true alternative to NIH funding. But for the sake of full disclosure: I'm a scientist doing NIH funded research.

What's missing from this discussion is a full cost-benefit analysis of the CA proposition. By some estimates, the fund will pay for itself in future tax revenues and other savings.

|10.22.04 @ 2:11AM|#

I think you are all missing the point. The issue here is the govt funding research that some people have an ethical problem with. The promise of any particular technology (even one as overhyped as this) is irrelevant. At the end of the day we as tax payers have every right to demand that govt not fund something that is neither its proper role and that we find repugnant. If you don't want random folks whining about how you intend to use their money, don't use their money.

And as to the potential benefits of ES I would expect them to go the way of Proteomics, useful in a handful of circumstances, but no silver bullet.

John

|10.22.04 @ 2:35AM|#

John, that's a good point. The twist is: do the objections makes sense; and do we want to give veto over the scientific process to politicians?

I've read that there are certain interpretations of the first amendment that would provide a "right to research." Even if you disagree with public funding, I think most here would see the problem with criminalizing a kind of research.

raymond|10.22.04 @ 3:20AM|#

By the way, Rikurzhen, you're a thieving asshole. Boo, hoo, hoo... The NIH... Boo, hoo, hoo... Pay for the research yourself, dickhead. Don't ask the government to steal other people's money for it. Statist lefties are fucking thieves. (Bill)

Just about an hour ago I finished reading an article - in Reason - about a book on Hayek. Here is the last paragraph of that article:

The intellectual defenses of a new age of libertarianism need sweet talk, a unity of word and number, story and metaphor, on the lips of free men and women. The story of Hayek's astonishing life and work says just that: Persuade and be free.

raymond|10.22.04 @ 4:09AM|#

Even if you disagree with public funding, I think most here would see the problem with criminalizing a kind of research.

Eugenics research. Mengele and all that. Not legal.

Cloning, IVF, abortion and stem-cell debates all hinge on how we define "human being". Those who assent to the notion that human life begins at conception have a moral obligation to work to make these things illegal - if they believe that the valid role of the state is to secure human rights.

|10.22.04 @ 4:22AM|#

Raymond, of course you're right. I was thinking in legal terms -- precedent argues against such a position on ES cells.

|10.22.04 @ 5:29AM|#

I think you are all missing the point. The issue here is the govt funding research that some people have an ethical problem with. The promise of any particular technology (even one as overhyped as this) is irrelevant. At the end of the day we as tax payers have every right to demand that govt not fund something that is neither its proper role and that we find repugnant. If you don't want random folks whining about how you intend to use their money, don't use their money.

Taxpayers never get to decide that their money shouldn't go someplace just because they have a moral objection to it. Conscientious objectors' taxes go to fund wars. Atheists' taxes now go to fund "faith-based initiatives". Conservatives' taxes go to fund women's shelters.

|10.22.04 @ 6:41AM|#

"If stem cell research is so valuable, why do we need the government to pay for it?"

We may not, but think of its potential as a polarizing issue! How could we do without that?

|10.22.04 @ 7:40AM|#

This issue and the arguments are very familiar; they resemble those made when public funding of a new sports stadium comes up.

1. Is it appropriate for the government to fund private enterprise?
2. If yes to #1, are the potential benefits greater than the expected costs, real and opportunity?

I would argue that the answer to #1 is always NO. Even so, it seems clear to me that, either way, the answer to #2 is vague and the arguments in favor charlatanesque.

|10.22.04 @ 8:13AM|#

First off, I think the "pure" libertarian position would be absolutely against federal funding of scientific research of any kind. If there's a significant chance of producing benefits from research, benefits which will pay off, private money will be available -- this is how Big Pharma operates. The lack of private funding for ESC indicates that no one is willing to risk their own money on its promise.

John, that's a good point. The twist is: do the objections makes sense; and do we want to give veto over the scientific process to politicians?

Yes, if the scientific process expects politicians to give it money. Otherwise, they can solicit funding from more agreeable sources.

