I waited a long time before weighing in on the embryonic stem cell research debate because science was always my worst subject. As the debate unfolded, two things really began to bother me about the position of the proponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The first is how much they twisted Bush's position. They completely ignored its sophistication and turned a nuanced position into something extreme. How many times have you heard opponents claim he is against stem cell research? He is not against stem cell research. In fact, he is not against any cell research. He is against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in which embryos are created to be destroyed. That is almost never an acknowledgement the other side wants to give. Second, I could never understand why, if embryonic stem cell research was so fabulous, it couldn't be funded in the private sector. The answers I got usually amounted to what I considered rationalizations, excuses, and nonsense. The fact is that there is a healthy market for philanthropy.
It makes me wonder how folks could at the same time believe that embryonic stem cell research is the second coming and also believe that it couldn't survive in the philanthropic market. After all, if embryonic stem cell research would literally make the likes of Christopher Reeve get up and walk, there should be plenty of billionaires ready to throw their fortunes at the research. For some reason the proponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research both want us to believe it is the end all be all and that it cannot survive without federal assistance.
This dichotomy is nonsensical. The fact is that the free market, of which philanthropic dollars is one, has a way of determining worth and value in a manner much more perfect than any artificial means. If embryonic stem cell research really is as great as its proponents claim they should welcome having it compete in the philanthropic free market.
It is both dangerous and amazing how often well meaning liberals believe one thing or another should be excluded from free market principles and controlled by the government. Health care is the best example. Most liberals would vehemently object to being characterized as socialist. Yet, many of these same folks support socialized medicine. Health care, they say, should be excluded from free markets because profits are counter productive when it comes to caring for the ill. Scientific research should also be immune apparently.
Of course, the liberal mindset doesn't stop merely in the area of health. The current mortgage crisis has created a plethora of anti free market, quasi socialist ideas. It appears economic crisis, and housing, are yet another example of when the free market can't be trusted.
Global warming is another example. If anyone saw the debate between John Kerry and Newt Gingrich on Global Warming, you saw another example of the liberal mindset rejecting the free market. While Gingrich argued for tax breaks to encourage the private sector to come up with new innovations, John Kerry proposed a series of government regulation because as he admitted himself, he didn't trust the free market to come up with answers on its own.
Of course, the whole thing is nonsense. Companies like Microsoft, Dell, Apple, and Intel have changed the world. They have revolutionized everything their contribution to the improvement of the quality of life is immeasurable. Yet, not only did Bill Gates never dream of getting a government handout for his idea, there would have been no one, no one, from any ideology that would have thought it a good idea to give him one.
While I will no doubt get a plethora of liberals and SPs espousing the differences between embryonic stem cell research and software, I firmly believe the difference is in their minds only. The technological revolution has brought people together, made research, data, and thought more accessible, more affordable, and more timely. The lives saved as a result are immeasurable, and it was all done without a government hand out. The accomplishments of Gates et al are no less noble or important than the work of those in embryonic stem cell research. It just appears some believe that embryonic stem cell research should be held to a standard others aren't.
The reality is that you either believe that free markets always work best or you don't. Those that make exceptions to the power of free markets are really socialists in sheeps clothing expousing the greater good. Not embryonic stem cell research, health care, global warming, or any other problem is too good, too important, or too unique, not to be solved by the free market. Those that claim otherwise should be called out for the socialists that they are.
Showing posts with label embryonic stem cell research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label embryonic stem cell research. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Sunday, December 23, 2007
If Embryonic Stem Cell Research is SOO Great...
Why doesn't George Soros use one of his several billions to fund it? This is the question that I asked to a liberal family friend at Thanksgiving dinner. The question came up after they mischaracterized George Bush's position on stem cell research. They claimed that George Bush is against stem cell research.
First, Bush's position, along with his supporters on this issue, must be clarified. Bush isn't against stem cell research and in fact he isn't against any form of stem cell research at all, even the controversial embryonic stem cell research. Bush isn't even against government funding for all embryonic stem cell research. He is for funding on embryonic stem cells that have already been discarded. What he is against is the government funding of embryonic stem cell research in which embryos are created for the sole purpose of being destroyed for research. He doesn't believe that tax payer funds should be used for research in which human life is destroyed.
A new scientific discovery has put the issue of embryonic stem cell research back in the forefront. I want to give a hat tip to my Redstate colleague tomlinsondouthat for finally putting this sophisticated science into layman's terms. Think of the different forms of stem cell research as disks. Adult stem cells are blank disks however they can only be used for one purpose like: DVD's, CD's, games, etc. This is called multipotent. Embryonic stem cells are blank disks that can serve any function. This is called pluripotent. Obviously it goes without saying that there is potential in embryonic stem cell research not held in traditional stem cell research. Now, scientists have discovered a technique in which they can essentially take adult stem cells and remove all of their data and turn them into something close to any embryonic stem cell.
The science is interesting and fascinating but let's face it most of us are too stupid to understand. The morality, on the other hand, is something all of us need to think about. Proponents of federal funding for stem cell research believe that any procedure with potential must be explored because science must be given a chance to flourish fully. While this is true, there must also be some line that we cannot cross even if there is scientific potential. For instance, human cloning has plenty of scientific potential and even this scientific layman wouldn't be surprised if it lead to many discoveries that saved lives. That doesn't mean that we as a society should support its research, and it certainly doesn't mean that the federal government should use tax payer funds to fund it. Heinrich Himmler's experiments also probably had great scientific potential. Of course, no one believes those should be done let alone funded by the federal government.
