Blogger of Jared

28 Responses to “The stem sell”

Bush’s veto of federal funding for expanded lines of ESC research effectively shut off the ESC money hose.

Federal funding used to solve social ills is almost always bad. I don’t know why politicians and most of the country believe government funding is the key to solving all social problems. It’s backward thinking! I’m no economist, but it just seems like a much better idea to let people keep their money and force creativity instead of looking to the government to solve our problems.

This post is another good example of the virtues of leaving government out to allow efficiency and goodness room to work their magic.

Comment # 1 left by Wade on August 13th, 2006

This is the main reason why socialism, degenerating into communism, ultimately leads to dissolution of the entire economy and governmental structure. The government thinks that it can throw money at a problem to fix it, or create all sorts of legislation to regulate it, but it has the opposite effect.

Leave innovation, research, and development to the private sector. The results will always, always be more beneficial.

Comment # 2 left by Connor Boyack on August 13th, 2006

The US will be playing second fiddle again. Get used to it.

And whose fault is that? I suppose most would blame Bush for not giving scientists the funding they need to move forward with ESC. Well, guess what, had they spent more time thinking outside the box and less time bemoaning their lack of funding (like the researchers at Kyoto University) they probably could be well on their way to working with a developed non-embryonic entity. Perhaps we’ll see a little bit of that American ingenuity float to the top as they deal with this veto.

Again, I am not commenting on whether Bush’s decision was right or wrong. I’m just saying that as a result of the debate (whether the “religious right” position was flawed or not) new solutionshave been found where they may not have been considered had the funding/legislation gone through uncontested.

Comment # 3 left by Ryan on August 13th, 2006

Wade and Connor,

I think you might misunderstand how the NIH distributes money. If you can explain how the granting process is socialistic, I would be interested. I am also interested in your criticism of the NIH’s “efficiency and goodness”—though I confess I’m not quite sure what that means.

My first thoughts after reading your comments were on the transcontinental railroad, telephone lines, and space race—all incredibly costly projects that were and are vital to the US economy.

Ryan,

“…less time bemoaning their lack of funding….”

The scientists I know that “bemoan funding” do so on “water cooler time;” i.e. a few minutes here and there. Scientific organizations, on the other hand, spend a considerable amount of time pressing government for more funding. If it were not so, the already inadequate supply of money would be even smaller. The solution is not to tell the scientists to stop asking, it is to recognize the return on investment that biomedical research yields and then invest wisely.

“I’m just saying that as a result of the debate new solutions have been found where they may not have been considered….”

Hiroaki Matsubara, the lead researcher on this paper, has been studying this topic for years. I see no reason to interpret his finding as being the result of a debate that began after he was already headed down this road.

“…had the funding/legislation gone through uncontested. “

What of all the “solutions” that would have gone through if there had been adequate funding? If you cut off a man’s legs, you shouldn’t feel justified by him finding an entirely new way to crawl.

Comment # 4 left by BrianJ on August 13th, 2006

By the way, Japan has a very permissive stem cell research policy, so Hiroaki Matsubara could not have felt driven by the stem cell debate.

Comment # 5 left by BrianJ on August 13th, 2006

If it were not so, the already inadequate supply of money would be even smaller. The solution is not to tell the scientists to stop asking

I don’t intend to cast a broad criticism of science, nor am I advocating a decrease in funding to scientific endeavors. I am suggesting that the scientists, both professional and armchair, are fighting to get approval for ESC research in the face of valid opposition. Why not throw our efforts into finishing Dr. Hatsubara’s work which carries far less ethical ambiguity?

If you cut off a man’s legs, you shouldn’t feel justified by him finding an entirely new way to crawl.

I’m not sure that this is a very valid comparison. Maybe a better way of looking at it would be: Telling a man who wants to make a path from point A to point B that the path he wants to make is too close to the cliff edge. He needs to find a safer way to get to his destination. If he insists on building on the cliff edge he’s going to have to do it on his own. I think it is fair to feel justified then, when he finds a safer path (even it takes a bit longer).

Comment # 6 left by Ryan on August 13th, 2006

From my post…

“I don’t really know what the situation is for funding ESC in Kyoto. Nor do I know what the motivation of this researcher was to try and find a substitute entity for the human embryo.”

Unless you have anything beyond circumstantial evidence I think it would be a mistake to make any assumptions regarding Dr. Hatsubara’s motivations

I see no reason to interpret his finding as being the result of a debate that began after he was already headed down this road.

I did not make that claim. I did claim that opposition to ESC has lead to alternative solutions. These are well documented (try googling alternatives embryonic stem cell). I would pretty amazed if none of these alternative studies were prodded by ethical opposition to ESC. I simply cited the Kyoto study as the most dramatic example of the potentially imminent obsolescence (real word?) of ESC

Comment # 7 left by Ryan on August 13th, 2006

BrianJ:

I was making a general statement about government funding to cure social problems. I think your rhetorical comment about railroads may be a bit of a stretch. Was the lack of a railroad a “problem” comparable to the problem faced by those in need of stem cells (embryonic) to cure their illnesses? I’m not convinced.

