Thanks for the link. If I have the energy, I'll try another post addressing your funding points.
BTW, the links in this IP post speak to that same clannishness you'd mentioned about scientific cliques in cancer and AIDS, but this one is resistance to an engineer/theoretical biologist who addresses anti-aging.
I suppose the government gives most of the grant money to the same kinds of mentalities that designed the space shuttles back in the 1970s. Fragile ceramic tiles, tanks filled with liquid chilled to the point where they require styrofoam packaging, which in turn breaks loose and pops the tiles, and on and on.
All of that is true. Government subsidy of ideas leads to government control of ideas. I'm against that. I'm going to refer you back again to The Ayn Rand Letter, "The Establishing of an Establishment", (May 8, 1972-May 22, 1972).
I know, I know, I can already hear the predictable attacks on Ayn Rand based on certain rumors about her private life, rumors which are now in the process of being refuted.... Anyway!....
I don't disagree with the general point about government funding of research. However, as long as we have a system that relies so heavily on federal funding, I can't see leaving out stem cell research.
But that can be used to justify spending on any research. So do we just fund all research projects?
A question which helps make my point: will there ever come a point when we decide that stem cell research wasn't what it was promised to be and that funding should be terminated? At what definable point would that become obvious? When would the spending get terminated? Ever?
Don't tell me what you think stem cell research might bring. Tell me what you will acknowledge would prove that the research money might have been more wisely spent on some other area of research?
In other words, what will render your claim that the research is worthwhile falsifiable?
Richard Nixon declared a "war on cancer" well over 30 years ago, with hundreds of billions spent on the subject ever since. While that research has taught us some interesting things, it has brought us no closer to curing cancer than we were when Nixon was still in office. Oncologists have gotten somewhat better at extending cancer patients' lives, but most of that has come out of clinical experience, not the tens of billions researchers at NIH have spent.
So. Is there any point where we ask if the entire approach has been wrong? Or do we continue to pour billions into studying failed paradigms and theories under the assumption that "research is good?"
What, if anything, in the current system acts as a braking mechanism? At what definable point do we say, "Okay, you've been wasting our resources, time to look at something else?"
No one can ever answer that question for me. Not so far anyway. Which leads me to continue to suggest that something is fundamentally broken in our approach to these things.
A question which helps make my point: will there ever come a point when we decide that stem cell research wasn't what it was promised to be and that funding should be terminated? At what definable point would that become obvious? When would the spending get terminated? Ever?
You are really asking the key question about any government program, Dean. To borrow a phrase from the neo-left regarding a certain armed conflict we are currently engaged in in the middle east: What's your exit strategy?
Unfortunately, bureaucracy and the bright, shining future of science mean that such funding will never decrease or disappear. It takes a long time to turn coal into diamonds.
I'm sorry, but you are merely critiquing without laying out YOUR specific measurable goals as to what constitutes viable benchmarks and standards for government involvement.
While concurrently seeming to demand that the onus is on other side of the issue (for govt spending on the research) show YOU specifics, measurable progress for "blue sky" research.
A question which helps make my point: will there ever come a point when we decide that stem cell research wasn't what it was promised to be and that funding should be terminated? At what definable point would that become obvious? When would the spending get terminated? Ever?
Conceivably, there is a "market" of competition for govt grants that would dry up when the research hit a dead end. Now, you and I both know that this process is a terribly inefficient market, basically not a true market at all, rather a bureaucracy.
BUT - the entire method of funding scientific research is an imperfect market, including private and public efforts. AND - just because public funding carries these grave flaws does not logically EQUAL the total invalidation of publicly funded research.
Your cynicism about govt funding is predetermining your opinion of any publicly funded ESR, an area of research which has just come into its own as having potential utility. As for this:
Don't tell me what you think stem cell research might bring. Tell me what you will acknowledge would prove that the research money might have been more wisely spent on some other area of research?
That;'s you saying "it will fail. Now set your standards for admitting failure." While saying "don't tell what you think it may achieve."
Well, I have to admit scratching my head at that. Researchers move in directions that they THINK will prove successful, not directions that they KNOW will be successful.
