If embryo destruction were really “the most promising,” why hasn’t the free market said so?
AP: House Passes Bill for Stem Cell Research
AP: House to Pass Stem Cell Research Bill
Let’s put aside all the ridiculously overblown claims about the “potential” of embryonic stem cell research (you know, Christopher Reeve will walk and Ronald Reagan will be posthumously cured of alzheimers if we elect Kedwards) and the malodorous Show Me State bait-and-switch ( Amendment 2 which “banned” “cloning” but constitutionalized “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” which means, well, “cloning.”). Here’s what we need to be asking — if “the experts” are so certain that ESCR will cure all of these diseases, why is it a requirement that the federal government bamboozle the taxpayer to the tune of endless billions on a war…we…can’t…win…excuse me, I’m thinking of a different Leftist Lunacy Interlude. Wouldn’t billions and billions be pouring in from smart investors wanting immortal adulation for wiping the world clean of all these diseases?
Since the market doesn’t seem to buy the hype, what we have instead is what happened in Missouri. An obscene sum for a single ballot initiative, upwards of $30 million, was spent to deceive voters in order to squeak Amendment 2 through this past November. Was the source of the millions a grassroots uprising of people that really, really, really think that creating nascent human life for the purpose of experimentation was a good idea? No, it was ponied up by a few folks that stand to make billions (of taxpayer coin) as result of its passage.
Pres. Bush will veto this, obviously. But why the vigorous attempts to force us headlong into federally funding ESCR? With other options currently available that don’t pose the ethical Cliffs of Dover (adult stem cells, umbilical stem cells, amnionic stem cells), why aren’t politicians hard-charging forward with bills to fund these less Brave New Worldish paths to possible cures while we leave it to private interests pursue the morally questionable destruction of human life (not that I’m waving the pom-poms for this either, but I’m talking here about the “is” rather than the “ought.”)? With the Ripken-like streak of hideous failures in ESCR research and its attendant problems, why not fund the others instead? Why the obssession with ESCR? Why all of the deception from its supporters?
(Glib Note: the next idiot that says Bush is “banning” ESCR should be forced out of a car naked somewhere near ANWR. Saying that Bush is “banning” ESCR is like saying that my daughter is banned from gymnastics because Congress hasn’t passed a bill to fund her training.)
Email This
Posted by Greg Scott on January 11, 2007 2:39 pm
Trackback URL:
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator: House to pass stem cell research bill
- Pirate's Cove: Embyronic Stem Cell Vote Today
Comments
7 Responses to “If embryo destruction were really “the most promising,” why hasn’t the free market said so?”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
The free market is good at implementing things, not general science. This has been true throughout the history of the marketplace, a great example being the internet itself. The free market has given us all the awesome stuff we love the internet for, but it didn’t invent it or do the pure scientific research necessary to build the initial infrastructure. The government did that. Actually, the military, the wing of the government that brings us countless cost-ineffective scientific advancements that the free market then runs with and implements into cool toys we buy. The Genome project is another good example that we’re in the middle of.
I’d also point out that there’s never been much money in cures. Treatments are WAY more profitable. That’s making moral assertions, but if we’re talking pure free market forces then it’s relevant to mention that the pure free market would never “cure” anything. It’s just not good business.
For fiscal reasons, I don’t particularly want the government to spend money on anything it doesn’t need to, but if we’re cutting fat, scientific research is probably the last thing I’d bother to cut. Clearly, the opposition to this research is moral, not fiscal.
Who says it’s not? If you’re going to assert that private industry isn’t interested in this research, you have to demonstrate that 1) They’re not investing significant resources and 2) their collective decision wasn’t due to side issues such as patents and legalities.
While I’m on the subject of patents, it’s worth mentioning that patents are a good reason for scientific research to be publicly funded, even if the private sector would do it anyways. There is a lot of controversy over medical patents and their associated costs. If you publicly fund the research, the fruits are available to any business that can implement the knowledge cost-effectively instead of granting a temporary (25 years?) monopoly to the discoverer.
That’s false. An individual business with a lucrative treatment line may not wish to invest much in a search for a cure, but if my competitor is making a killing on treatments, you can be sure I’d look to put him out of business by developing a cost-effective cure.
“The free market is good at implementing things, not general science.”
This is so broad a statement Jimmy that there is no way to support it. You bring up some examples of where the government has been responsible for innovations that have reached the mainstream, but that doesn’t make a case for your assertions.
“I’d also point out that there’s never been much money in cures. Treatments are WAY more profitable. That’s making moral assertions, but if we’re talking pure free market forces then it’s relevant to mention that the pure free market would never “cure†anything. It’s just not good business.”
Completely untrue. Say there is a disease. Say X Company has been rolling in the coin providing treatment. What is the disincentive for Company Y in finding a cure should that cure benefit IT. Company Y doesn’t care about X Company’s current profits, it cares about its own profit. If X Company has effectively cornered the market on treatment for the disease, why would Company Y jump into the treatment market with such significant barriers to entry? The way they get the competitive advantage is to cure the disease, make their bucks and put X Company out of business.
We don’t know how much better off we’d be if the government didn’t fund upwards of 2/3 of medical research being done. In direct contradiction to what you have said, research projects not subject to market forces (you know, ones that receive perpetual government funding) have a vested interest in continuing their own existence. The way they continue their own existence is by keeping the “need” there. Look at global warming — the myth machine stays alive because only those who fan the flames get the funding.
Also consider art — was art better when it was privately-funded and supported by patronage or is it better now that we have the government at every level subsidizing penis sculptures and traveling dead-aborted-baby-in-a-jar exhibits?
“1) They’re not investing significant resources and 2) their collective decision wasn’t due to side issues such as patents and legalities.”
1) They’re not. Harvard is the exception with a pretty substantial, privately-funded program.
2) If the business had that much promise all the “legalities” you are referring to, a normal part of the business and investing landscape would be taken care of.
Please support that assertion.
That’s not true at all. Legal obstacles and uncertainties add risk. That risk could easily tilt the economics to the point that the investment doesn’t make sense.
Do you really think a business is going to make the same investment in a world where the end product/service is explicitly legal compared to the same business in a world where a significant percentage of the country wants to ban one or more of the procedures necessary to offer your product/service?
“Do you really think a business is going to make the same investment in a world where the end product/service is explicitly legal compared to the same business in a world where a significant percentage of the country wants to ban one or more of the procedures necessary to offer your product/service?”
Tobacco.
“That’s not true at all. Legal obstacles and uncertainties add risk. That risk could easily tilt the economics to the point that the investment doesn’t make sense.”
But if the “potential” of ESCR is go great, the benefit of what this will supposedly lead to will outweigh these standard costs of doing business.
It’s an existing industry. The ball had been rolling for hundreds of years before its legal troubles.
- 50/50 chance of your business being outlawed is not a “standard cost of doing business”
- No one is claiming the potential is infinite.
Even if it were, the vast majority of investment dollars won’t be thrown at a such risky proposition, no matter how big the payoff might be.