I figured I'd title this entry as descriptively as I could to clue in everyone as quickly as possible that I'm addressing a controversial issue.
George Bush's "ban on stem cell research" is often misexplained. What was banned, specifically, was federal funding of research on new stem cell lines after the ban, i.e., on stem cell lines arising from embryos destroyed after the ban. Bush's ban allows federal funding on those 78 stem cell lines that were in existence before the ban. (Yes, research indicates that either these particular lines are not useful or that they have aged beyond the point of usability.) Bush's ban also allows private funding of research on new stem cell lines. The government has not prohibited research on all stem cell lines nor on new stem cell lines; only withheld funding for research on new stem cell lines.
If I understand correctly, state funding of research on new stem cell lines would also be permitted.
Melton has also announced the development, with private funds, of 17 new embryonic lines. -- article
Re:Tin Foil
jdavidb on 2004-06-11T13:49:18
Backing up in general and ignoring the ethical issues
... that's the way I think it should be, anyway. The government should never fund stuff like this, because then it sets itself up in competition with private business. We should let private investment drive the space program, the educational system, disease research, etc. And I promise you that things would continue to be funded ... witness all the breast cancer marathons and such. In fact, I'm personally pledged that if the government quits taxing me, I'll contribute the money to causes I believe in (including free education and county hospitals). Re:Tin Foil
phillup on 2004-06-11T18:07:27
That is a nice theory, and it would most likely be better than what we have going on right now... if it worked.
I'm not sure it would... here is why:
As an investor, I would not want a cure for Aids... or a cure for Cancer. (for example)
Instead, I would want a drug that allowed you to live a somewhat "normal" life (and in the casee of Aids, I would want you spreading the disease) for as long as you bought and paid for my "cure". This solution would bring a much higher rate of return than a solution that actually cured the disease.
To make matters worse, I would actually try to find the cure... and then "back out" of the cure just enough to get the above product... one that does not totally cure the disease.
Then, patent the non-cure... but make sure that it contains enough of the important part needed to cover the cure. So, you effectively block that known cure from being developed. Then, run the product for the life of the patent.
Then, when the patent is very close to expiring... file another patent that covers the other elements of the cure. And, begin another period of time where you can monopolize the market and continue pumping the revenue stream.
So... we are talking about two patent cycles before anyone gets a chance to produce a cure that isn't monopoly priced. That is, two cycles *after* finding the cure.
As a moral person, that idea is not optimal to me.
I can't see depending on the free market coming up with the optimal solution on this one.
As an aside, for your idea to work... there would have to be a high incentive to the investor that they would get thier return on investment. That has directly lead to the patent laws, and abuse of those laws that we currently have. IMHO.
I don't think that is optimal either.
I think that *sometimes* society has to solve problems, and not leave it up to "the market". I don't think that should be often tho... and definitely not a rule of thumb.
In the end, I think of the market as a "tool" to be used to solve problems. It is not an end to itself. And not all problems can be solved with the one tool.Re:Tin Foil
jdavidb on 2004-06-11T18:30:18
Here's why I don't agree with you:
As an investor, I would not want a cure for Aids... or a cure for Cancer. (for example)
As an investor WITH AIDS, I would want a cure for AIDS.
As an investor with relatives WITH AIDS, I would want a cure for AIDS.
As a member of the public with some money that can be pooled in various charitable uses, I would want a cure for AIDS.
I think if the public cares enough to vote dollars out of people's pockets for a given cause, then they care enough that they would donate voluntarily if there were NOT money being voted out of their pockets and someone came around soliciting. We have hundreds and hundreds of people who voluntarily give time and money to such causes now, including the March of Dimes, the Susan B. Komen breast cancer cause, etc. The market is more than just investors and people looking for financial incentives; it also includes the aggregate actions of the entire public and its charitable deeds. Obviously the Susan B. Koman foundation feels that this has a decent chance of solving the breast cancer problem.
As for patents, I advocate their abolition. They are an inappropriate government grant of monopoly power.
As a moral person, that idea is not optimal to me.
Thought question, which I'm asking just for you to think about, not to suggest that either answer is right or wrong: is it moral for you to insist that your way is the only way and use the threat of force to take people's money away to do things your way? Is it moral for you to take money which does not belong to you if you do something good with it?
I can't see depending on the free market coming up with the optimal solution on this one.
I don't see the not-so-free market we have now doing much good, either.
I think that *sometimes* society has to solve problems, and not leave it up to "the market".
Did you or did you not see in my first post where I talked about breast cancer charities?
Re:Tin Foil
phillup on 2004-06-11T19:14:42
Did you or did you not see in my first post where I talked about breast cancer charities?
Yes. And, I'm not trying to do a point-counter point discussion. I think that there is too much overlap for that... and, I'm not up to it.
I do see merit in your ideas, I also see merit in my own. I don't think either would work. Mainly because they aren't flexible enough. I tried to allude to that with my last paragraph.
Is it moral for you to insist that your way is the only way and use the threat of force to take people's money away to do things your way?
Certainly not. Hopefully I didn't come across as saying that.
I do believe I should be able to suggest how things be done tho.
Is it moral for you to take money which does not belong to you if you do something good with it?
I'm not Robin Hood.
I believe in the "Golden Rule"... So, I would not do that.
(To answer your question. I don't believe it is right, and I'll use "right" to mean "moral" in this case. So, no, I don't think it is moral.)
But... I suspect that you may really be asking about the government doing it on my behalf.
I like to use thought experiments for situations like this one. Kind of like testing my programs... which means checking the boundary conditions.
I don't think it would be right (moral) for the government (or anyone else) to take all of my money. That is one boundary.
I also don't think it is right to get something for nothing. So, I surely can't expect that a person or the government provide me with a product or service with no cost to me. That is the other extreme.
So that we don't make this a false dichotomy, another option would be no government. That sounds nice. But, I'm not sure it really is... many people believe that if it came down to "survival of the fitest" that they would survice.
Yet, very few people believe it so much that they would actually put their life on the line. Especially if they don't have to.
I'm not an anarchist... so, I think that some form of government is needed. And that the government must have some way to provide the "services" that demand it's existence.
So, in the end, I think that if done PROPERLY money could flow from a citizen to government... and be moral.
I don't think that happens right now.
for example, I'd like to see the federal budget set by the taxpayers when they complete their tax forms. Even if it was just broad categories.
Give me the option of saying I want 50 percent going to education, 20 percent going to highway safety, and 30 percent going to food safety.
Hopefully you get the idea...A book recommend for you
btilly on 2004-06-11T19:38:29
The Logic of Collective Action. Whose basic thesis you can find outlined here. (The book does a far better job though.)
Believe it or not, the fact is that public goods are chronically underfunded. Flawed as government may be, there is no real question that in many areas government intervention is clearly a net positive good. (It is also clear that in other areas government intervention is negative, particularly when small groups manage to succeed in regulatory capture.)
One of the areas where government intervention is key is basic research. The successes of basic research are essentially impossible to capture by existing companies. A fact that companies sometimes forget, to their loss. For example take a look at how much Xerox did not profit from inventing the GUI. This failure was not due to unfortunate coincidence, read The Innovator's Dilemma to understand the intrinsic causes of that failure. If you wish, here is a sample chapter to start with.
The moral is that Machiavelli was completely right when he said, It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new one. Which is why private industry is not a good foundation for basic science research.
Luckily the return on investment of having public support for basic science is so outrageous that it has been provided. Otherwise, even with occasionally generous people such as you claim to be, we would get far less of it done than we do currently. Which would be very much to our detriment.