From the flip side - what specifically would satisfy you, Dean Esmay, in terms of worthy success? Within realistic expectations?
I don't intend to change the subject to Iraq, except to say that more than once I've defined what I would consider success and what I could consider failure, and I'll be happy to discuss those in another thread. But I will say that if you want tax money for a venture, it should not be unreasonable to ask how you intend to define success or failure. We can disagree over the answers, but we should be able to ask them.
The advocates for stem cell research are making very lofty and grandiose claims about the miracles it might produce: amd end to alzheimer's, repair of broken spines, possibly cures for cancer and heart disease, maybe even growing new organs to replace damaged ones or reversing the aging process. This is what's supposed to justify spending billions in research--and furthermore, it is being suggested that despite these massive hoped-for miracles, we cannot count on private research to do it because apparently there won't be enough money to be made with all these miracle cures to cause non-profit foundations and for-profit corporations to fund the necessary research.
So I ask what will define success and what will define failure. And I ask why THIS area of research is more important than other areas of research that don't get funded.
Or is the answer simply, "research is good, we should fund more of it?"
Why don't more stem cell advocates enthusiasts look more to the kind of stem cells that have actually had results? Adult/umbilical stem cells have provided cures. The last actual result I heard about embryonic stem cells, as opposed to hype, is that they're too mutable, that they're unstable. What's with the insistance that, with more money thrown at them, this will - nay, MUST - magically change?
I'll come firmly down on your side that when we decide to grant money for research, the recipients must define what constitutes failure - it is a brilliant approach, if you think about it. Success for the researchers would be, of course, a cure for everything - as long as everything isn't cured they haven't failed per se - and please keep the money flowing. But if we make them define failure - and especially if we make them set a time frame for completion - then we'll make them produce results or lose funding. Man, Dean, we oughta get you in government...
Drawbacks? Of course it has drawbacks - you can't for sure state when your research will produce results...but, then again, anything unlikely to produce concrete results for the general public in less than, say, 10 years isn't something government should be funding anyways....
As for Frist's position - I haven't studied it completely, but it doesn't seem as great a departure from the President's position as some are saying...from what I understand, Frist would still adhere to a position that no human life may be created with the express purpose of destroying said life. I'll have to bat this around back and forth in the mind for a bit before I decide whether its ok - but it seems to me that the MSM as well as some pro-lifers are making a very large tempest in a teapot, and this might actually be more related to politics...for the MSM, just getting a dig in at President Bush; for some pro-lifers, a desire to derail Frist in favor of some other candidate some pro-lifers have in mind for 2008.
Um - although I generally depise what is being touted as "research" these days, since most of it seems to be nothing more than advanced data massage as opposed to any meaningful research, I must say that failure is a fundamental and important component of all research. You often learn even more from your "failures" than you do from your successes. Stem cell research is no more promising than many other areas of inquiry. Smart researchers have discovered over the years that it is not the true merit of your idea that gets you the money in today's research environment, it's your marketing. Stem cell researchers are playing brilliant political football to generate interest in funding their endeavors.
My problem with this is that in 20 years of embryonic stem cell recearch not one cure has ever come out of it. Whereas over 60 cures have come from adult and cord stem cells. Why do so many scientists get so worked up over recearch that has produced no results in 20 years? I'd say they like beating a dead horse but I think the horse got up and left awhile ago.
Thanks for the link. If I have the energy, I'll try another post addressing your funding points.
BTW, the links in this IP post speak to that same clannishness you'd mentioned about scientific cliques in cancer and AIDS, but this one is resistance to an engineer/theoretical biologist who addresses anti-aging.
Science by committee.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I know, I know, I can already hear the predictable attacks on Ayn Rand based on certain rumors about her private life, rumors which are now in the process of being refuted.... Anyway!....
A question which helps make my point: will there ever come a point when we decide that stem cell research wasn't what it was promised to be and that funding should be terminated? At what definable point would that become obvious? When would the spending get terminated? Ever?
Don't tell me what you think stem cell research might bring. Tell me what you will acknowledge would prove that the research money might have been more wisely spent on some other area of research?
In other words, what will render your claim that the research is worthwhile falsifiable?