Highway|10.22.04 @ 8:52AM|#

Nick Simmonds,

Taxpayers may not get a final say, but would you deny them the opportunity to even comment on the subject of where their tax money was spent? And if they can convince a majority of legislators, through legal and persuasive means, that their view is at least popular, should they still be ignored? I don't think that's how the policy in this country works (be that right or wrong in an existential sense). So it's plenty fine that people should advocate their side.

|10.22.04 @ 9:18AM|#

This is the question I've always had. A lot of people seem to have a problem with federal funding of this work who don't have much to say about other federally funded science.

the difficulty i have with the fed's singling out and refusing to fund embryonic stem-cell research is that, previously, they've managed to infect the entire american research complex -- universities, labs, corporations -- with their money.

i wholly agree with the libertarian *idealism* that

First off, I think the "pure" libertarian position would be absolutely against federal funding of scientific research of any kind.

but the *pragmatic* situation is that the opposite is true -- the vast majority of research organizations are funded in part federally. if any foray into embryonic stem-cell research cuts off all your fed funding, you cannot consider *any* such research because the damage cannot be compartmentalized.

this is tantamount to illegalizing embryonic stem-cell research, and everyone knows it. it was intended to. let's not peddle falsehoods like

the Fed's don't BAN Embryonic Stem Cell Research...they simply don't fund it.

|10.22.04 @ 9:26AM|#

Rikurzhen--

Why not go to a purely privately funded model of scientific funding? Scientists already have to make grant proposals to get government money, why not just shift the process to the private sector? Then nobody should have any problems with their money being spent on things they don't morally support.

If you can't find people or foundations willing to privately give you the money for certain research, it's a good bet that that means something--either not enough people want it done (a problem that could be resolved by a public relations effort), or there is significant opposition to it being done. Whether or not that opposition is informed and/or logical is a big question, but it's still not right to force people to pay for things they disagree with.

|10.22.04 @ 9:28AM|#

gaius--

If you're right about scientific research being so totally dependent on sucking the federal tit, then science is in a bad way. I happen to know that you are mostly right, but I see this as a bad thing, not a justification for making the dependency worse.

The last thing an informed and technological society should have is a basic scientific research community that is addicted to public money subject to political decisions.

raymond|10.22.04 @ 10:20AM|#

If stem-cell research could be used to make products that kill people, then the federal government would have no trouble funding it.

|10.22.04 @ 10:40AM|#

Tim asks, "If stem cell research is so valuable, why do we need the government to pay for it?"

The answer, from the article:

"I can't address business irrationality," says Klein. "I can only point to 60 years of history at the National Institute of Health, which indicates that public funds are the only reliable source of funding for basic research."

The private sector won't fund basic research without a good chance of making a profit in the short (or at least medium) term. Would anyone care to refute this?

America's economy, especially places like California, depends upon harnessing innovation to create jobs. That's why the migration of low-paying jobs to cheaper countries isn't going to kill us - because we're creating better, higher paying jobs in innovative fields that other places can't compete in. Setting up infrastructure to position a region to take advantage of an emerging field is essential for us to be able to continue to be out in front as technology advances.

|10.22.04 @ 10:41AM|#

raymond-
And since defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal goverment... Also, eugenics research is not illegal in the US. We are free to discuss and formulate theories about race superiority and breeding if we wish. Unless you are somewhere in the EU, then maybe it would be safer for you if we don't have this discusion.

|10.22.04 @ 10:51AM|#

joe-
"The private sector won't fund basic research without a good chance of making a profit in the short (or at least medium) term. Would anyone care to refute this?"

My salary is carried by a government grant for a project that started in the private sector. Motorola, Toshiba, and DuPont started at the ground floor 15 years ago and the DOD finally picked it up when it looked promising. I regularly read manuscripts and publications from groups doing fundamental research in industry. The NIH and NSF are just another form of corporate welfare.

|10.22.04 @ 10:52AM|#

The last thing an informed and technological society should have is a basic scientific research community that is addicted to public money subject to political decisions.

i wholeheartedly agree. this is yet another case of good government intentions (promotion of science) gone horribly wrong (the politicization of science). but reversing the process, as with social security and FNMA, may be impossible.

|10.22.04 @ 10:57AM|#

"If stem cell research is so valuable, why do we need the government to pay for it?"

