Tobacco

It’s an existing industry. The ball had been rolling for hundreds of years before its legal troubles.

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.

- 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.

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.

1) They’re not. Harvard is the exception with a pretty substantial, privately-funded program.

Please support that assertion.

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.

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?

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.

And, as usual, most news sites are headlining it simply as a "stem cell vote," disingenuous at best. I'll give a "well done" to Andrew Taylor at the AP for a well written, factual, somewhat unbiased story
WASHINGTON Ja…

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?

Since the market doesn’t seem to buy the hype

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.

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.

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.

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.

Their ranks bolstered by the November elections, supporters of legislation boosting taxpayer-funded