period, yes stop curing disease.

You freakin idiot
cheech | Homepage | 07.19.06 - 7:34 am | #

Um... do you really think Bush will actually use the veto? Do you think he knows how?
matt | 07.19.06 - 10:05 am | #

Bush will use his veto. on this issue. soon.

Not sure what cheech's point is, but I suggest he stop drinking the bong water.
cicero | Homepage | 07.19.06 - 10:55 am | #

Maybe cheech thought it was a ban on seeds and stems.

The government didn't need to fund Viagra-ish drugs because 1)it works (I hear) and 2) drug companies wanted to make it.

If stem celss research could cure parkinsons and baldness we wouldn't need big pharm corporate welfare.
apple | 07.19.06 - 11:34 am | #

Well, I think you are right to be uneasy about your position.

On points 1&2, I don't think you (or most people, including congress and the president) fully appreciate how fully entangled federal funding is with the entire biomedical research infrastrucuture in this country. It isn't just a matter of the NIH and NIH-funded labs, but also of collaborations, public-private partnerships, training grants, etc. Pharmaceutical companies benefit from the intellectual capital of federally funded labs. Academic labs get built over time through many funding resources, and things like equipment might get purchased on one grant but be used for many projects over years and decades.

My point is that there is no 'vacuum' of federal funding in which a particular kind of science can be done. To ban federal funding of one thing in particular (at least not something that people actually want to do) is not a realistic goal within the framework we currently have.

You can argue that federal funding of science shouldn't happen at all (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you), but that just isn't on the table.

On points 3 and 4--to say that this veto follows some fundamental libertarian ideal is just horseshit. Nobody in the government has any trouble forcing the taxpayers to pay for things they find morally repugnant, be it the war, sex education, or prosecution of nonviolent drug offenders.

Point 5 I think you argue against yourself pretty effectively--this money is just going to go into other science which may or may not (probably not) be as promising.
B | Homepage | 07.19.06 - 1:00 pm | #

B,

well said.

Ron Bailey makes a similar case about not being able to seperate the dollars.
cicero | Homepage | 07.19.06 - 1:35 pm | #

Im doing a paper in english on why i believe that stem cell research is wrong and i beilieve it is wrong because its takeing life and i read in an article that scientist pulled out 91 stemcells and only 2 of them were good enough to be reused and its like they dont care and it just a waste....
Dallas | 11.01.06 - 5:00 pm | #