If defense research is so valuable, then why do we need the gevernment to pay for it?

Tim, your question is silly. I expect more of you, I really do.

|10.22.04 @ 11:02AM|#

Oh, I forgot to mention, Tim's position, that the ton of money the private sector spent on Pets.com stock demonstrates that the private sector is willing to invest in dicey projects, is just silly. To review, in the late 1990s, there was a bubble in tech stocks. People put a ton of money into those stocks, in the expectation that they could sell those stocks for even higher prices shortly thereafter. The investment had nothing to do with the expectation that taking internet orders for pull toys was a good business model - the payoff was purely speculative, and had nothing to do with whether pets.com was actually going to work out.

|10.22.04 @ 11:08AM|#

the payoff was purely speculative, and had nothing to do with whether pets.com was actually going to work out.

if you still had your wits about you, yes it was. but not everyone did. in fact, few did, as i recall.

that's obviously not to say we should wait for a stem-cell mania to research. but pharma essentially operates on the business model that would make stem-cell research a profitable enterprise. it's fine to have lots of dead ends -- if you have some patent protection for the few that work out to recoup the costs of the lot.

|10.22.04 @ 11:44AM|#

People put a ton of money into those stocks, in the expectation that they could sell those stocks for even higher prices shortly thereafter. The investment had nothing to do with the expectation that taking internet orders for pull toys was a good business model - the payoff was purely speculative, and had nothing to do with whether pets.com was actually going to work out.

First off, some people DID put their money into tech stocks as a short-term investment. Others put their money into tech stocks as a longer-term investment. You are being completely ingorant of the facts just to prove your point, much like the person from the NIH whom you chose to quote in one of your earlier posts. Even people who invested in tech stocks short term EXPECTED (rightly or wrongly) there to be others who would invest in them long-term so that they could have someone to sell their stocks to.

Can you find a stupider quote than this: ""I can't address business irrationality,"

We're expecting scientists, who's job it is to reason and rationalize and weight evidence and discover facts, to somehow be devoid of reason and rationalization and evidence and facts when it comes to money?

raymond|10.22.04 @ 11:58AM|#

Also, eugenics research is not illegal in the US. We are free to discuss and formulate theories about race superiority and breeding if we wish.

1. The "Mengele" should have given you a hint about what I was referring to specifically..

2. For anyone here who isn't familiar with the practise of eugenics in the US, click here for an idea of what it meant. Lots of governors have been apologizing lately, btw.

This will give you more information on the wonderful world of eugenics.

Unless you are somewhere in the EU, then maybe it would be safer for you if we don't have this discusion.

That sentence makes no sense to me. Sorry. The draft constitution doesn't forbid discussing these things.

Article II-3: Right to the integrity of the person

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.
2. In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular:
(a) the free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law,
(b) the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons,
(c) the prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain,
(d) the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings.

(Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (CIG 86/04)

Hm. Interesting.

Article II-1: Human dignity

Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.

Hm. Suddenly, this treaty is beginning to sound almost... acceptable.

|10.22.04 @ 12:00PM|#

"The promise of any particular technology (even one as overhyped as this) is irrelevant. At the end of the day we as tax payers have every right to demand that govt not fund something that is neither its proper role and that we find repugnant."

"We as taxpayers" _don't_ find that federal funding embryonic stem cell research is improper or repugnant. All the polls that I can remember have the public favoring federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Here are a couple I dug up from a 10 second google search:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010803.html
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,725085,00.html

There are plenty of people who opposed GM research, but the gov't still funds it. And there are plenty of people opposed to animal testing, but the gov't still funds a wide variety of clinical and non-clinical research involving animal testing. I would suspect more people are opposed to embryonic stem cell work than GM or animal testing, but they're still in the minority as far as I can tell.
So in my mind the question comes back to this: why are stem cells being treated differently than other "controversial" research?

Tim Cavanaugh|10.22.04 @ 12:04PM|#

Gaius marius and db are closest to the core of the libertarian/small govt debate here. Since that's the one point of view that hasn't been represented in California (and I'm sorry, but in my experience if you scratch a fiscal opponent of 71, you find somebody who believes ensoulment begins at conception), that was what I wanted to address in the article. In my opinion, the reality is that there is no clearcut position on Prop 71, for reasons that are laid out in the article.