Richard Nixon declared a "war on cancer" well over 30 years ago, with hundreds of billions spent on the subject ever since. While that research has taught us some interesting things, it has brought us no closer to curing cancer than we were when Nixon was still in office. Oncologists have gotten somewhat better at extending cancer patients' lives, but most of that has come out of clinical experience, not the tens of billions researchers at NIH have spent.
So. Is there any point where we ask if the entire approach has been wrong? Or do we continue to pour billions into studying failed paradigms and theories under the assumption that "research is good?"
What, if anything, in the current system acts as a braking mechanism? At what definable point do we say, "Okay, you've been wasting our resources, time to look at something else?"
No one can ever answer that question for me. Not so far anyway. Which leads me to continue to suggest that something is fundamentally broken in our approach to these things.
You are really asking the key question about any government program, Dean. To borrow a phrase from the neo-left regarding a certain armed conflict we are currently engaged in in the middle east: What's your exit strategy?
Unfortunately, bureaucracy and the bright, shining future of science mean that such funding will never decrease or disappear. It takes a long time to turn coal into diamonds.
I'm sorry, but you are merely critiquing without laying out YOUR specific measurable goals as to what constitutes viable benchmarks and standards for government involvement.
While concurrently seeming to demand that the onus is on other side of the issue (for govt spending on the research) show YOU specifics, measurable progress for "blue sky" research.
A question which helps make my point: will there ever come a point when we decide that stem cell research wasn't what it was promised to be and that funding should be terminated? At what definable point would that become obvious? When would the spending get terminated? Ever?
Conceivably, there is a "market" of competition for govt grants that would dry up when the research hit a dead end. Now, you and I both know that this process is a terribly inefficient market, basically not a true market at all, rather a bureaucracy.
BUT - the entire method of funding scientific research is an imperfect market, including private and public efforts. AND - just because public funding carries these grave flaws does not logically EQUAL the total invalidation of publicly funded research.
Your cynicism about govt funding is predetermining your opinion of any publicly funded ESR, an area of research which has just come into its own as having potential utility. As for this:
Don't tell me what you think stem cell research might bring. Tell me what you will acknowledge would prove that the research money might have been more wisely spent on some other area of research?
That;'s you saying "it will fail. Now set your standards for admitting failure." While saying "don't tell what you think it may achieve."
Well, I have to admit scratching my head at that. Researchers move in directions that they THINK will prove successful, not directions that they KNOW will be successful.
From the flip side - what specifically would satisfy you, Dean Esmay, in terms of worthy success? Within realistic expectations?
The advocates for stem cell research are making very lofty and grandiose claims about the miracles it might produce: amd end to alzheimer's, repair of broken spines, possibly cures for cancer and heart disease, maybe even growing new organs to replace damaged ones or reversing the aging process. This is what's supposed to justify spending billions in research--and furthermore, it is being suggested that despite these massive hoped-for miracles, we cannot count on private research to do it because apparently there won't be enough money to be made with all these miracle cures to cause non-profit foundations and for-profit corporations to fund the necessary research.
So I ask what will define success and what will define failure. And I ask why THIS area of research is more important than other areas of research that don't get funded.
Or is the answer simply, "research is good, we should fund more of it?"
advocatesenthusiasts look more to the kind of stem cells that have actually had results? Adult/umbilical stem cells have provided cures. The last actual result I heard about embryonic stem cells, as opposed to hype, is that they're too mutable, that they're unstable. What's with the insistance that, with more money thrown at them, this will - nay, MUST - magically change?I'll come firmly down on your side that when we decide to grant money for research, the recipients must define what constitutes failure - it is a brilliant approach, if you think about it. Success for the researchers would be, of course, a cure for everything - as long as everything isn't cured they haven't failed per se - and please keep the money flowing. But if we make them define failure - and especially if we make them set a time frame for completion - then we'll make them produce results or lose funding. Man, Dean, we oughta get you in government...
Drawbacks? Of course it has drawbacks - you can't for sure state when your research will produce results...but, then again, anything unlikely to produce concrete results for the general public in less than, say, 10 years isn't something government should be funding anyways....