New at Reason

January 19, 2007

Ron Bailey argues that George W. Bush may have inadvertently ushered a surge in stem cell research.

Comments

|1.19.07 @ 5:04PM|#

If GWB wanted to prohibit federal funding of ALL research not related to defense, I'd be in his corner. The stem cell thing is just throwing a bone to the religious right.

A Rational Person|1.19.07 @ 7:05PM|#

It is sad that the debate of whether human life begins at consception was hijacked by religous freaks. I agree with their position on this issue but not because I think a dictator in the sky will punish me if I do not.

|1.19.07 @ 9:39PM|#

If GWB wanted to prohibit federal funding of ALL research not related to defense, I'd be in his corner.

agreed, but i don't say that out loud given that i work at a university...

Thrall|1.20.07 @ 1:03AM|#

Of course we libertarians believe research should be in the private sector with scientists, and no federal money for stem cell research or any other research unless for defense.

But bush just makes me angry about this issue because the only reason he is doing it is because of the right winged Christians.

Last time I checked bush goes to like 5 different churches, I don't know what the hell goes on in his head. my god, keep religion out of government.

test|1.20.07 @ 8:53AM|#

this has been W's plan all along.

|1.20.07 @ 9:14AM|#

Reverse psychology?

|1.20.07 @ 9:39AM|#

This raises an issue unrelated to so-called right wing zealotry -- how can the State of New Jersey afford $27 million for stem cell research in the first place? The State is broke.

It seems to me that both sides are playing politics with this issue: one seeks to ban funding on religious grounds, the other throws money at it simply for the sake of throwing money (at our expense) and thereby buying the loyalty of yet another voting bloc. Both sides being true to form.

|1.20.07 @ 2:00PM|#

I am not a Christian, yet am adamantly opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Bailey is right - this research has received far more attention and money that it deserves on techinical merit. There are thousands upon thousand of research projects (medical or otherwise) which have just as much promise as this research, without the moral baggage. Presuming that we are going to fund research with public money, we should at least limit ourselves to the 99.999% of quality research that does not involve such moral quandries.

frogman302|1.20.07 @ 2:24PM|#

Forcing me to pay for this through my taxes is an outrage brought about by mob v. mob politics.

How about some damn protections for the people who disagree with "If there's a problem, always put the people's hard earned money towards it"?

Regardless of what Bush actually thinks about stem cells, he was right in vetoing it last year, because it's just one more hole to throw mine and your money down...

|1.20.07 @ 3:53PM|#

The decline in new drugs being approved, is not really the fault of FDA regulations. The low hanging fruit in drug design has been picked. The difficulty lies in finding drugs to deal with the new targeted diseases. The last numbers I saw estimated that pharma will screen 25,000 drugs to find a lead molecule--and then at least hundreds if not thousands more (over 5-6 years or more) to find one that does what they hoped it would, and doesn't do things they don't want to happen. It's only after finding the candidate to put into the pipeline does any regulation from the FDA come into play. Yes the tox studies have to be under GLP--a two year chronic tox study in two mammals really takes three years--two for the study, another to do the pathology on the animals. These aren't onerous regulations--they're needed--and even then unexpected problems crop up after several years of use in the general population.

|1.22.07 @ 3:10AM|#

Very interesting, Ron.

In the case of NJ, and maybe Cal as well, we have political motivation that leads the government to force the taxpayers to serve the desires of the substantial, and politically influential, Biotech sector.

Voluntary patronage of this wonderful technology, such as market response and philanthropy, would be both far more efficient and fair.

|1.22.07 @ 10:18AM|#

This raises an issue unrelated to so-called right wing zealotry -- how can the State of New Jersey afford $27 million for stem cell research in the first place?

Because there are some major pharma research outfits there, who gave big bucks to New Jersey legislators, that's how.

B|1.22.07 @ 10:51AM|#

"In other words, government funded civilian research didn't hurt private sector but there wasn't much evidence that it helped, at least in the short term." (emphasis added)

The long-term vs. short-term distinction here isn't trivial. Let's not forget that drug companies often know what to target in the first place in no small part thanks to publically-funded research that doesn't always have immediately tangible benefits.

I know public funding of pretty much anything isn't popular around here (and I am not unsympathetic to that position) but basic biomedical research is one of the few things where the feds have actually done (and do) a pretty good job.

|1.22.07 @ 11:15AM|#

It seems to me that both sides are playing politics with this issue: one seeks to ban funding on religious grounds, the other throws money at it simply for the sake of throwing money (at our expense) and thereby buying the loyalty of yet another voting bloc. Both sides being true to form.

It didn't help that stem cell worshipers like Mr Bailey poisoned the well, by claiming that anyone who opposed funding ESC research would be responsible for the future death of every person suffering from a debilitating disease.