As for Bill's question (which I'm tempted not to respond to because of his impoliteness toward Rikurzhen): Since there are more than enough scientific ignoramuses yapping like experts, I didn't want to add to the chorus, but my understanding is that embryonic stem cells have more potential for differentiation into different cell types than adult stem cells and thus are better candidates for research. Ron Bailey, I know, has an argument that research on embryonic cells may eventually show the way toward teaching adult cells to differentiate, but again, since I'm almost as uninformed as the Pope on this matter, I'll leave it to Ron or somebody else to give the argument.

a, rtfa.

Russ D, small correction: The irrationality quote does not come from an official at the NIH but from a real estate guy on the peninsula who is leading the pro-71 coalition. (His son has diabetes, as I recall.)

|10.22.04 @ 12:44PM|#

Government funding is important because companies with the funding capability to handle such projects don't tend to deal in high risk scenarios, regardless of the potential rewards.

So, let's see. Multiple private entities have looked at the situation and decided that it's too risky given the prospective rewards, therefore they are not going to invest their money...therefore the government should invest its money! Do I have that logic about right? Doesn't make any sense to me, but that's about the only way I can read that sentence. We'll leave aside for the moment that fact that there's no supporting evidence for the original contention...

|10.22.04 @ 12:57PM|#

"The private sector won't fund basic research without a good chance of making a profit in the short (or at least medium) term. Would anyone care to refute this?"

Bell Labs.

Really, this statement can only be the product of carefully cultivated ignorance.

|10.22.04 @ 12:58PM|#

raymond-

Christ, here come the long winded posts (again).

From: 'Commission report on the implementation of the Action Plan against Racism' 07/24/2004

'... the main aim of this Joint Action was to ensure collaboration between Member States in terms of judicial cooperation and in the fight against racism and xenophobia. It was a question of finding converging factors among Member States with the aim of preventing criminals from exploiting the differences in existing legislation in the Member States.
In the context of this action, certain forms of behavior are considered an offense such as: incitement to discrimination, violence or racial hatred; condoning and denial of crimes against humanity; dissemination or distribution of racist and xenophobic materials; and participation in activities of groups or organizations which involve racial discrimination, violence or hatred.'

'... as provided for in the Joint Action, racist or xenophobic acts were considered to be criminal offences... '

And I believe the Joint Action is supported by the below article and section.

'Article III-158
3. The Union shall endeavor to ensure a high level of security by measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as by the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, the approximation of criminal laws.'

The EU draft constitution is interesting in that is is being interpreted long before is is implemented. There are several member contries that have laws barring speech that is interpreted as racist or xenophobic. In an effort to make law uniform across the EU these laws will eventually extend across all of the EU member states. Which is fine, it will serve as a brilliant example for the US. Look at how a few short provisions in the US Constitution have been loosely interpreted to provide for sweeping federal powers. The EU states have certainly stepped in a giant pile of crap with this document.

|10.22.04 @ 1:05PM|#

"First off, some people DID put their money into tech stocks as a short-term investment. Others put their money into tech stocks as a longer-term investment." For those of you who might have missed it, Russ D is asserting that there is something like parity in the numbers of people who speculated on pets.com stock, intending to buy it and flip it, and those who bought it because they thought there would be a $billion market in ordering dog food over the internet in 15 years. Know what? I'm going to stand pat.

"Even people who invested in tech stocks short term EXPECTED (rightly or wrongly) there to be others who would invest in them long-term so that they could have someone to sell their stocks to."

So...people buying during a furious runup of a stock are assuming that those who will buy it from them in a month, at a higher price, are long-term investors? Remind me again, do long term investors usually seek out stocks to buy at high prices? This isn't your strong suit, is it Russ?

|10.22.04 @ 1:10PM|#

JD,

The government doesn't have to issue earnings reports to investors each quarter. The ability of the government to continue to exist doesn't depend upon showing that its investments have been profitable in the short term. For this reason, the government can invest in research whose benefits are a long way off, while corporations have a strong incentive to put their investments into products with a quicker payoff.

