Bush to veto Stem Cell bill.....Again

"As I said it is all too nebulous to calculate with any degree of certaintity."

What a complete crock of shit. If the government invests $100b into R&D that is used by pharma/tech/biotech companies, then they should receive back $100b from the companies that use that research. It is quite simple to calculate the amount they invest. Please explain further why you feel it is too "nebulous" to count..... because I can't stop laughin.
 
"This happens to be a very liberal position. Not sure if you were aware of that. "

Cypress... not sure if you are aware or not... but I don't care if an idea is from a liberal or a conservative... as long as it is logical and will benefit the country as a whole.
 
beefy, I know the Libertarian arguments. I've seen them all. If you read their websites, they would have you believe that the Founders would have been aghast at Federal funding for scientific purposes.


Except that the founders WEREN'T against federal funding for scientific purposes. What do you think Jefferson's Lewis and Clark expedition was? Not only was it a survey of land, but it had an express scientific purpose to catalog and study the geology, geography, botany, and biology of the West.

Small "l" libertarian. I've left the party due to its gross lack of political expedience and savvy. I've left also due to its radical and inflexible structure. But the ideology was there long before the party took its name.

Lewis and Clark. Yes, they studied nature on the journey, as they should have, but this was not a federally funded science project. The disagreement I find is in that the scientific nature of the exploration was simply secondary to the fact that they were out as the scouts for Manifest Destiny. I truly, highly doubt that it was the other way around, and if it were, it would ever have been funded.

Lewis and Clark was not a precedent for federally funded scientific research. And it is a very long bridge to cross to use Lewis and Clark to justify funding stem-cell research at the federal level.
 
Cypress, not to intrude into your discussion with Beefy.... but again I pose the question.... do you really believe that private funding would not step up and provide basic research? The corporations HAVE to have it. It has to be done or their product pipelines dry up.... and the corps follow. Now maybe it is your liberal ideology that makes you feel that corps cannot plan for the long run, but when you have a necessity.... it will be provided for... or demise follows.
 
The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

//

Hmm.... and the Gipper was head of the government. What does this really say ? Was he making an observation or what was the context ?
 
The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

//

Hmm.... and the Gipper was head of the government. What does this really say ? Was he making an observation or what was the context ?

Are you cereal?
 
The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

//

Hmm.... and the Gipper was head of the government. What does this really say ? Was he making an observation or what was the context ?
He was pointing out what he perceived to be a problem that needed resolving.
 
Just one point if no one mentioned it I think the Senate vote was 67-24 on the stem cell bill. I guess some repubs turned, and some did not have the balls to vote.
 
Cypress, not to intrude into your discussion with Beefy.... but again I pose the question.... do you really believe that private funding would not step up and provide basic research? The corporations HAVE to have it. It has to be done or their product pipelines dry up.... and the corps follow. Now maybe it is your liberal ideology that makes you feel that corps cannot plan for the long run, but when you have a necessity.... it will be provided for... or demise follows.


Cypress, not to intrude into your discussion with Beefy.... but again I pose the question.... do you really believe that private funding would not step up and provide basic research?


Read post #38. I covered this.

But, to further illustrate, what do you think the odds are that private corporations will fund (to any great extent) astronomy and space exploration, the study of volcanoes and volcanic processes, or to build expensive nuclear partical accelerators to unlock the mysteries of subatomic particles?

The answer is: they would't spend much of their stockholders money on this stuff. Where is the profit motive for studying volcanoes? For studying neutrinos? For studying black holes and comets? There is no immediatly apparent profit motive on the horizon, for this kind of basic research. That's why corporations will mostly fund research, for which there is a demonstrable profit motive.
 
Last edited:

Cypress, not to intrude into your discussion with Beefy.... but again I pose the question.... do you really believe that private funding would not step up and provide basic research?


Read post #38. I covered this.

But, to further illustrate, what do you think the odds are that private corporations will fund (to any great extent) astronomy and space exploration, the study of volcanoes and volcanic processes, or to build expensive nuclear partical accelerators to unlock the mysteries of subatomic particles?