Also, I think you may have been confused about my “efficiency” comment. Generally, I am in favor of limited government. I trust ALL politicians and bureaucrats as far as I can throw them. As such, it is my belief that tax dollars should not be expended through highly inefficient and wasteful bureaucratic systems.

As for socialism, I’ll let Connor answer that since he made the relationship. However, I’d be happy to join in on the fun once it begins!

Comment # 8 left by Wade on August 13th, 2006

Socialism can be broad or narrow in description, depending on what you are relating it to. I focus largely on a broad description, as favored by Ezra Taft Benson. He wrote an excellent talk titled “The Proper Role of Government”, which I commented on here.

Basically, government should only have vested in it certain powers that the people inherently possess themselves. I have a right to defend my property, and so I may grant the government the same power and give of my money in support of a sheriff for that cause. But I do not have the right to take my neighbor’s money and use it to research stem cell growth. So along that line of thought, the government should not have the power to use my money for the same purpose.

The definition is broad, and some may disagree with it, but it does have the smell of socialism. I understand that certain programs and initiatives the government runs are beneficial (not necessary) to the community as a whole - but that doesn’t take away from the fact that they are socialistic in nature.

Comment # 9 left by Connor Boyack on August 13th, 2006

Interesting topic.

I’m a little out of touch, but would there not potentially be huge profits available to a company who made breakthroughs in this area? Why not let them mostly invest in this?

Also, as an engineer, I see this ‘less is more’ occasionaly. There are often less expensive ways of going about doing things. This is very important in prototype work. Keeping things simple can often be just as beneficial to developing new ideas and methods. Sure you can throw sophisticated servo motor systems at a new machine, but simple pneumatic cylinders with switches and hard stops can be used as well. If money is no object it is tempting to get drawn into certain approaches without thinking about what is needed.

Comment # 10 left by Eric Nielson on August 14th, 2006

I’m a little out of touch, but would there not potentially be huge profits available to a company who made breakthroughs in this area? Why not let them mostly invest in this?

I am guessing that the reason most would give is that, if left completely to the private sector, stem cell breakthroughs run the risk of becoming proprietary. In the case of specialized drugs, this may not be a major issue but if processes are patented by privatized companies , this could hobble the ability of the healthcare industry to provide a cure to a large spectrum of illnesses cost-effectively. Parkinsons disease would become Poor-man-son’s disease.

Comment # 11 left by Ryan on August 14th, 2006

First, thanks for the discussion. Too often on blogs, a topic that I find interesting is not really discussed, it’s just arguing and tangents and regurgitation. Not so here.

Second, I want to respond to each of you, but it might take me a few days (newborn in the house).

So, Eric: “…would there not potentially be huge profits available to a company who made breakthroughs in this area? Why not let them mostly invest in this?” Ditto what Ryan said in response, but I’d like to point to another issue: Couldn’t your question be applied to ALL biomedical research? If that is the reason for cutting stem cell funding, then it would also call for cutting the NIH out of existence. Is that what you propose?

Comment # 12 left by BrianJ on August 14th, 2006

Sorry Brian, I should give you time to get all your responses in (congrats on the new ankle-biter by the way) but I’m a big blabber-mouth… So here’s my approach to your question about apllying Eric’s argument across the biomedical board -

The ESC debate is not one in which it is reasonable to try and use precedent or common practice. The moral and ethical ground is too shaky (as opposed to say, a polio vaccine). Personally I support ESC simply because I have my own opinion of when life begins. It’s no bueno for me to try and impose that opinion on others just as I would resist their imposition on me.

Consequently it seems to me that finding a way to obtain federal funding for less controversial ESC methods would be advisable. This would be a good way for scientists to keep themselves out from under the thumb of religious right legislation. Gratefully we have the work of Kyoto Univ. which allows scientists to choose that path. My original post was additionally suggesting that without the money hose, perhaps it would have been UCSD scientists who discovered the non-embryonic entity.

Comment # 13 left by Ryan on August 14th, 2006

Ryan,

“scientists…are fighting to get approval for ESC research in the face of valid opposition.”

Well, that is the point that I would argue: is the opposition valid? Or, more accurately, is the opposition making valid arguments. I will show my hand here and say that I do NOT think the opposition has any valid arguments that rely on science, economics, or politics.

I DO think that the only valid counter-argument is ethical: is it ethical to experiment on embryos? I don’t know how to argue ethics so I can’t get into that issue. I know that some people believe that an embryo is human and so I see why they oppose the research. I say it isn’t a human, so I see no problem with the research.