JDM, pointing out a counterexample does not refute an observation about general trends. For example, if I looked hard enough, I could find a post by you where you don't come across as a complete dick.

|10.22.04 @ 1:16PM|#

"The government doesn't have to issue earnings reports to investors each quarter.'"

Too bad.

|10.22.04 @ 1:22PM|#

Private biomedical funding foundations do exist. Many new assistant professors receive their first funding from these foundations, usually as small grants because the NIH grant system is so difficult. They try to scrape together some data from these early funds in order to win a much larger NIH grant to accelerate their research.

Five (approx.) years ago NIH funding was half of what it is today. One thing I am certain of is that the high level of NIH funding is much greater than a market would bear for basic research. The intended side effect is to accelerate the pace of biomedical research, which is very costly.

Also, while the marketing campaign for ES cell research has focused on clinical applications. There is a clear and certain basic science benefit to be had from that research. If you can generate ES cells from an adult diabetic, then you can study human diabetes in vitro. Ultimately, the vision for ES cell research is that it will spark the next recombinant DNA boom.

Tim Cavanaugh|10.22.04 @ 1:24PM|#

"So, let's see. Multiple private entities have looked at the situation and decided that it's too risky given the prospective rewards, therefore they are not going to invest their money...therefore the government should invest its money! Do I have that logic about right?"

Yes, you do. I heard many people make that argument at the symposium, without a hint of irony. It's infuriating, but as noted (rtfa), there are other factors at work too.

|10.22.04 @ 1:31PM|#

"JDM, pointing out a counterexample does not refute an observation about general trends."

Your statement wasn't about general trends, it was:

"The private sector won't fund basic research without a good chance of making a profit in the short (or at least medium) term."

Secondly, there are billions of dollars spent on basic research by hundreds of corporations. Name any mid to large size tech company. Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Xerox, Merck, Honda... The larger the company, the greater the percentage of its research budget is spent on less directed research. Your statement is absolutely laughable, so I didn't bother with a full refutation.

"For example, if I looked hard enough, I could find a post by you where you don't come across as a complete dick."

I'd hope you couldn't. More reasonable people might be able to.

|10.22.04 @ 1:36PM|#

The NIH budget is ~$30 billion.

|10.22.04 @ 1:44PM|#

JDM, which of those companies would fund ES cell research? If any did, would they publish their results?

|10.22.04 @ 1:54PM|#

Rikurzhen,

If they can rely on you and I funding it for them, none of them.

|10.22.04 @ 1:54PM|#

Rikurshen-

It isn't a foregone conclusion that this kind of research is mandatory. For the sake of argument lets say private funds won't cover it. How then do you justify taking my money to fund this.

|10.22.04 @ 2:10PM|#

JDM: possibly
B: I'm sorry, but I'm not a libertarian, so I can see reasons that you might not accept. For my part, I would argue that of all the things the government does spend money on, I'd put basic research near the top of the optional list.

The overall point I think I was trying to make is that private industry is not the market alternative to NIH (at least in the case of ESC research). The market alternative is a charity that looks just like NIH. What NIH has that industry couldn't is an army of academic researchers who work for cheap and share their results with one another.

My thinking is that without NIH we'd have a lot more electronics products and a lot less medicine.

|10.22.04 @ 2:23PM|#

'I'm sorry, but I'm not a libertarian, so I can see reasons that you might not accept.'

To support the standard of living I like requires a good amount of work. Since income tax is not optional I can either 1)forego my standard of living or 2)become a slave to publicly funded projects.

'My thinking is that without NIH we'd have a lot more electronics products and a lot less medicine.'

You may very well be correct, however this does not justify either making me a tool of your pet social projects or depriving me of my standard of living. I find the situation repugnant.

|10.22.04 @ 2:34PM|#

B: I think it would foolish to try to debate the problems of libertarianism on a libertarian web site, but suffice it to say that I have equally strong feelings against your position.

|10.22.04 @ 2:38PM|#

"The overall point I think I was trying to make is that private industry is not the market alternative to NIH (at least in the case of ESC research). "

Not in its current state, no. Though getting corporations out of the public trough would no doubt change the landscape. There is no question that reasearch leads to entirely new industries, so its hard to see how no one would take advantage of this.

