If a sparrow falling to the ground does not escape the federal government's notice, can we hope do stem cell research without its involvement? Ronald Bailey thinks that, just maybe, we can.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
- Fox Business Network Cancels Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch (2.9)
- Breitbart on libertarians in 2012 (2.11)
- Did the Drug War Make it Any Easier for Whitney Houston to Seek Help For Substance Abuse? (2.12)
- The Inside and Outside of CPAC 2012 (2.10)
- One Possible Reason There Are So Few Liberals, Starring Jonathan Chait. And Some Stuff About Tax Progressivity. (2.10)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
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.
|8.24.05 @ 10:12AM|#
I like the fact the corps and states are picking up the ball, i just dont like the way GWB dropped it in the first place.
|8.24.05 @ 10:26AM|#
Much as I may hate federal subsidies, in cases like stem cell research they serve an important purpose: If X is subsidized, it means that X perhaps won't be banned entirely tomorrow. Even token funding of stem cell research would send a valuable signal that stem-cell based innovations won't be illegal when they come to market.
Absent such a signal, I have to say it verges on the seriously irresponsible for companies to gamble money on the chance that stem cell technologies won't turn illegal the day they hit market, which after all seems the most likely outcome.
|8.24.05 @ 10:50AM|#
Grant Gould:
You make a point that I've worried a lot about too.
|8.24.05 @ 10:55AM|#
If a sparrow falling to the ground does not escape the federal government's notice
That's expecting a lot from the federal government.
|8.24.05 @ 11:07AM|#
The problem, Herman, isn't that it won't be noticed - it's that the robin-watching committee won't be bothered to report it to the Ministry of Sparrow-Falling.
|8.24.05 @ 11:15AM|#
Absent such a signal, I have to say it verges on the seriously irresponsible for companies to gamble money on the chance that stem cell technologies won't turn illegal the day they hit market, which after all seems the most likely outcome.
It's a possible outcome, but I'd disagree that it's the most likely outcome. The administration's restrictions on federal stem-cell research funding are already hugely unpopular, even among Republicans. I doubt the restriction will survive beyond the Bush presidency. Disposing of them will probably be one of the first orders of business of the next administration. As an investor, I'd view them more as a temporary nuisance than permenant policy.
And one more deliciously ironic thought: It's just possible that, by imposing his funding restrictions and spurring so many independent initiatives, President Bush has actually caused the creation of more embryonic stem cell lines than would have been produced with federal funding.
You're probably right. Bush's policies seem to have that effect on people.
|8.24.05 @ 11:23AM|#
Grant Gould raises an interesting point. Here's another one to consider:
Even if stem cells aren't funded, let's hope that the restrictions are rather light. Say that a lab gets purely private funding for stem cell work (yay!) but public funding for another project. Well, the reality is that academic labs are fluid places. A student's salary and tuition might be paid out of the public funds to work on a non-stem-cell project, but he might occasionally help out somebody who draws his salary from private funds to work on stem cells. A microscope might be bought with public funds for a non-stem-cell project, but if the microscope is there and not used around the clock, you know the stem cell guy will put it to use from time to time.
Ordinarily these things are not such a big deal. But if the topic at hand is the controversial matter of stem cells, you know that eventually some agitator will make a big deal about it. And so it should be made clear that a certain amount of "dual use" will not subject a lab to adverse consequences.
Now, some here might say that it's fine to do that, since these are public grants, after all. Well, private funding of university research is growing, and I'd hate to see any strings or rules that discourage academic labs from accepting more private funds.
|8.24.05 @ 11:47AM|#
Maybe the shorter version of what I was trying to say is that we shouldn't impose too many hassles on investigators who want to start moving toward private funding.
|8.24.05 @ 7:33PM|#
thoreau's point is perhaps the most underappreciated one. the problem is not such much the positive lack of federal funding for work on unapproved ES cell lines, but rather the prohibition against using federal funds that were granted for some other purpose (e.g. buying lab equipment, paying someone's salary) towards work on unapproved lines.
the threat of future legislation out-lawing ES cell technologies is also a problem.
|8.25.05 @ 12:57AM|#
Anyone else here think that its hilarious that Bailey is gung-ho about stem cell research science, but then also enjoys spouting out Exxon Mobil talking point trash? Don't get me wrong, Bailey's by far my fav Exxon "scholar," but damn, its just so funny!