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.
No comments:
Post a Comment