The answer is: they would't spend much of their stockholders money on this stuff. Where is the profit motive for studying volcanoes? For studying neutrinos? For studying black holes and comets? There is no immediatly apparent profit motive on the horizon, for this kind of basic research. That's why corporations will mostly fund research, for which there is a demonstrable profit motive.
Profit margin for studying volcanoes could be in inexpensive energy production. Imagine the profit margin on energy produced from heated underground sources. Once the infrastructure was in there would be little overhead cost.
 
Profit margin for studying volcanoes could be in inexpensive energy production. Imagine the profit margin on energy produced from heated underground sources. Once the infrastructure was in there would be little overhead cost.


Please. You know I'm right. You're just unwilling to admit it.

Geothermal energy is an infintesimally small, and not very profitible part of the energy mix. And locating a geothermal plant next to an active volcano is too play suicide with stockholders money. Noboby puts geothermal plants next to active volcanoes.

And you skipped over a whole host of other basic science I mentioned, that will largely go unfunded if we expect Ford, Chysler, and Exxon to somehow pick up the tab.
 
Then, there's the issue of academic freedom.

When you have to justify your research, based on a profit motive, scientists and researchers are not free to be creative and explore new ideas. That's why we use a lot of public money in research. To remove the need to justify research on profit motive.
 
Guys: Home Depot, ExxonMobil, and Staples are not going to pay for particle accelerators and an expensive program of research into subatomic physics. That’s why we have public funding for core scientific research. Research that has not yet demonstrated a profit-motive.



“U.S. Should Bid to Host Next Particle Accelerator, Report Says”

http://www.physorg.com/news65286806.html

To remain globally competitive in particle physics, the United States should seize the opportunity to lead worldwide research efforts that would answer critical questions about the ultimate constituents of matter and the forces that govern them, as well as the composition and evolution of the universe, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.

Specifically, the United States should participate in major international particle physics projects and announce its desire to be the host country for the next state-of-the-art particle accelerator, said the committee that wrote the report. Although America has a distinguished history of leadership in particle physics, other nations have increased their investments, threatening the continued distinction of the U.S. program.


For more than half a century, the United States has been a leader in particle physics, but its flagship facilities are now being surpassed by new ones in other countries," said committee chair Harold T. Shapiro, president emeritus and professor of economics and public affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. "Today the U.S. program is at a crossroads. At just the moment when the scientific opportunities are the most exciting, we have no compelling strategic vision for the next stage of our efforts. Our leadership in particle physics either can be sacrificed, or it can be maintained by making a strong commitment to some key new experimental facilities here and thoughtful participation in current and future global efforts."

The U.S. government should support the nation's involvement in both the LHC and the future ILC in conjunction with the newly proposed American Competitiveness Initiative's commitment to strengthen U.S. global leadership through continued technological advances. The government also should announce its strong desire to become the host country for the ILC, the report says. To achieve these two objectives, the particle physics budget needs to be increased by at least 2 percent to 3 percent per year in real terms; doubling the current budget over seven years would enable even more advances…..

….the most important priority for the United States should be a vigorous program of research and development for the future ILC. Expenditures in this area should be significantly expanded, the committee said. Congress should secure at least $500 million over the next five years to enable the nation to substantively participate in the global effort to design and engineer the facility. If a U.S. bid to host the facility is successful, additional resources would be required to construct and operate it. However, those decisions should be made when better cost estimates and initial results from the LHC experimental program are available. By committing to actively participate in the LHC and ILC projects, the United States would ensure that it can reap the benefits of future discoveries and remain a leader in particle physics, the report says.
 
Please. You know I'm right. You're just unwilling to admit it.

Geothermal energy is an infintesimally small, and not very profitible part of the energy mix. And locating a geothermal plant next to an active volcano is too play suicide with stockholders money. Noboby puts geothermal plants next to active volcanoes.

And you skipped over a whole host of other basic science I mentioned, that will largely go unfunded if we expect Ford, Chysler, and Exxon to somehow pick up the tab.
Oh, I was just suggesting one area that you brought forward that I could find a profit margin. I didn't say we should defund all research, just the research that would specifically benefit large corps who could afford it themselves.

In time, even space exploration will benefit some large corporation out there. Already we have tons of new things we buy because of what they have learned out there, from pens to velcro. But they do pay for those patents and are recouped for the research...

I would never suggest to end all studies, I just hate studies that help the very corporations that are raising your health care costs. Why do you love big pharma so much that you want to give them such a large subsidy?
 
Back
Top