"My thinking is that without NIH we'd have a lot more electronics products and a lot less medicine."

I don't know, people are willing to pay huge amounts of money for health care.

Also, given all of the attention given to the amount of paperwork doctors have to do nowadays, better computer systems would have a direct impact on health care. They would also improve medical research, bioinformatics (for example) is as much about computer and electronic technology as genetics. (My examples here are just illustrative. I'm just saying that putting a political thumb on the scale has all kinds of effects no one can conceive of.)

|10.22.04 @ 2:51PM|#

JDM: I think part of what you're saying is that in a true libertarian state we could achieve approximately the same result with regard to biomedical research. That may very well be true.

I think you might also be saying that intermediate progress toward that state would be agreeable with regard to research. That's what I doubt very much.

|10.22.04 @ 3:43PM|#

joe,

For those of you who might have missed it, Russ D is asserting that there is something like parity in the numbers of people who speculated on pets.com stock, intending to buy it and flip it, and those who bought it because they thought there would be a $billion market in ordering dog food over the internet in 15 years.

I may no such claim in my post.

So...people buying during a furious runup of a stock are assuming that those who will buy it from them in a month, at a higher price, are long-term investors? Remind me again, do long term investors usually seek out stocks to buy at high prices?

I made no such claim about price in my post.

If I have a stock for two months, a stock for a company I KNOW has little chance of survival, I am still expecting a buyer to appear when I want to sell (at any price) - said buyer may not have much confidence in the company either but he obviously thinks the company has more days of survival than I do. At that point, I care that the buyer thinks the company will last a few more days, NOT that he will hold the stock longer than I did. There are few buyers willing to purchase with the 100% expectation of taking a loss (except for some strange tax advantage).

|10.22.04 @ 4:03PM|#

The market alternative is a charity that looks just like NIH.

This may be true, in fact is often the case when looking at organizations like the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society

What NIH has that industry couldn't is an army of academic researchers who work for cheap and share their results with one another.

This is complete nonsense. Charitable organizations also have academics who work for cheap and collaborate with others; I have first-hand knowledge of medical research at Harvard and Univeristy Of Chicago that relies on charitable contributions. The advantage the NIH has is a government forcing its citizens to "donate" to the NIH.

|10.22.04 @ 4:06PM|#

RussD: you misunderstand my comparison. I am saying that NIH (or a charity like NIH) has that advantage over *industry*.

|10.22.04 @ 4:08PM|#

Russ D, your statement about people buying pets.com stock for the long term looked an awful lot like a statement that they were buying it because they expected the company to be successful in its business model, and sustain its stock price over the long term.

I suppose there may be some people who expect a stock to do well over the long term, but who don't have faith in the company's operations. I dno't imagine they make very much money, though.

raymond|10.22.04 @ 4:18PM|#

There are several member contries that have laws barring speech that is interpreted as racist or xenophobic.

Incitement to racial hatred.

Nuance.

|10.22.04 @ 6:42PM|#

Man, there's a lot of anger here. And bitterness, and personal attacks.

I never buy the arguments that a) just because we are funding Big Science this way now, that's the only way it can be funded, and b) that without government funding of Big Science, we will necessarily become a Third World country and a client of Canada, which will wisely become a superpower by spending tax money on stuff that investors think is loopy.

It's entirely possible that private money doesn't flow to basic research because it doesn't have to. Companies never pay for anything if they can get someone else to pay for it, and that someone else is usually the taxpayer. Like so many other discussions about Libertarian solutions, we find ourselves boxed in by arguments that "this is the way the world works," as if the status quo is the only possible way it CAN work.

Government funding of science projects often leads to impressive discoveries, but without a bottom line, it also often leads to beating a head against a brick wall long after it's clear the project has reached a dead end. Even in the allegedly holy field of "defense," we find the government backing a lot of dubious work while some of the most interesting developments were privately funded.

I find it amusing the way even the most skeptical small-government conservatives sometimes suspend all critical judgement when it comes to defense, as if the bureaucratic mindset that has made HUD and the Los Angeles Unified School District what they are today could not possibly have penetrated the DoD.