“Why not throw our efforts into finishing Dr. [Matsubara’s] work which carries far less ethical ambiguity?”

1) Suppose his research is only useful for some forms of heart disease. Suppose you reach that conclusion 15 yrs from now. Then what?
2) Suppose his research is never directly applicable? Then what?
3) Suppose his research is, like the vast majority of scientific discovery, inter-dependent on dozens of other initially unrelated studies, including other stem cell research? The all-eggs-in-one-basket approach would leave those other pieces undiscovered.
4) Suppose other avenues are more immediately beneficial?

I think all of these points are possibilities, and some are very likely. I recognize, by the way, that none of them matter in the ethical realm of the debate.

Comment # 14 left by BrianJ on August 14th, 2006

Ryan, my comments are getting longer than your post, so who’s the blabber-mouth?

Re: my analogy of cutting off a man’s legs vs your analogy of finding a safer path. I like your analogy. I also like mine. I think they both work in describing the different ways of viewing the debate. From the scientific point of view, I think my analogy works best. From the ethical point of view, however, yours is more relevant.

Comment # 15 left by BrianJ on August 14th, 2006

Ryan,

“Unless you have anything beyond circumstantial evidence I think it would be a mistake to make any assumptions regarding Dr. Hatsubara’s motivations”

My assumptions were based on: Dr. Matsubara’s web site, where he describes his own research. He says nothing about looking for alternatives to embryonic stem cells. I know, absence doesn’t prove, but I think it is more than circumstantial. He also has an embryonic stem cell project going, but I couldn’t find much info on that.

The reason I think this is important: I have seen several of these “alternative breakthroughs” get interpreted as indications that the president’s restrictions aren’t really hindering scientists. If the argument is: See, Dr X discovered this alternative after the “ban”, so the “ban” must be helping. Then that is circumstantial.

Comment # 16 left by BrianJ on August 14th, 2006

Ryan (final comment for the night, I promise):

“I did claim that opposition to ESC has lead to alternative solutions…. I would [be] pretty amazed if none of these alternative studies were prodded by ethical opposition to ESC.”

The burden of proof is on you.

Comment # 17 left by BrianJ on August 14th, 2006

BrianJ:

This stuff is so far out of my normal thoughts that I am not making any serious proposals here. In general I would prefer to let the free market take it’s course other than have big government throughing lots of cash around.

It seems that there is almost no accountability for how the money gets spent when governement is footing the bill. If a company is paying for it - the expect results. Effeciently done. I’m sure that this is not the best way in all cases, but what I would prefer generally.

Comment # 18 left by Eric Nielson on August 15th, 2006

Wade,

Thanks for the reply.

To feed the tangent: The reason I mentioned the railroad, etc rhetorically is because I saw them as not perfectly anaologous. The basic structure, however, is there:

You asked, “Was the lack of a railroad a “problem” comparable to the problem faced by those in need of stem cells (embryonic) to cure their illnesses?”

Well, certainly the railroad does not compare to life and health. But the lack of an inexpensive means of transporting goods across a vast country was a serious problem; the railroad was a solution. The lack of a cure for diabetes is a vast problem; stem cells may be a solution. My point being that the government has thrown vast amounts of money into solving nationwide problems in the past and it has not always ended up a bad thing (as your and Connor’s comments seemed to imply).

“I think you may have been confused about my “efficiency” comment.”

I was, so thanks for the clarification.

“…tax dollars should not be expended through highly inefficient and wasteful bureaucratic systems.”

I think you may find the NIH’s method of distributing money very refreshing. I apologize if I sound “teachy,” but if you’re interested I could give you a sketch of how it works.

“As for socialism, I’ll let Connor answer that since he made the relationship.”

Render unto Connor the things which are Connor’s….

Comment # 19 left by BrianJ on August 15th, 2006

Connor,

Thanks for the reply. Your focus on Ezra Benson’s model of government might explain why we disagree and will continue to disagree. I haven’t thought through the premise (”government should only have vested in it certain powers that the people inherently possess themselves”), but it seems acceptable. But I do have a problem is in its application:

“I have a right to defend my property, and so I may grant the government the same power and give of my money in support of a sheriff for that cause.”

I’m with you on that…

“But I do not have the right to take my neighbor’s money and use it to research stem cell growth.”

…but not on that. Let me rearrange your proof and you’ll see why I don’t like it:

I have a right to use my money to research stem cell growth, and so I may grant the government the same power and give of my money in support of a scientist for that cause. But I do not have the right to take my neighbor’s money and use it to defend my property.

In other words, what do you do when 99% of the people give their money to the government to build a monorail, but 1% want their money to fix the potholes on mainstreet? What do you say to the 1%? Does it make a difference if it’s 80/20? 60/40?