There will be many proponents of embryonic stem cell research that will say my comparisons are ridiculous and unfair. Are they though? After all, proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe we should create human life for the sole purpose of destroying it. Given that context is it really not a good comparison? What is more obscene than the destruction of human life? THAT IS THE ROOT OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
The proponents of embryonic stem cell research don't consider an embryo a human life because it doesn't perform all the functions of traditional humans. This is of course the most obscene position. They are the ones that favor destroying the life before it lives the way they consider living and then say it isn't really a life. These are the important questions that proponents of embryonic stem cell research refuse to answer or write off.
In fact, it was Bush's insistence on moral and ethical scientific research that fostered the environment for the innovations recently discovered in stem cell research. While his opponents condemned him for standing in the way of scientific breakthroughs, he provided funding to the National Institute of Health so that scientists could develop methods of research on stem cells that didn't face the moral dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research.
It is exactly the sort of society that Hitler favored that says morals and ethics be damned in favor of scientific research. While those, like my family friend, condescend to those like me who have the nerve to ask such ethical questions, I ask my original question? If embryonic stem cell research is so great then why can't scientists get George Soros to provide funding.
I recently read the book, Freedomnomics, and it left me with no doubt. The free market is the ultimate equalizer. If embryonic stem cell research is really that great and all moral questions are trivial then researchers should have no trouble going into the private marketplace for funding. There are more than enough philanthropists looking to park their money in worthy causes. If the proponents of embryonic stem cell research are really right, they don't need the federal government to give them a hand out for funding research. That isn't what they want though. They want us all to ignore the important ethical questions raised by embryonic stem cell research, and still use government, or tax payer funds, to fund it. This despite the fact that many tax payers are against this sort of research.
The proponents of stem cell research on the one hand claim that ALL ethical questions are trivial and then want to force tax payers to fund the research despite their own ethical questions. If all ethical questions are irrelevant, and embryonic stem cell research is all that, then the private marketplace really is the best place for embryonic stem cell research.
The fact that proponents are so forceful in supporting government hand outs tells me that maybe their position really isn't all that.
First, Bush's position, along with his supporters on this issue, must be clarified. Bush isn't against stem cell research and in fact he isn't against any form of stem cell research at all, even the controversial embryonic stem cell research. Bush isn't even against government funding for all embryonic stem cell research. He is for funding on embryonic stem cells that have already been discarded. What he is against is the government funding of embryonic stem cell research in which embryos are created for the sole purpose of being destroyed for research. He doesn't believe that tax payer funds should be used for research in which human life is destroyed.
A new scientific discovery has put the issue of embryonic stem cell research back in the forefront. I want to give a hat tip to my Redstate colleague tomlinsondouthat for finally putting this sophisticated science into layman's terms. Think of the different forms of stem cell research as disks. Adult stem cells are blank disks however they can only be used for one purpose like: DVD's, CD's, games, etc. This is called multipotent. Embryonic stem cells are blank disks that can serve any function. This is called pluripotent. Obviously it goes without saying that there is potential in embryonic stem cell research not held in traditional stem cell research. Now, scientists have discovered a technique in which they can essentially take adult stem cells and remove all of their data and turn them into something close to any embryonic stem cell.
The science is interesting and fascinating but let's face it most of us are too stupid to understand. The morality, on the other hand, is something all of us need to think about. Proponents of federal funding for stem cell research believe that any procedure with potential must be explored because science must be given a chance to flourish fully. While this is true, there must also be some line that we cannot cross even if there is scientific potential. For instance, human cloning has plenty of scientific potential and even this scientific layman wouldn't be surprised if it lead to many discoveries that saved lives. That doesn't mean that we as a society should support its research, and it certainly doesn't mean that the federal government should use tax payer funds to fund it. Heinrich Himmler's experiments also probably had great scientific potential. Of course, no one believes those should be done let alone funded by the federal government.
There will be many proponents of embryonic stem cell research that will say my comparisons are ridiculous and unfair. Are they though? After all, proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe we should create human life for the sole purpose of destroying it. Given that context is it really not a good comparison? What is more obscene than the destruction of human life? THAT IS THE ROOT OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
The proponents of embryonic stem cell research don't consider an embryo a human life because it doesn't perform all the functions of traditional humans. This is of course the most obscene position. They are the ones that favor destroying the life before it lives the way they consider living and then say it isn't really a life. These are the important questions that proponents of embryonic stem cell research refuse to answer or write off.
In fact, it was Bush's insistence on moral and ethical scientific research that fostered the environment for the innovations recently discovered in stem cell research. While his opponents condemned him for standing in the way of scientific breakthroughs, he provided funding to the National Institute of Health so that scientists could develop methods of research on stem cells that didn't face the moral dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research.
It is exactly the sort of society that Hitler favored that says morals and ethics be damned in favor of scientific research. While those, like my family friend, condescend to those like me who have the nerve to ask such ethical questions, I ask my original question? If embryonic stem cell research is so great then why can't scientists get George Soros to provide funding.
I recently read the book, Freedomnomics, and it left me with no doubt. The free market is the ultimate equalizer. If embryonic stem cell research is really that great and all moral questions are trivial then researchers should have no trouble going into the private marketplace for funding. There are more than enough philanthropists looking to park their money in worthy causes. If the proponents of embryonic stem cell research are really right, they don't need the federal government to give them a hand out for funding research. That isn't what they want though. They want us all to ignore the important ethical questions raised by embryonic stem cell research, and still use government, or tax payer funds, to fund it. This despite the fact that many tax payers are against this sort of research.
The proponents of stem cell research on the one hand claim that ALL ethical questions are trivial and then want to force tax payers to fund the research despite their own ethical questions. If all ethical questions are irrelevant, and embryonic stem cell research is all that, then the private marketplace really is the best place for embryonic stem cell research.
The fact that proponents are so forceful in supporting government hand outs tells me that maybe their position really isn't all that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