“I understand that certain programs and initiatives the government runs are beneficial (not necessary) to the community as a whole - but that doesn’t take away from the fact that they are socialistic in nature.”

Do you consider health to be beneficial but not necessary? (I know that’s not explicitly what you said, but should I read it that way?) And just so we’re clear: are you opposed to these beneficial programs solely because they’re socialistic?

Comment # 20 left by BrianJ on August 15th, 2006

Eric,

“It seems that there is almost no accountability for how the money gets spent when governement is footing the bill. If a company is paying for it - the expect results. Effeciently done. I’m sure that this is not the best way in all cases, but what I would prefer generally.”

I agree with you. Very much. I’ll echo what I wrote to Wade: I think you may find the NIH’s method of distributing money very refreshing.

Comment # 21 left by BrianJ on August 15th, 2006

In other words, what do you do when 99% of the people give their money to the government to build a monorail, but 1% want their money to fix the potholes on mainstreet? What do you say to the 1%? Does it make a difference if it’s 80/20? 60/40?

This is the duality of democracy: it is both a blessing and a curse, depending on which side of the line you find yourself on. The majority rules in this country. In Bensons’ example illustrating this point, he talks about some farmers who collectively fund a sherriff for protection. If that same group also wanted to collectively fund a scientist to research health remedies, then that would also be acceptable; the caveat is that the people must decide what powers to grant the government. It is “we the people”, not “we the government”.

So if the majority of the people in the United States wish to fund stem cell research, and explore the possibilities that lie therein, then fine. I’m all for that. That is what democracy allows for, and advocates. But when the government takes its own initiative in these matters, that’s when it starts teetering towards socialism, with Uncle Sam thinking that he knows what’s best.

Do you consider health to be beneficial but not necessary?

So long as the collective wishes to pursue this avenue, I’m okay with it. The people must decide how their tax money is to be used, and if the majority is opposed to funding stem cell research, then it should be nixed.

…are you opposed to these beneficial programs solely because they’re socialistic?

Yes. I’m sure, with God’s guidance, there are countless more medical discoveries to be made. I’m sure that there will be numerous advances in medical technology that will save and prolong life. But I am against socialism. I want these discoveries, advances, and research to be left up to the private sector, with private investors, and private accountability.

I’m not sure any of that made any sense, but that wouldn’t be anything new

Comment # 22 left by Connor Boyack on August 15th, 2006

Brian:

I like your style; very respectful and thoughtful responses and challenges!

I have to admit, I know virtually nothing about the NIH and its methods of distributing money etc. And actually, I’d be interested to hear more about it. In fact, if you would be willing, I think it would be a great idea to have you write up your synopsis and e-mail it to us and we’ll post it here–we’ll make a note that it is in conjunction with this post.

. . .the government has thrown vast amounts of money into solving nationwide problems in the past and it has not always ended up a bad thing. . . .

I’ll have to concede this argument to you as well. It’s useless to argue against it. But as a general principle, I don’t like bureaucracy; thus, my distaste of taxes and government spending.

Lastly, I would like to respond to your challenge/question to Connor:

. . .are you opposed to these beneficial programs solely because they’re socialistic?

I have two views: 1) my utopian view (what I think would be idea) which actually does not leave socialism out of the picture–in a sense; and 2) my realist view–or what I think is the only practical approach, i.e. we have to do all we can to limit government and those who wield power within it.

You can read about my utopian view in a post I published back in February titled: Denunciation of Democracy. Basically, I think the best type of regime is an aristocracy in which only a select few would rule; they would rule because they are the best suited to rule. The impossibility of this ideal is that those suited to rule would refuse to. My post is the shortes I’ve ever put on the blog. You’ll have to get my view from the comments section.

So, I guess I can understand why some people long for socialism. What I don’t understand is that these people don’t understand human nature. Anyone who seriously advocates for a different political regime other than a severely restricted republic is simply naive.

Comment # 23 left by Wade on August 15th, 2006

Wade,

“write up your synopsis and e-mail it “

Thanks for the invitation. I have something just about ready. As you can tell, brevity is not my forte, so I am trying to trim it down.

Comment # 24 left by BrianJ on August 17th, 2006

I look forward to it!

Comment # 25 left by Wade on August 18th, 2006

Wade,

And your email address is…?

Comment # 26 left by BrianJ on August 18th, 2006

Brian,

you can send it to wpoulson@gmail.com

Comment # 27 left by Wade on August 19th, 2006

[...] Is Government Funding of Health Research Good or Bad? Well, recently Ryan posted an interesting read about funding for stem cell research. The post can be read here. In short, Ryan argued that sometimes it’s important not to throw money at certain projects, because it may stifle creativity and innovation. [...]

Comment # 28 left by Blogger of Jared » Blog Archive » A Different View of Government Funding on August 21st, 2006

Post a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail