NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been plenty of debates about stem cell research on these forums, so I don't really want this to become a debate on stem cell research itself.

If necessary, I will be happy to repost the stem cell fact and fiction as well.

Anyways, HR 162 is actually a very moderate bill. It would do away with the restriction to the already created lines for federal funding. However, new lines would have to meet the same restriction as the old ones - they must be derived from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics, and informed consent must be obtained from both "parents".

This could allow lines which are not contaminated with animal tissue, that have not been grown in pathological conditions to be created. Such cells would be possible candidates for attempts in clinical uses.

If you are completely opposed to this bill, that is fine. I certainly hope you are lobbying to make in vitro fertilization itself illegal, as these embryos will be destroyed one way or another.

If you are not, please write to your representative and ask him/her to vote yes on this bill.

There have been plenty of debates about stem cell research on these forums, so I don't really want this to become a debate on stem cell research itself.

If necessary, I will be happy to repost the stem cell fact and fiction as well.

Anyways, HR 162 is actually a very moderate bill. It would do away with the restriction to the already created lines for federal funding. However, new lines would have to meet the same restriction as the old ones - they must be derived from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics, and informed consent must be obtained from both "parents".

This could allow lines which are not contaminated with animal tissue, that have not been grown in pathological conditions to be created. Such cells would be possible candidates for attempts in clinical uses.

If you are completely opposed to this bill, that is fine. I certainly hope you are lobbying to make in vitro fertilization itself illegal, as these embryos will be destroyed one way or another.

If you are not, please write to your representative and ask him/her to vote yes on this bill.

*gets out pen and paper* :)

Does the bill mention any restictions on umbillical cord blood anywhere?

Good heads up, will do!

I need to read the full text of the bill before making a decision on this issue. Could you link the bill as well? It'll help.

Thanks

Does the bill mention any restictions on umbillical cord blood anywhere?

No, this particular bill is specific to embryonic stem cells. I believe there are other bills (already passed) that regulate umbilicial cord blood.

Corneliu -

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109S3SRdR::

Here you go. I believe this is it.

I oppose this bill. The government has no business funding any research, unless said research pertains to national security/defense.

No, this particular bill is specific to embryonic stem cells. I believe there are other bills (already passed) that regulate umbilicial cord blood.

Corneliu -

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109S3SRdR::

Here you go. I believe this is it.

THanks!

I'm going to read this bill and see what it entails. It should prove an interesting read.

Thanks again.

I oppose this bill. The government has no business funding any research, unless said research pertains to national security/defense.

....medical progress slows to near a halt within 10 years, as does research in many areas.

There have been plenty of debates about stem cell research on these forums, so I don't really want this to become a debate on stem cell research itself.

If necessary, I will be happy to repost the stem cell fact and fiction as well.

Anyways, HR 162 is actually a very moderate bill. It would do away with the restriction to the already created lines for federal funding. However, new lines would have to meet the same restriction as the old ones - they must be derived from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics, and informed consent must be obtained from both "parents".

This could allow lines which are not contaminated with animal tissue, that have not been grown in pathological conditions to be created. Such cells would be possible candidates for attempts in clinical uses.

If you are completely opposed to this bill, that is fine. I certainly hope you are lobbying to make in vitro fertilization itself illegal, as these embryos will be destroyed one way or another.

If you are not, please write to your representative and ask him/her to vote yes on this bill.

I'm against it, primarily because I dont think Federal funding should exist in the first place. People talk about the seperation of church and State like its such a big thing, but don't bat an eye when confronted with concepts like "seperation of State and Economics" or "seperation of State and Science," or "the Arts" or...anything.

I think stem cell research should exist, and I don't think the government should have anything to do with it one way or the other, as a general rule.

I'm against it, primarily because I dont think Federal funding should exist in the first place. People talk about the seperation of church and State like its such a big thing, but don't bat an eye when confronted with concepts like "seperation of State and Economics" or "seperation of State and Science," or "the Arts" or...anything.

I think stem cell research should exist, and I don't think the government should have anything to do with it one way or the other, as a general rule.

Can't say I agree. Corporations don't make money by being socially aware. What would happen is that as soon as any breakthrough took place, it'd be patented, as are most medical breakthroughs in the US nowadays, and someone would have a monopoly on it, keeping price high, and reducing its benefit to people as a whole. Since the gov't isn't in it for profit, it won't patent the design, it can be proliferated to corporations and everyone benefits, prices go down, and the free market can do the job its supposed to. Massively oversimplified, but when you only look out for profit, you sacrifice everything else.

Can't say I agree. Corporations don't make money by being socially aware. What would happen is that as soon as any breakthrough took place, it'd be patented, as are most medical breakthroughs in the US nowadays, and someone would have a monopoly on it, keeping price high, and reducing its benefit to people as a whole. Since the gov't isn't in it for profit, it won't patent the design, it can be proliferated to corporations and everyone benefits, prices go down, and the free market can do the job its supposed to. Massively oversimplified, but when you only look out for profit, you sacrifice everything else.

There is also the fact that progress would halt pretty quickly without basic science research - which private corporations won't fund - it simply isn't profitable.

On top of that, corporations would keep everything hush hush - intellectual property and all that. This would keep the cross-talk that is absolutely necessary in science from happening. No one would know what anyone else was doing or had done, so there would be a lot of repeats and very little progress. Those that did something, but maybe with a flawed experimental design would keep chugging along, as no one would review it to let them know what they missed. And so on...

There have been plenty of debates about stem cell research on these forums, so I don't really want this to become a debate on stem cell research itself.

If necessary, I will be happy to repost the stem cell fact and fiction as well.

Anyways, HR 162 is actually a very moderate bill. It would do away with the restriction to the already created lines for federal funding. However, new lines would have to meet the same restriction as the old ones - they must be derived from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics, and informed consent must be obtained from both "parents".

This could allow lines which are not contaminated with animal tissue, that have not been grown in pathological conditions to be created. Such cells would be possible candidates for attempts in clinical uses.

If you are completely opposed to this bill, that is fine. I certainly hope you are lobbying to make in vitro fertilization itself illegal, as these embryos will be destroyed one way or another.

If you are not, please write to your representative and ask him/her to vote yes on this bill.

Mine is planning on it, also being part of the Ways and Means commitee (which it is before).

Can't say I agree. Corporations don't make money by being socially aware.

Ridiculous. Look at what's happening now as a result of the information age in regards to filesharing: The people who are making money off of it are doing so by becoming aware of the changes in the world around them. The people who are missing out [like, say, the record companies] are missing out because they weren't aware enough to notice the change.

What would happen is that as soon as any breakthrough took place, it'd be patented, as are most medical breakthroughs in the US nowadays, and someone would have a monopoly on it, keeping price high, and reducing its benefit to people as a whole.

Also ridiculous. Patents are not a bad thing: If I come up with a good goddamn idea I want to be sure no one else can steal it from me. Monopolies are just an extension of this on a larger scale. Why, if I invent something, should I allow other people to produce an identical product or concept? That's called "theft," and theft of ideas is every bit as real as theft of material goods. If something is my intellectual or physical property, I decide what it's worth to me. Everyone else, in turn, decides if that's reasonable. If it's not, they either tell me to shove it or they come up with a better idea on their own. This is how capitalism works.

Since the gov't isn't in it for profit...

My, how much you have to learn.

... it won't patent the design, it can be proliferated to corporations and everyone benefits, prices go down, and the free market can do the job its supposed to. Massively oversimplified, but when you only look out for profit, you sacrifice everything else.

Free market "does its job" when people's property is respected and upheld, without interference from the State. Hence the term "free."

Another thing you're forgetting here is that "profit" is contingent on a lot of other things. If you're going to make money on any veture, you have to do several things. You've got to make sure that people will actually buy what you're selling for the price you're asking. You've got to be able to deliver what you promise and promise what you deliver. People love to crusade against corporations, but they wouldn't exist today if they didn't provide some sort of meaningful service or product. The government, conversely, is not dependent on any meaningful service or product, and will just exist because it has to.

The idea that "oh, monopolies suck and prices will be higher because the guy in charge just wants to fuck us over" bothers me because it implies that we'll all rush off like mindless drones to fill his pockets anyway. It implies that humanity--and thus it implies that I--have no concept of how to tell a good deal from a bad one and make my decision accordingly. If a private corporation comes out with some sort of enormous breakthrough, it's only in my self-interest to want to use it if the cost involved is equal to or less than the net benefit. You seem to be arguing that people will just go and get ripped off anyway. If they want to, fine, you and I can just wait for someone else to offer the same thing at a better price. Or we could do it ourselves.

There is also the fact that progress would halt pretty quickly without basic science research - which private corporations won't fund - it simply isn't profitable.

Are you serious? You're telling me that a private corporation won't see any profit in funding scientific research? I don't even know how to [i]respond to this! Every bit of technology, every product that we have on the market today is the result of someone poking his head into the realm of science and taking a look around. Whether corporations are the ones who have done it or not is irrelevant; individuals have every bit as much of a capacity to bring about scientific changes as a coropration or any other manner of collective. The government should stay out of this area primarily because it's not its job. It'd be like asking a cop to landscape your back yard.

On top of that, corporations would keep everything hush hush - intellectual property and all that. This would keep the cross-talk that is absolutely necessary in science from happening.

Nonsense. You can't make money off something if people don't know it exists. "Cross-Talk," as you put it, does not in and of itself need to come from another corporation or any other collective entity. It can come from scientists in the lab in question. They're capable, qualified people for the most part. Many inventions and innovations are also grounded in individual acheivement. Did Edison need cross-talk when he invented the light bulb? Yes, it's a different kind of science, but the basic concept of creating something based on the finite rules of the science you're working in still stands. Objective medical facts are just as concrete as objective physical facts.

No one would know what anyone else was doing or had done, so there would be a lot of repeats and very little progress. Those that did something, but maybe with a flawed experimental design would keep chugging along, as no one would review it to let them know what they missed. And so on...

No one would review it? What? Why is input from without any more productive or useful than input from within? Besides, if someone did come up with a "flawed design" then they'd just be beaten out of the market by the person who didn't have a "flawed design."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109S3SRdR::

Here you go. I believe this is it.

While i'm quite pleased to see congressional action on the topic, i don't relish the lost time that will be required to read all of that before the senate...

-PFD

Also ridiculous. You can't make money off something if people don't know it exists. Patents are not a bad thing: If I come up with a good goddamn idea I want to be sure no one else can steal it from me. Monopolies are just an extension of this on a larger scale. Why, if I invent something, should I allow other people to produce an identical product or concept?

We aren't talking about inventions. We are talking about discoveries. Suppose I discover a protein. Should I be able to patent it and then expect you to pay me for it since your body uses it? Of course not.

Another thing you're forgetting here is that "profit" is contingent on a lot of other things. If you're going to make money on any veture, you have to do several things. You've got to make sure that people will actually buy what you're selling for the price you're asking. You've got to be able to deliver what you promise and promise what you deliver. People love to crusade against corporations, but they wouldn't exist today if they didn't provide some sort of meaningful service or product. The government, conversely, is not dependent on any meaningful service or product, and will just exist because it has to.

In the area of medicine, people often have to buy what your selling, at the price you are asking, or die. Is that really a choice?

The idea that "oh, monopolies suck and prices will be higher because the guy in charge just wants to fuck us over" bothers me because it implies that we'll all rush off like mindless drones to fill his pockets anyway. It implies that humanity--and thus it implies that I--have no concept of how to tell a good deal from a bad one and make my decision accordingly.

And if the deal is "Do it or die"?

Are you serious? You're telling me that a private corporation won't see any profit in funding scientific research?

Apparently reading comprehension is hard. No, I said that private corporations do not fund basic science research, as it is not profitable.

Nonsense. "Cross-Talk," as you put it, does not in and of itself need to come from another corporation or any other collective entity. It can come from scientists in the lab in question. They're capable, qualified people for the most part.

Actually, yes, it does. For one thing, science in one area is informed by other, completely separate areas. Biomedical sciences, for instance, are informed by microelectronics. Within the same area, scientists working on one system can inform those working on a completely different system. And you completely ignored the fact that you may have 10 corporations all working on the exact same thing. If they were all comparing and discussing their results, things would move along a lot faster. If I get an idea in science, I can search the literature and see if it has already been tried, whether there is a similar system, what works and what doesn't, etc. This means I won't be simply repeating something someone else tried and already found to be useless.

Many inventions and innovations are also grounded in individual acheivement. Did Edison need cross-talk when he invented the light bulb?

Are you suggesting that Edison discovered electricity all by himself? He found out everything there is to know about glass and different possible materials as a filament all on his own? Or did he, perhaps, read about what else had gone before? Of course Edison had cross-talk.

No one would review it? What? Why is input from without any more productive or useful than input from within?

Because it is objective and removed from what you are doing. Why is it better to have someone else proofread your paper than do it yourself?

Besides, if someone did come up with a "flawed design" then they'd just be beaten out of the market by the person who didn't have a "flawed design."

Yes, years and years down the road while, in the meantime, everybody was doing the same things and repeating the same mistakes over and over and over again because they weren't communicating.

While i'm quite pleased to see congressional action on the topic, i don't relish the lost time that will be required to read all of that before the senate...

-PFD

????

It isn't very long. In fact, it is a relatively short bill.

Ridiculous. Look at what's happening now as a result of the information age in regards to filesharing: The people who are making money off of it are doing so by becoming aware of the changes in the world around them. The people who are missing out [like, say, the record companies] are missing out because they weren't aware enough to notice the change.



Also ridiculous. Patents are not a bad thing: If I come up with a good goddamn idea I want to be sure no one else can steal it from me. Monopolies are just an extension of this on a larger scale. Why, if I invent something, should I allow other people to produce an identical product or concept? That's called "theft," and theft of ideas is every bit as real as theft of material goods. If something is my intellectual or physical property, I decide what it's worth to me. Everyone else, in turn, decides if that's reasonable. If it's not, they either tell me to shove it or they come up with a better idea on their own. This is how capitalism works.



My, how much you have to learn.



Free market "does its job" when people's property is respected and upheld, without interference from the State. Hence the term "free."

Another thing you're forgetting here is that "profit" is contingent on a lot of other things. If you're going to make money on any veture, you have to do several things. You've got to make sure that people will actually buy what you're selling for the price you're asking. You've got to be able to deliver what you promise and promise what you deliver. People love to crusade against corporations, but they wouldn't exist today if they didn't provide some sort of meaningful service or product. The government, conversely, is not dependent on any meaningful service or product, and will just exist because it has to.

The idea that "oh, monopolies suck and prices will be higher because the guy in charge just wants to fuck us over" bothers me because it implies that we'll all rush off like mindless drones to fill his pockets anyway. It implies that humanity--and thus it implies that I--have no concept of how to tell a good deal from a bad one and make my decision accordingly. If a private corporation comes out with some sort of enormous breakthrough, it's only in my self-interest to want to use it if the cost involved is equal to or less than the net benefit. You seem to be arguing that people will just go and get ripped off anyway. If they want to, fine, you and I can just wait for someone else to offer the same thing at a better price. Or we could do it ourselves.



Are you serious? You're telling me that a private corporation won't see any profit in funding scientific research? I don't even know how to [i]respond to this! Every bit of technology, every product that we have on the market today is the result of someone poking his head into the realm of science and taking a look around. Whether corporations are the ones who have done it or not is irrelevant; individuals have every bit as much of a capacity to bring about scientific changes as a coropration or any other manner of collective. The government should stay out of this area primarily because it's not its job. It'd be like asking a cop to landscape your back yard.



Nonsense. You can't make money off something if people don't know it exists. "Cross-Talk," as you put it, does not in and of itself need to come from another corporation or any other collective entity. It can come from scientists in the lab in question. They're capable, qualified people for the most part. Many inventions and innovations are also grounded in individual acheivement. Did Edison need cross-talk when he invented the light bulb? Yes, it's a different kind of science, but the basic concept of creating something based on the finite rules of the science you're working in still stands. Objective medical facts are just as concrete as objective physical facts.



No one would review it? What? Why is input from without any more productive or useful than input from within? Besides, if someone did come up with a "flawed design" then they'd just be beaten out of the market by the person who didn't have a "flawed design."

Rhetoric...

Let's cut the hijacking.

We aren't talking about inventions. We are talking about discoveries. Suppose I discover a protein. Should I be able to patent it and then expect you to pay me for it since your body uses it? Of course not.

Inventions and discoveries are both the product of human perception or innovation, and in some cases, littel distinction deserves to be made between them. A protein cannot be patented because its 'wrong' to do it, but because it presumably exists in nature and a patent would be impossible to enforce. If it's a synthetic protein that you made, then yes, you should be able to patent it.

In the area of medicine, people often have to buy what your selling, at the price you are asking, or die. Is that really a choice?

People die all the time. Extend the timeline long enough and the mortality rate is inevitably 100%. Of course it's a choice; it's just not a very pleasant one to think about. The idea behind privatizing medical research is to facilitate the ability of those who actually care about solving these problems to get out and do it.

And if the deal is "Do it or die"?

That's a tough one. Yeah, I often wonder this myself when I'm walking into the supermarket with a gun to my head. In a medical context we're at something of an inpasse on this issue, since we both appear to agree on a fundamental level that stem cell research should exist and that progress is a good thing. Our primary bone of contention, then, is just what facilitates progress the best. Inhibiting my means by diminishing my progress to fund research that I may or may not have a need for in the future is every bit as damaging to my circumstance as jeeping it illegal in the first place.

Apparently reading comprehension is hard. No, I said that private corporations do not fund basic science research, as it is not profitable.

Apparently reading comprehension is hard. I said that allegation is ridiculous.

Actually, yes, it does. For one thing, science in one area is informed by other, completely separate areas. Biomedical sciences, for instance, are informed by microelectronics. Within the same area, scientists working on one system can inform those working on a completely different system. And you completely ignored the fact that you may have 10 corporations all working on the exact same thing. If they were all comparing and discussing their results, things would move along a lot faster. If I get an idea in science, I can search the literature and see if it has already been tried, whether there is a similar system, what works and what doesn't, etc. This means I won't be simply repeating something someone else tried and already found to be useless.

I can't coherently refute this concept in fewer than 5 or so paragraphs, so I'll leave it alone. Feel free to remind me about this later if you'd actually like me to do it: I don't want to give the impression that I'm evading your observation by any means. It's just that I'm supposed to be about 110 miles away right now.

Are you suggesting that Edison discovered electricity all by himself?

Apparently reading comprehension is hard. I said:

Yes, it's a different kind of science, but the basic concept of creating something based on the finite rules of the science you're working in still stands.

This means that individuals are perfectly capable of devising creations and concepts based on objective scientific fact, no matter what area of science we are discussing.

He found out everything there is to know about glass and different possible materials as a filament all on his own? Or did he, perhaps, read about what else had gone before? Of course Edison had cross-talk.

But the particular manner in which those components were arrayed and the manner in which they worked were entirely his own creation. Everyone has a certain amount of cross talk simply from the fact that the universe acts in certain ways and we're able to perceive it.

Because it is objective and removed from what you are doing. Why is it better to have someone else proofread your paper than do it yourself?

I think you misunderstood my wording, which was partly my fault. When I said "from within" I meant more in the sense that these sorts of "proofreading" sessions would occur primarily within the corporation or labratory in question rather than from within the person themselves. But, I must point out that second opinions can be every bit as dangerous as they are helpful. Sometimes even moreso.

Yes, years and years down the road while, in the meantime, everybody was doing the same things and repeating the same mistakes over and over and over again because they weren't communicating.

And this doesn't happen already? Give me a break. The bulk of the argument I'm gathering from this wording is something along the lines of "All scientific progress would halt and have no further progress if government had nothing to do with it." This idea lies on some pretty heavy assumptions.

Rhetoric...

Let's cut the hijacking.

Let's cut the telling other people how to run their threads. Dem and I are having a discussion; if s/he feel its off-topic s/he will let me know. But everything I've said in this thread so far is a direct correlary to the topic at hand, which makes your allegation of hijacking moot anyway.

Ridiculous. Look at what's happening now as a result of the information age in regards to filesharing: The people who are making money off of it are doing so by becoming aware of the changes in the world around them. The people who are missing out [like, say, the record companies] are missing out because they weren't aware enough to notice the change.

I'm unaware of anyone making money out of filesharing.... p2p is generally free, is it not? Besides, that's not social awareness, that's just a new market.
Social awareness is using that knowledge to give people a better life. Not extort every penny out of them.



also ridiculous. Patents are not a bad thing: If I come up with a good goddamn idea I want to be sure no one else can steal it from me. Monopolies are just an extension of this on a larger scale. Why, if I invent something, should I allow other people to produce an identical product or concept? That's called "theft," and theft of ideas is every bit as real as theft of material goods. If something is my intellectual or physical property, I decide what it's worth to me. Everyone else, in turn, decides if that's reasonable. If it's not, they either tell me to shove it or they come up with a better idea on their own. This is how capitalism works.

patents-good.
Unlimited patents- bad.
People should not be allowed to patent that which they did not invent. They have no right to it. it's not their intellectual property.





My, how much you have to learn.

Of course. I know nothing. It's the first thing that anyone should admit. But I fail to see the point of this statement.



Free market "does its job" when people's property is respected and upheld, without interference from the State. Hence the term "free."

the free market only works when people are free to make the choice without suffering immensely detrimental effects. Like death. I don't agree with corporate domination of markets such as this, which is why I oppose the American health service and wouldn't swap the NHS for it.... ever.


Another thing you're forgetting here is that "profit" is contingent on a lot of other things. If you're going to make money on any veture, you have to do several things. You've got to make sure that people will actually buy what you're selling for the price you're asking. You've got to be able to deliver what you promise and promise what you deliver. People love to crusade against corporations, but they wouldn't exist today if they didn't provide some sort of meaningful service or product. The government, conversely, is not dependent on any meaningful service or product, and will just exist because it has to.

if people don't have a choice, profit is guaranteed, and you can extort whatever you please. The only limit is how much you can extort before they run out of money.

The idea that "oh, monopolies suck and prices will be higher because the guy in charge just wants to fuck us over" bothers me because it implies that we'll all rush off like mindless drones to fill his pockets anyway. It implies that humanity--and thus it implies that I--have no concept of how to tell a good deal from a bad one and make my decision accordingly. If a private corporation comes out with some sort of enormous breakthrough, it's only in my self-interest to want to use it if the cost involved is equal to or less than the net benefit. You seem to be arguing that people will just go and get ripped off anyway. If they want to, fine, you and I can just wait for someone else to offer the same thing at a better price. Or we could do it ourselves.

of course people will go and buy it regardless if it saves their life. They have no viable alternative. In regards to this "you and I can just wait for someone else to offer the same thing at a better price".... not if they've patented it. That way, only they can offer the service to you. Ever. So you are subject to his whim. Either pay, or die. Your choice.



Are you serious? You're telling me that a private corporation won't see any profit in funding scientific research? I don't even know how to [i]respond to this! Every bit of technology, every product that we have on the market today is the result of someone poking his head into the realm of science and taking a look around. Whether corporations are the ones who have done it or not is irrelevant; individuals have every bit as much of a capacity to bring about scientific changes as a coropration or any other manner of collective. The government should stay out of this area primarily because it's not its job. It'd be like asking a cop to landscape your back yard.


scientific research delivers no profit in the short term, as it is a risk. What if the research fails? often it is easiest to wait for someone to do the research for you, and then adapt their idea as closely as possible. If everyone thinks like that, nobody will do that. It would take longer for a corporation to be brave enough to take such a risk than it would be a government that wants another term in office.

Inventions and discoveries are both the product of human perception or innovation, and in some cases, littel distinction deserves to be made between them. A protein cannot be patented because its 'wrong' to do it, but because it presumably exists in nature and a patent would be impossible to enforce. If it's a synthetic protein that you made, then yes, you should be able to patent it.

And in basic science research, there is no invention. It is all discovery. In the medical sciences, it is all things which should not be patented because they exist in nature, etc. It should be "open-source", as it were.

Our primary bone of contention, then, is just what facilitates progress the best.

And being a part of the process, I think I'm in a better position to know the answer.

Apparently reading comprehension is hard. I said that allegation is ridiculous.

Actually, you didn't. You asked if I was suggesting that a corporation would not benefit from science research, as if I were talking about all research. I am, quite specifically, talking about basic science research, which is simply not profitable in and of itself. It informs many areas and can, years and years down the road, lead to a profitable project, but is not profitable in and of itself.

This is hardly a ridiculous statement. It is simply how these things work.

I can't coherently refute this concept in fewer than 5 or so paragraphs, so I'll leave it alone. Feel free to remind me about this later if you'd actually like me to do it: I don't want to give the impression that I'm evading your observation by any means. It's just that I'm supposed to be about 110 miles away right now.

You have a way to refute the obvious fact that one area of science is informed by others? Hmmm....

This means that individuals are perfectly capable of devising creations and concepts based on objective scientific fact, no matter what area of science we are discussing.

However, if all science were carried out through private research, there would be no scientific facts entering the collective scientific community. One corporation would have their facts. Another would have theirs, which might, by the way, contradict the other corporation.

As it is now, if I find something out, I share it with and and all other scientists. They can then use it, probably in ways I never thought of.

But the particular manner in which those components were arrayed and the manner in which they worked were entirely his own creation.

...which has absolutely nothing to do with basic science research. Thank you for proving my point.

Everyone has a certain amount of cross talk simply from the fact that the universe acts in certain ways and we're able to perceive it.

Yes, we can all perceive the shape of the H-powered ATP pump. Oh wait, you need special equipment and training for that...

Don't be so naive. Any average joe cannot go into his basement and make medical discoveries.

I think you misunderstood my wording, which was partly my fault. When I said "from within" I meant more in the sense that these sorts of "proofreading" sessions would occur primarily within the corporation or labratory in question rather than from within the person themselves.

And that is a problem, as everyone in the group would likely already be on the same page and know what that scientist was doing. They would not, in that sense, be objective.

And this doesn't happen already? Give me a break.

No. Like I said, if I have an idea, I can search the literature and find out if someone else has already tried it - and whether or not it worked. If everything I and others were doing was intellectual property, that wouldn't be possible.

The bulk of the argument I'm gathering from this wording is something along the lines of "All scientific progress would halt and have no further progress if government had nothing to do with it." This idea lies on some pretty heavy assumptions.

I never said it would halt. It would slow down greatly, however. And, in areas like the medical science, we'd have one of two results. Either the medical companies would jump in and attempt basic science research or they would continue to avoid anything that is not profitable.

If they did the former, there are two results. One is that the companies all go bankrupt, not having enough money to support all of their research. The other is that they attempt to pass those costs on to the consumer, the cost of healthcare gets so high that only the absolute richest can afford it, and the company goes bankrupt from lack of consumers anyways.

If they did the latter, they'd run out of things to try in about 10 years or so and they would be forced into basic science research if they wanted to progress.

I'm unaware of anyone making money out of filesharing.... p2p is generally free, is it not? Besides, that's not social awareness, that's just a new market. It's both. The development of the PC and computer culture is, essentially a change in our lifestyle from previous generations. How is what we're doing right now not "social" in this context? No one would have thought about this 25 years ago. No one but... wait! people who had good ideas!

The programs themselves are typically free, but the people making money right now as a result of this aren't generally the programmers. They're the computer companies and software people and so forth. You're right: it's a new market, but new markets develop all the time; frequently the result of technological progress.

The people making money off of it now arent always the programmers,
Social awareness is using that knowledge to give people a better life. Not extort every penny out of them.

And how, precisely, would you define "better life?" Would you call the ability to contact anyone you know with a cell phone at [presumably] any hour an improvement over having to wait by the mailbox for ages? Would you call the ability to heat and cool your home in accordance with the seasons an improvement over having to huddle over a tiny-ass flame? I could go on. Really, for a long time.

This argument pretty much speaks for itself. If we were to take and sum all the advancements in our lives and our quality of life from the private sector and pit them against the shit our government comes up with, the results are staggering. Lets pick two almost at random. We'll go with "Cell phones" versus "Nukes." Cell phones speak for themselves: God knows they've come in handy for me a few times. Nukes I hope we don't use ever again.

Sound extreme? Did you read this far even before bitting "respond?" Good. My point here is that there is nothing that has ever made by corporate culture that's been anywhere near as devastating as the nuclear bomb.

Extortion doesn't exist in proper capitalism: I won't stand for it and neither should you. But don't assume that everyone who got where they are today used these tactics. It never ceases to amaze me the people who profess to love humanity are so often assuming so many of us are so coldhearted.


patents-good.
Unlimited patents- bad.
People should not be allowed to patent that which they did not invent. They have no right to it. it's not their intellectual property.

"Unlimited patents?" Where the hell did I say that. Oh, that's right. I didn't. I don't know what you mean by "unlimited patents." I also didn't suggest that discoveries should--or could--be patented. inventions, on the other hand, should be. I think we're in agreement about the not patenting things you didn't invent. I'm not sure where the argument is there.


Of course. I know nothing. It's the first thing that anyone should admit. But I fail to see the point of this statement.

I'll never admit I know nothing. Sorry, I've got a bit more self-respect than that.

the free market only works when people are free to make the choice without suffering immensely detrimental effects. Like death. I don't agree with corporate domination of markets such as this, which is why I oppose the American health service and wouldn't swap the NHS for it.... ever.

People die in socialist countries too. All of them. In fact, I'll bet if we set up your ideal government here in the States everybody would still die at some point too. You seem to be suggesting that a free market would be rife with defective, damaging products. How long do you think that company would stay in business?



if people don't have a choice, profit is guaranteed, and you can extort whatever you please. The only limit is how much you can extort before they run out of money.

Yes. This happens in communist countries a lot.

of course people will go and buy it regardless if it saves their life. They have no viable alternative.

And if it saves their lives isn't it doing what it's supposed to be doing? Ever notice how when a company releases a new car they tell you things like its gas mileage, how many seats it has, and whether its a standard or an automatic? Companies--companies that should exist and continue to do business are obligated every bit as much to provide information on the product along with the product.

If you want to tell me that 'some companies still won't' or 'they'll just get around it,' I can then tell you that flaws can and will probably exist in any form of government we create.

In regards to this "you and I can just wait for someone else to offer the same thing at a better price".... not if they've patented it. That way, only they can offer the service to you. Ever. So you are subject to his whim. Either pay, or die. Your choice.

It depends on what you're looking for. Generally the people who put together major medical breakthroughs are people in medical schools and other various institutions. When you buy a pill, it probably comes form some sort of company, but when you go to get surgery, no one patents the procedure that can cure you.

You're appealing to a relatively small proportion of the population which dies from problems associated with things that we need a certain configuration of chemicals to control or kill. It's not something that's worth assuming for the rest of society. People have died from this shit before, and they'll die from it tomorrow and they next day. There's no way a company is holding on to a patent and not making money off of it anyway.

Think about it: if you're the only one making it you can saturate the entire market by making it affordable. In a practical decision making sense this generally precludes making it outrageously expensive.


scientific research delivers no profit in the short term, as it is a risk. What if the research fails? often it is easiest to wait for someone to do the research for you, and then adapt their idea as closely as possible. If everyone thinks like that, nobody will do that. It would take longer for a corporation to be brave enough to take such a risk than it would be a government that wants another term in office.

Preposterous. Research always fails. Research continues anyway. When someone gets it right, they know it. And the people who sit around waiting for other people to come up with ideas for them are of little merit anyway: I see no reason to applaud their actions. Saying "if everyone thinks like that" is a fallacy because, simply, not everyone thinks like that. Your final thought is an assumption that nears the volume of my ego. You have no idea what corporations would do if given the chance.

We've seen throught the course of history, on the other hand, what government does.

Dem: I'll have your response up tomorrow, never ye fear!

It's both. The development of the PC and computer culture is, essentially a change in our lifestyle from previous generations. How is what we're doing right now not "social" in this context? No one would have thought about this 25 years ago. No one but... wait! people who had good ideas!

The programs themselves are typically free, but the people making money right now as a result of this aren't generally the programmers. They're the computer companies and software people and so forth. You're right: it's a new market, but new markets develop all the time; frequently the result of technological progress.


And how, precisely, would you define "better life?" Would you call the ability to contact anyone you know with a cell phone at [presumably] any hour an improvement over having to wait by the mailbox for ages? Would you call the ability to heat and cool your home in accordance with the seasons an improvement over having to huddle over a tiny-ass flame? I could go on. Really, for a long time.

This argument pretty much speaks for itself. If we were to take and sum all the advancements in our lives and our quality of life from the private sector and pit them against the shit our government comes up with, the results are staggering. Lets pick two almost at random. We'll go with "Cell phones" versus "Nukes." Cell phones speak for themselves: God knows they've come in handy for me a few times. Nukes I hope we don't use ever again.

Sound extreme? Did you read this far even before bitting "respond?" Good. My point here is that there is nothing that has ever made by corporate culture that's been anywhere near as devastating as the nuclear bomb.

Extortion doesn't exist in proper capitalism: I won't stand for it and neither should you. But don't assume that everyone who got where they are today used these tactics. It never ceases to amaze me the people who profess to love humanity are so often assuming so many of us are so coldhearted.

No arguments here... but then it doesn't really change my opinion on what I think should be forbidden to corporations, and that is necessary services like health care, fire protection, the police, and social security.




"Unlimited patents?" Where the hell did I say that. Oh, that's right. I didn't. I don't know what you mean by "unlimited patents." I also didn't suggest that discoveries should--or could--be patented. inventions, on the other hand, should be. I think we're in agreement about the not patenting things you didn't invent. I'm not sure where the argument is there.

Seems so... unlimited patents, for clarification, is as it sounds. Microsofts patent on the doubleclick, for example. Anyway, the point is moot. Retracted. Damned misinterpretation.




I'll never admit I know nothing. Sorry, I've got a bit more self-respect than that.

It's more to do with not assuming that the information in your head is infallible and that you always have to be willing to admit an error rather than a true admition of utter ignorance, by my interpretation. Unless you want to go with the phrase entirely literally. I just felt it apt in the situation. It doesn't really matter.


People die in socialist countries too. All of them. In fact, I'll bet if we set up your ideal government here in the States everybody would still die at some point too. You seem to be suggesting that a free market would be rife with defective, damaging products. How long do you think that company would stay in business?

of course. I'm not contesting that people die everywhere. But I don't, for example, want to suffer say, a heart attack, be taken to a hospital, and then slapped with a bill for them saving my life. Or break my leg and then get billed for that. Or get hit by a car and have to pay the hospital for the courtesy. I'm very open to capitalist policies. I do, after all, like my internet connection high speed, and my nice graphics card, and all my other luxuries that would be difficult to come by in a communist economy unless we lived in some sci-fi federation utopia which is stifling and horrible in its own way.

Yes. This happens in communist countries a lot.

I'm much more socialist than I am communist. I don't favour wrapping someone in bubbles for their life. Just that they are entitled to all the support they need when they do trip up. [/irrelevant aside]

The point I'm trying to make is pretty much purely about the healthcare and emergency services, as well as pure science projects, or those that have negligable impact on anyones lives and don't actually do much. I don't feel that for profit corporations can be trusted with peoples lives. They can make me a new pc that runs faster than ever, or give me more channels, or a good movie... these things I have an option with. if I don't want them or can't afford them, I can go without. If I had cancer though, I don't want to have to go bankrupt just to afford the treatment.


And if it saves their lives isn't it doing what it's supposed to be doing? Ever notice how when a company releases a new car they tell you things like its gas mileage, how many seats it has, and whether its a standard or an automatic? Companies--companies that should exist and continue to do business are obligated every bit as much to provide information on the product along with the product.

Pretty much what I said above. This is all fine for un-necessary products that I can go without.

If you want to tell me that 'some companies still won't' or 'they'll just get around it,' I can then tell you that flaws can and will probably exist in any form of government we create.

no doubt. There are flaws in everything... I'm speaking from what I've experienced in regards to the health service, and that's that I like it being gov't controlled, in the main, and I don't see any advantages in making it MORE privatised.


It depends on what you're looking for. Generally the people who put together major medical breakthroughs are people in medical schools and other various institutions. When you buy a pill, it probably comes form some sort of company, but when you go to get surgery, no one patents the procedure that can cure you.

But I would be charged for it if it was privatised.


You're appealing to a relatively small proportion of the population which dies from problems associated with things that we need a certain configuration of chemicals to control or kill. It's not something that's worth assuming for the rest of society. People have died from this shit before, and they'll die from it tomorrow and they next day. There's no way a company is holding on to a patent and not making money off of it anyway.

But that's the thing. They're making money off of a minorities difficulty, whereas a gov't would provide for it free of charge. I prefer the free of charge approach.

Think about it: if you're the only one making it you can saturate the entire market by making it affordable. In a practical decision making sense this generally precludes making it outrageously expensive.

Outrageously expensive, perhaps. But they wouldn't be much of a corporation if they didn't make the price of a product that they solely control as expensive as they can get away with? Flooding the market is one way to make profit, but when you flood it, the cost of manufacture goes up. When you produce just enough, and price to fit, your initial expense is somewhat lower. More profit. Of course, government contracts, etc, at least in Britain step in, and you tend to get a bit of regulation and infeasibility. My point here is that you need something to keep it in check, because everything needs to be kept in check. It'd be silly to think that corporations are the only things that can regulate themselves (though I don't believe that you are implying it.)

Preposterous. Research always fails. Research continues anyway. When someone gets it right, they know it. And the people who sit around waiting for other people to come up with ideas for them are of little merit anyway: I see no reason to applaud their actions. Saying "if everyone thinks like that" is a fallacy because, simply, not everyone thinks like that. Your final thought is an assumption that nears the volume of my ego. You have no idea what corporations would do if given the chance.

We've seen throught the course of history, on the other hand, what government does.

This part is really more in line with what Dem' is debating with you about. I have no real counter, nor the knowledge to make one.

I oppose this bill. It's not so much the science I have a problem with. It's the funding. I support pretty much any ban on the funding of just about anything. I don't want to pay for it.

Can't say I agree. Corporations don't make money by being socially aware. What would happen is that as soon as any breakthrough took place, it'd be patented, as are most medical breakthroughs in the US nowadays, and someone would have a monopoly on it, keeping price high, and reducing its benefit to people as a whole. Since the gov't isn't in it for profit, it won't patent the design, it can be proliferated to corporations and everyone benefits, prices go down, and the free market can do the job its supposed to. Massively oversimplified, but when you only look out for profit, you sacrifice everything else.The results of government funded research can often be patented too. If you have a problem with medical patents, you have a problem with medical patents.

Also ridiculous. Patents are not a bad thing: If I come up with a good goddamn idea I want to be sure no one else can steal it from me. Monopolies are just an extension of this on a larger scale. Why, if I invent something, should I allow other people to produce an identical product or concept? That's called "theft," and theft of ideas is every bit as real as theft of material goods. If something is my intellectual or physical property, I decide what it's worth to me. Everyone else, in turn, decides if that's reasonable. If it's not, they either tell me to shove it or they come up with a better idea on their own. This is how capitalism works.
Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. If I steal your toothbrush you no longer have a toothbrush. If I steal your idea, you still have your idea. The reason given by Thomas Jefferson for the patent process was that it would promote people to publicize their ideas in exchange for a temporary monopoly, as opposed to keeping trade secrets forever. This is a utilitarian argument. I don't think the moral argument for intellectual property rights existed until Ayn Rand came along, and I don't see how it holds any water. The whole reason that property rights are necessary is because of scarcity. Ideas do not suffer from scarcity.

Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. If I steal your toothbrush you no longer have a toothbrush. If I steal your idea, you still have your idea. The reason given by Thomas Jefferson for the patent process was that it would promote people to publicize their ideas in exchange for a temporary monopoly, as opposed to keeping trade secrets forever. This is a utilitarian argument. I don't think the moral argument for intellectual property rights existed until Ayn Rand came along, and I don't see how it holds any water. The whole reason that property rights are necessary is because of scarcity. Ideas do not suffer from scarcity.

Jordaxia and Dem: I'll respond to you after work tonight. First, though, I wanted to touch on this.

Property rights exist because property is life. The money or possessions earned by an individual represent the sum of his labors; it represents the time he took out of his life to provide a service to someone else. My computer is property, my phone is property, and my money is goddamn property too. If I went out and found a miracle combination of chemicals, that would be property too. By subsidizing everything under the sun and taxing the ever loving bejesus out of me, you're basically telling me that I'm not allowed to decide what I do with my life. It's a sinister double standard.

You seem to be suggesting that a free market would be rife with defective, damaging products. How long do you think that company would stay in business?

Companies were open for quite a while in pre-FDA times, selling defective, damaging products.

And if it saves their lives isn't it doing what it's supposed to be doing? Ever notice how when a company releases a new car they tell you things like its gas mileage, how many seats it has, and whether its a standard or an automatic? Companies--companies that should exist and continue to do business are obligated every bit as much to provide information on the product along with the product.

How many consumers do you think understand medical practice? How many know what the chemicals involved are and what they do?

Car companies have to tell you what they are giving you because things like gas mileage, seats, standard and automatic are general knowledge. Everyone is aware that these are important in cars. Very, very few people know what chemicals do in the body, how they mioght react with other drugs, etc. This is why we have regulation on that industry.

It depends on what you're looking for. Generally the people who put together major medical breakthroughs are people in medical schools and other various institutions. When you buy a pill, it probably comes form some sort of company, but when you go to get surgery, no one patents the procedure that can cure you.

No one patents the procedure, perhaps, but someone does patent each and every one of the tools they use. Medical technology encompasses a good bit more than just drugs.

You're appealing to a relatively small proportion of the population which dies from problems associated with things that we need a certain configuration of chemicals to control or kill. It's not something that's worth assuming for the rest of society. People have died from this shit before, and they'll die from it tomorrow and they next day.

A small proportion? Do you know how many people need medication at any given time? Have you, yourself, never taken prescription medication?

There's no way a company is holding on to a patent and not making money off of it anyway.

Companies do this all the time. They don't want to release the new product, because it would put old ones off the market. Thus, they buy the new product's patent to keep it off the market.

Think about it: if you're the only one making it you can saturate the entire market by making it affordable. In a practical decision making sense this generally precludes making it outrageously expensive.

This only works if you can make a profit off of it that way.

Preposterous. Research always fails. Research continues anyway. When someone gets it right, they know it. And the people who sit around waiting for other people to come up with ideas for them are of little merit anyway: I see no reason to applaud their actions. Saying "if everyone thinks like that" is a fallacy because, simply, not everyone thinks like that. Your final thought is an assumption that nears the volume of my ego. You have no idea what corporations would do if given the chance.

In the medical industry, this is exactly how it works. Scientists using public funds discover new pathways, new proteins, etc. Only after that, a company will pick up the idea and see if they can translate it into a product. As I said before, the basic science research is funded largely by public funds - it simply isn't profitable to companies. Once the basic science research is completed, companies pick up an idea and run with it - doing private research which is generally intellectual property at that point.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you Dempub. But I have been studying your bill.

In General I can agree with it. I am hoping there is some review so that it isn't abused.

I voted for Proposition 71 on the 2004 ballot in California. It authorized stem-cell research, and funded it with a $3B bond measure. I did *not* approve of the spending, but I felt the authorization was important, given the federal government's nonsensical opposition to stem-cell research. If the proposition had gone down in defeat, the neocons would have interpreted that (wrongly) as support for their anti-research position.

In any case, given California's budget concerns, I expect that $3B to be cut back drastically, and it's all good.

Anyway, I support the Congressional bill as well, and hope it goes through. It would send the neocons the message that the wacky tree-huggers in California are not alone in demanding they get out of the way of progress. Neocons? More like neoliths.

Anyway, I support the Congressional bill as well, and hope it goes through. It would send the neocons the message that the wacky tree-huggers in California are not alone in demanding they get out of the way of progress. Neocons? More like neoliths.

Cabinia, i'm insulted.

I'm a Conservative and I approve of this bill

There is a difference between a conservative and a neocon. The neocons put the "con" in conservative.

There is a difference between a conservative and a neocon. The neocons put the "con" in conservative.

And yet, I'm sure those so called Neocons are going to support this. However, Bush is threatening veto. Be interesting to watch if the Congress will try to override :D

And in basic science research, there is no invention. It is all discovery. In the medical sciences, it is all things which should not be patented because they exist in nature, etc. It should be "open-source", as it were.

Right. And it is.

And being a part of the process, I think I'm in a better position to know the answer.

Appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html). Argument rejected.

Actually, you didn't.You asked if I was suggesting that a corporation would not benefit from science research, as if I were talking about all research.

Sorry. I implied that this is ridiculous. Apparently reading comprehension is hard. Its a moot point anyway since corporations don't seem to be big into basic science research at the moment anyway. If they are, it's nowhere near the extent to which our various schools and medical institutions are alraedy doing. Sure, you can always make the case that many of these insitutions are funded with government money, but taking that government money away doesn't automatically mean there's no money at all. What happens when you eliminate stupid subsidies is the money shows back up in your pocket. If you're interested in research getting done, you fund it yourself, with the aid of [hopefully many] like minded people. It is not the government's job to force change or progress on society. It's our own job.

I am, quite specifically, talking about basic science research, which is simply not profitable in and of itself. It informs many areas and can, years and years down the road, lead to a profitable project, but is not profitable in and of itself.

This is hardly a ridiculous statement. It is simply how these things work.


This supposition puzzles me. Most of the basic science research we're seeng done today isn't done by the corporations anwyay. Are you suggesting that if they lose their subsidies, every scientific and medical institution in the country is going to decide its not worth it? You seem to be appealling to that possibility an awful lot.

I'm not claiming that corporations need to step up and fund 'basic science research', and I'm not claiming they're even able to in many cases. Who's saying corporations have an obligation to research the 'basic sciences?' I was under the impression that most of the insitutions doing this were schools and so forth. I'd suggest you go back and my first post from which this argument has stemmed, where I note:

Whether corporations are the ones who have done it or not is irrelevant; individuals have every bit as much of a capacity to bring about scientific changes as a coropration or any other manner of collective.



You have a way to refute the obvious fact that one area of science is informed by others? Hmmm....

No, but thanks for the flamebait. The bottom line in this argument is that facts are not--and cannot--be patented or assumed to be the property of any one person. Despite all of your alarmist rhetoric, many, many scientific journals exist today that are the result of human progress in the field of science. Do they exist because the government makes people publish them? No. We also have the internet, which I don't see as being particularly easy to regulate on a large scale. Suggesting that eliminating research subsidies would cause such a staggering retardation of our scientific progress is laughable at best, and sadly uninformed at worst.

You seem to be implying, then, that without government money no one would be interested in publishing scientific journals and essays and such. This is the concept that I found the hardest to deconstruct, since it's so ridiculous on a number of levels that I hardly know where to begin.

However, if all science were carried out through private research, there would be no scientific facts entering the collective scientific community. One corporation would have their facts. Another would have theirs, which might, by the way, contradict the other corporation.

I'd like to find out how you know this. If you can read minds and accurately predict human thought and behavior, what are you doing here? I don't accept appeals to hypotheticals as valid points of argument. Not only is this a wild assumption, it's a damning endictment of human nature. I do not accept this argument. I don't deal in "what ifs." I deal in reality.

As it is now, if I find something out, I share it with and and all other scientists. They can then use it, probably in ways I never thought of.

And that's how it'll always be for discoveries.

...which has absolutely nothing to do with basic science research. Thank you for proving my point.

Um... OK. But I have some trouble believing that Edison got to where he was through research subsidies. Cross-Talk has existed without them for thousands of years.

Yes, we can all perceive the shape of the H-powered ATP pump. Oh wait, you need special equipment and training for that...

Don't be so naive. Any average joe cannot go into his basement and make medical discoveries.

Don't call me naive again. You grossly misunderstood my point anyway. Read it again.

And that is a problem, as everyone in the group would likely already be on the same page and know what that scientist was doing. They would not, in that sense, be objective.

And what's the problem with that? Like I've said several times before, corporations aren't the ones making major medical breakthroughs right now, and I'm not entirely positive they'd be the ones to do it in a subsidy-free country. People are allowed to make mistakes, Dem.

No. Like I said, if I have an idea, I can search the literature and find out if someone else has already tried it - and whether or not it worked. If everything I and others were doing was intellectual property, that wouldn't be possible.

This is what I was getting at with my "Edison Cross-Talk" argument. Thanks for bringing it up so I didn't have to. You're also jumping to the conclusion that I think discoveries in basic science should be intellectual property. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

I never said it would halt. It would slow down greatly, however. And, in areas like the medical science, we'd have one of two results. Either the medical companies would jump in and attempt basic science research or they would continue to avoid anything that is not profitable.

If they did the former, there are two results. One is that the companies all go bankrupt, not having enough money to support all of their research. The other is that they attempt to pass those costs on to the consumer, the cost of healthcare gets so high that only the absolute richest can afford it, and the company goes bankrupt from lack of consumers anyway.

If they did the latter, they'd run out of things to try in about 10 years or so and they would be forced into basic science research if they wanted to progress.

Or you could donate money to these institutions for dollar-for-dollar tax credit. Let the people decide: if we want stagnation and no progress, we'll just keep letting the companies rip us off like the dumbasses you think we are. If we as a society actually value innovation and scientific progress, we'll do what it takes to get it done. Taking money out of my pocket because you think you have a solution is not the answer.


More later. Ya'll are responding too damn fast

I just want them to legalize human cloning. Its part of my quest for world domination. :mad:

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you Dempub. But I have been studying your bill.

In General I can agree with it. I am hoping there is some review so that it isn't abused.

Yay! =)

Most federal funds for medical research go through the NIH. Getting an NIH grant is certainly not easy, so I don't think they'll just be handing out money to anyone who wants to do this. They also require pretty meticulous bookkeeping. My advisor is currently working on a stem cell core facility and the amount of red tape she had to get through was insane - which is a good thing in the end, as everyone knows things are being done up to code.

Its a moot point anyway since corporations don't seem to be big into basic science research at the moment anyway. If they are, it's nowhere near the extent to which our various schools and medical institutions are alraedy doing. Sure, you can always make the case that many of these insitutions are funded with government money, but taking that government money away doesn't automatically mean there's no money at all. What happens when you eliminate stupid subsidies is the money shows back up in your pocket. If you're interested in research getting done, you fund it yourself, with the aid of [hopefully many] like minded people. It is not the government's job to force change or progress on society. It's our own job.

Not most of these institutions - damn near all of these institutions receive public funds. The NIH is pretty much the largest contributor of funds to medical research.

This supposition puzzles me. Most of the basic science research we're seeng done today isn't done by the corporations anwyay. Are you suggesting that if they lose their subsidies, every scientific and medical institution in the country is going to decide its not worth it? You seem to be appealling to that possibility an awful lot.

Actually, pretty much none of the basic science reserach is carried out by corporations. That is my whole point. And no, I am not suggesting that institutions will decide its not worth it. I am suggesting that, without money, there is no research. The vast majority of money in this area comes from government funding. There simply aren't enough private, non-corporation sources out there to keep things going.

IDespite all of your alarmist rhetoric, many, many scientific journals exist today that are the result of human progress in the field of science. Do they exist because the government makes people publish them? No. We also have the internet, which I don't see as being particularly easy to regulate on a large scale. Suggesting that eliminating research subsidies would cause such a staggering retardation of our scientific progress is laughable at best, and sadly uninformed at worst.

Those journals exist because the research is not being done for profit. It is not funded by corporations who slap intellectual property labels on everything. Thus, the scietnists can publish.

IYou seem to be implying, then, that without government money no one would be interested in publishing scientific journals and essays and such.

Incorrect. I have implied no such thing. I simply pointed out that scientists working in the private sector are generally not allowed to publish in scientific journals, as everything they do is considered intellectual property.

II'd like to find out how you know this. If you can read minds and accurately predict human thought and behavior, what are you doing here? I don't accept appeals to hypotheticals as valid points of argument. Not only is this a wild assumption, it's a damning endictment of human nature. I do not accept this argument. I don't deal in "what ifs." I deal in reality.

It isn't prediction. It is observation. Private companies do not publish in journals. When they do come to scientific conferences, they give almost no details - as they are not allowed to. Their lecture is essentially "we have this great product."

IUm... OK. But I have some trouble believing that Edison got to where he was through research subsidies. Cross-Talk has existed without them for thousands of years.

Most research in the past was funded through the person doing it. In other words, up until recent times, scientists were rich men with lots of time on their hands. This is no longer the case.

IYou're also jumping to the conclusion that I think discoveries in basic science should be intellectual property. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

I never said that. Thank you for making silly assumptions.

Meanwhile, what I said was that private corporations think everything that goes on with their money should be intellectual property. Thus, any science, basic science or not, carried out through such funding would be considered intellectual property.

IOr you could donate money to these institutions for dollar-for-dollar tax credit. Let the people decide: if we want stagnation and no progress, we'll just keep letting the companies rip us off like the dumbasses you think we are. If we as a society actually value innovation and scientific progress, we'll do what it takes to get it done. Taking money out of my pocket because you think you have a solution is not the answer.

You overestimate people. Hell, our congressmen don't even know enough to know what research is promising and what research isn't. Do you really think Joe-blow off the street can figure that out and decide where his dollar would go? Or is it better to have the money all in a pot and have qualified professionals determine where it will go?

No arguments here... but then it doesn't really change my opinion on what I think should be forbidden to corporations, and that is necessary services like health care, fire protection, the police, and social security.

The government has horribly butchered two or three of these programs anyway, and while having a well regulated Fire and Police department doesn't quite fly in the face of my minarchist sensibilities, government subsidized healthcare and social security are not only flawed in practice, but the reasoning behind them is--for the most part--rife with fallacies.

Seems so... unlimited patents, for clarification, is as it sounds. Microsofts patent on the doubleclick, for example. Anyway, the point is moot. Retracted. Damned misinterpretation.

Accepted, I guess.

It's more to do with not assuming that the information in your head is infallible and that you always have to be willing to admit an error rather than a true admition of utter ignorance, by my interpretation. Unless you want to go with the phrase entirely literally. I just felt it apt in the situation. It doesn't really matter.

Knowledge and thought is objective. Any confession that you'll ever con out of me to this effect will be from the result of misinformation, not of any lack in my reasoning ability. I believe the human mind is capable of solving nearly any problem it is confronted with, and mine is no exception.


of course. I'm not contesting that people die everywhere. But I don't, for example, want to suffer say, a heart attack, be taken to a hospital, and then slapped with a bill for them saving my life. Or break my leg and then get billed for that. Or get hit by a car and have to pay the hospital for the courtesy. I'm very open to capitalist policies.

TANSTAAFL. You pay in countries with "free healthcare" too. The only difference is you pay for your entire life. And for other people mostly.

I do, after all, like my internet connection high speed, and my nice graphics card, and all my other luxuries that would be difficult to come by in a communist economy unless we lived in some sci-fi federation utopia which is stifling and horrible in its own way.

And who doesn't? Taking away the ability to provide these things for ourselves--in effect making them extensions of our self, or our property as it were, is an evil thing to do.

I'm much more socialist than I am communist. I don't favour wrapping someone in bubbles for their life. Just that they are entitled to all the support they need when they do trip up. [/irrelevant aside]

And the ones that really need it can get it without outrageous income taxes. In 2004-2005 (http://national.unitedway.org/aboutuw/) the United Way gethered just about $4 billion nationwide. I'll bet if we gave better tax credit to people who donated and cut the goddamn taxes to give them more money this number would go up. Yes, the United Way gets government grants, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to what the rest of society does.

In 2003 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03hi.html) there were roughly 40 million living in 'poverty' in the United States, according to the census. Currently, the United Way only takes in enough to [theorietically] give about $114 per annum to these poor folks. The sad thing is, that despite Welfare spending, it seems to be doing a lot less.

The point I'm trying to make is pretty much purely about the healthcare and emergency services, as well as pure science projects, or those that have negligable impact on anyones lives and don't actually do much.

I understand, but often the most sensible solution is not the most obvious one. Given that we've seen what governments do to each other and to their people when given enough power, I'd really rather not like to have them be the ones holding the scalpel.

I don't feel that for profit corporations can be trusted with peoples lives. They can make me a new pc that runs faster than ever, or give me more channels, or a good movie... these things I have an option with. if I don't want them or can't afford them, I can go without.

You already do trust them with your life, just not to the extent you're invoking here. If we are to accpet that your property is the sum of your efforts as a functioning member of society, we realize that your property [and your money] are extensions of the self and thus represent, in essence, your life. If you want to give that to a corporation, thats your choice.

If I had cancer though, I don't want to have to go bankrupt just to afford the treatment.

I wouldn't want to either. But I also wouldn't want other people to have to pay for it. When you propose something like universal healthcare, it's really much, much more grossly self-interested than you think. Even irrationally so. By introducing a universal healthcare system you're basically telling the rest of society something like this:

"You are all indirectly responsible for how I live my life and what happens to me during the course of this life. I have enacted legistlation that demands you render to me a portion of your earnings so that I can pay for the things that go wrong in my life without having to 'go bankrupt.'"

TANSTAAFL.

no doubt. There are flaws in everything... I'm speaking from what I've experienced in regards to the health service, and that's that I like it being gov't controlled, in the main, and I don't see any advantages in making it MORE privatised.

Privatization forces competition. I'm not saying the government shouldn't be allowed to compete in this area either. We have subsidized delivery services and we have a public delivery service; is anyone holding a gun to your head and telling you to use FedEx over the USPS? If the government really is any good at providing these kinds of services to people in the free market, then they'll succeed by leaps and bounds. If they suck [which they seem to be doing now], then someone else will just beat their ass. By subsidizing all healthcare you're taking away my freedom to choose. I don't see any advantages in only having one option.


But I would be charged for it if it was privatised. And you'd be charged for it if it wasn't. TANSTAAFL.

But that's the thing. They're making money off of a minorities difficulty, whereas a gov't would provide for it free of charge. I prefer the free of charge approach.

See above.

Outrageously expensive, perhaps. But they wouldn't be much of a corporation if they didn't make the price of a product that they solely control as expensive as they can get away with? Flooding the market is one way to make profit, but when you flood it, the cost of manufacture goes up. When you produce just enough, and price to fit, your initial expense is somewhat lower. More profit. Of course, government contracts, etc, at least in Britain step in, and you tend to get a bit of regulation and infeasibility. My point here is that you need something to keep it in check, because everything needs to be kept in check. It'd be silly to think that corporations are the only things that can regulate themselves (though I don't believe that you are implying it.)

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. In a free market system, the companies developing the drug couldn't possibly distribute it to their intended market without distribution contracts from hospitals and doctors firms in the first place. If the hospital says "this is a mite ridiculous" or doesn't agree to the costs, the company doesn't make a dime. Manufacturing costs are not the only costs factored in a situation like this. Manufacturing costs for most drugs probably aren't too ridiculous anyway.

Privatization forces competition. I'm not saying the government shouldn't be allowed to compete in this area either. We have subsidized delivery services and we have a public delivery service; is anyone holding a gun to your head and telling you to use FedEx over the USPS? If the government really is any good at providing these kinds of services to people in the free market, then they'll succeed by leaps and bounds. If they suck [which they seem to be doing now], then someone else will just beat their ass.

Bad analogy. The USPS receives no government funds (other than one salary - that of the postmaster general). In fact, the federal government owes money to the post office - which could be helping them right now.

By subsidizing all healthcare you're taking away my freedom to choose. I don't see any advantages in only having one option.

I'll have to admit that I'm not big on completely socialized healthcare - but this is simply a silly statement. You don't loose all freedom to choose if you are subsidized. Even under Medicare, you have your own medical decisions to make and can choose between different doctors.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. In a free market system, the companies developing the drug couldn't possibly distribute it to their intended market without distribution contracts from hospitals and doctors firms in the first place. If the hospital says "this is a mite ridiculous" or doesn't agree to the costs, the company doesn't make a dime.

...unless, of course, that is the only drug available for the given situation. For instance, if a cure for AIDs came out tomorrow, people would pay whatever price the corporation placed on it - because it would be the only option they had.

Manufacturing costs are not the only costs factored in a situation like this. Manufacturing costs for most drugs probably aren't too ridiculous anyway.

That depends. Do you count research, development, and testing into manufacturing costs? If you do, there are huge costs.

Not most of these institutions - damn near all of these institutions receive public funds. The NIH is pretty much the largest contributor of funds to medical research.

I already accounted for this. Please read my post again.

Actually, pretty much none of the basic science reserach is carried out by corporations. That is my whole point.

Apparently reading comprehension is hard. See above.

And no, I am not suggesting that institutions will decide its not worth it. I am suggesting that, without money, there is no research. The vast majority of money in this area comes from government funding. There simply aren't enough private, non-corporation sources out there to keep things going.

Because they're up to their eyes in taxes due in part to outrageous subsidy policies. If we got rid of these subsidies it would be up to the public to step forward and [gasp!] provide the money themselves, which they can now do freely because the government isn't taking money from them.

Those journals exist because the research is not being done for profit. It is not funded by corporations who slap intellectual property labels on everything. Thus, the scietnists can publish.

And if basic science research holds no profit like you suggest, wouldn't these journals continue to exist since the corporations won't touch them?

Incorrect. I have implied no such thing. I simply pointed out that scientists working in the private sector are generally not allowed to publish in scientific journals, as everything they do is considered intellectual property.

And it is. Generally because, like you keep saying, they don't deal with basic sciences too much. Corporations primarily invent, they don't discover much.

It isn't prediction. It is observation. Private companies do not publish in journals.

They do in the sense that they have to inform the consumer about what they're selling.

When they do come to scientific conferences, they give almost no details - as they are not allowed to. Their lecture is essentially "we have this great product."

And only an idiot buys it with nothing more than that information. See my point earlier about cars and gas mileage, engine specs etc etc.

Most research in the past was funded through the person doing it. In other words, up until recent times, scientists were rich men with lots of time on their hands. This is no longer the case.

It's not? Wierd. I was under the assumption that most of them were fairly well paid. It's not an easy field.

I never said that. Thank you for making silly assumptions.

Then what are we arguing about here? Things that occur in nature shouldn't be patented and don't belong to any of us, but anything devised by human hands as a result of this nature are our property and should be treated as such. Whether or not it has the capacity to make peoples' lives better is irrelevant.


Meanwhile, what I said was that private corporations think everything that goes on with their money should be intellectual property. Thus, any science, basic science or not, carried out through such funding would be considered intellectual property.

Oh, that's right. I didn't make a "silly assumption." Damn, I thought you had me for a second there. Think about what you're saying: you're saying that my system advocates the rights of the corporation to patent and be the sole producer of products or substances which occur in nature. You're saying that by giving them the rights to work as they may, they will automatically and unrepentantly abuse them. Government already does this, so whats your point?

You overestimate people. Hell, our congressmen don't even know enough to know what research is promising and what research isn't. Do you really think Joe-blow off the street can figure that out and decide where his dollar would go? Or is it better to have the money all in a pot and have qualified professionals determine where it will go?

He can and he should. Its not my fault if he can't. The greatest insult you can level before the human race is that we're mindless apes who do whatever we're told and can't make decisions for ourselves. Humorously enough, this seems to be the favored position of the American Left.

Seriously though, lets say Joe Blow is a complete idiot and kills himself on a drug that hasn't ever been tested. Is it really my fault?

Then why am I paying for it?

Bad analogy. The USPS receives no government funds (other than one salary - that of the postmaster general). In fact, the federal government owes money to the post office - which could be helping them right now.

The USPS receives no government funds because it makes money off the market just like I said any competent government program should be able to do. That doesn't change the fact that it was conceived and inroduced by the government. You're basically telling me that its a "bad analogy" because its a program that has suceeded relatively well compared to anything else they've done, and I'm not sending my money down a rat-hole to pay for it.



I'll have to admit that I'm not big on completely socialized healthcare - but this is simply a silly statement. You don't loose all freedom to choose if you are subsidized. Even under Medicare, you have your own medical decisions to make and can choose between different doctors.

Depends on the extent to which you end up subsidizing. I don't think anything in mainstream US political thought suggests we subsidize all helathcare, so this is true enough.

...unless, of course, that is the only drug available for the given situation. For instance, if a cure for AIDs came out tomorrow, people would pay whatever price the corporation placed on it - because it would be the only option they had.

Right. That's how capitalism works.

That depends. Do you count research, development, and testing into manufacturing costs? If you do, there are huge costs.

Well, to hear some leftists tell it, they don't test or research hardly at all :p

Because they're up to their eyes in taxes due in part to outrageous subsidy policies. If we got rid of these subsidies it would be up to the public to step forward and [gasp!] provide the money themselves, which they can now do freely because the government isn't taking money from them.

And it is unlikely, especially considering the pure apathy of the current society, that this would happen.

And if basic science research holds no profit like you suggest, wouldn't these journals continue to exist since the corporations won't touch them?

Not if there was no funding. If we remove public funding, private funding is all there is left, no?

And it is. Generally because, like you keep saying, they don't deal with basic sciences too much. Corporations primarily invent, they don't discover much.

Yes, it is - because corporations are not involved. If we remove public funding, corporations will have to get involved. See?

They do in the sense that they have to inform the consumer about what they're selling.

This has nothing at all to do with publishing in scientific journals. The company has to tell the consumer how what they are selling will affect the body. They do not have to make their processes and all chemicals used public knowledge.

And only an idiot buys it with nothing more than that information.

And you say I have a poor opinion of human beings? You have just called nearly every consumer of medical technology an idiot.

See my point earlier about cars and gas mileage, engine specs etc etc.

I have already demonstrated why your analogy was improper. Your average person has enough background to understand these things. Your average person does not have the background to understand medical technology.

It's not? Wierd. I was under the assumption that most of them were fairly well paid. It's not an easy field.

Guess how they get paid? They get money out of grants paying for their research! Guess where most of those grants come from?

Meanwhile, most basic science research is carried out by grad students. Would you like to hear how much we get paid?

Oh, that's right. I didn't make a "silly assumption." Damn, I thought you had me for a second there. Think about what you're saying: you're saying that my system advocates the rights of the corporation to patent and be the sole producer of products or substances which occur in nature. You're saying that by giving them the rights to work as they may, they will automatically and unrepentantly abuse them. Government already does this, so whats your point?

Incorrect. You do, I assume, know the difference between intellectual property and patents? You do understand that a private corporation could make a new discovery and never tell anyone about it - and that would be protected. In fact, if a scientist working there leaked it, they could be fired? It doesn't matter if said information is patentable or not.

He can and he should. Its not my fault if he can't.

Some people have to spend their time working and getting by in life. Good to know that you are so priviledged as to have all the free time you would need to learn every field there is out there.

Meanwhile, most people have to rely on the experts to tell them what is going on.

Seriously though, lets say Joe Blow is a complete idiot and kills himself on a drug that hasn't ever been tested. Is it really my fault?

Is it your fault? No.

Does it affect you? Yes.

Right. That's how capitalism works.

Then stop making absurd claims that people won't pay what a corporation asks for medical breakthroughs.

Well, to hear some leftists tell it, they don't test or research hardly at all :p

Actually, I think what most point out is that they wouldn't do the necessary research and testing if the industry wasn't regulated. History demosntrates this to be true.

Well, my work here is done. Your posts have reached a level of absurdity that I couldn't being to disseminate even if I had the desire to do so. The contradictions, fallacies, and wild assumptions are now so obvious and so abundant that I'm not even going to bother pointing them out.

95% of all money that is being used in the research process is donated by the government.

Keep that in mind when you're talking about taking away all research money.

Well, my work here is done. Your posts have reached a level of absurdity that I couldn't being to disseminate even if I had the desire to do so. The contradictions, fallacies, and wild assumptions are now so obvious and so abundant that I'm not even going to bother pointing them out.

So you can't refute my claims about the industry (which doesn't surprise me, since I know a decent amount about it), and you resort to attacks you can't possibly back up instead.

I challenge you to demonstrate a single contradiction, fallacy, or wild assumption in any of my posts. Note that you will have to demonstrate one that is actually in the posts, not in what you imagine them to say.

I oppose this bill. The government has no business funding any research, unless said research pertains to national security/defense.
Why should the government fund the protection of its citizens from foreign enemies, but not the protection of its citizens from genetic diseases?

I'll bite, if only because my ego wants me to:

And being a part of the process, I think I'm in a better position to know the answer.

That's a fallacy.

I'll bite, if only because my ego wants me to:

That's a fallacy.

Really? So you can read my mind and know what I think and don't think? After all, all I did there was point out my own opinion on the subject.

Sigh.

No. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html


Read that, since I doubt you did the first time.

Aslo please be aware this is the only fallacy I noticed on the screen which happened to be up, and I'm not particularly interested in sorting out the entirety of your thesis for more of them. This was just the first one I saw.

Sigh.

No. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Read that, since I doubt you did the first time.

That's because it is irrelevant. My argument does not hinge on my status - I was simply pointing out my opinion that an expert in an area tends to know more about it. If you disagree with this opinion, fine.

Right. And I do. :rolleyes:

Right. And I do. :rolleyes:

So, just out of curiosity, do you think this in every field? Are you unwilling to act on the opinion of any expert? Do you regularly go against doctor's recommendations, for instance?

{from Melkor Unchained's link, section 4}
# The person in question is not significantly biased.

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.

Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.

It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.



Melkor Unchained's arguments are based on free-market concepts, Dempublicent's arguments are based on his being reliant on the system in question. Both sources are biased, and both participants are talking past each-other.

It is interesting to point out, that it appears to be that every time the Government takes over something, the Population becomes complacent and/or apathetic about that thing. For example: Small businessmen pay quarterly taxes-themselves. Their taxes are not deducted automatically, they have the money, and must part with it.
People who pay quarterly tend to be more incensed by both Waste, and the taxes themselves, than those whose taxes are deducted from their paycheck automatically.
Likewise, people who pay for private education tend to value it over publically funded education. They work harder to learn whatever it is they have paid for.

This hooks up with other things, from Pension plans to IRA's to the 401(k) plan.

Dempublicent argues that without government funding, basic research will whither away. He points out that 95% of the funding comes from Public sources as opposed to private institutions.

He further points out that the public is in general too apathetic to contribute to such endeavours.

He may have a point-at an average of 20% tax-rate, most people can't afford to contribute money to private research, and rely on Government to spend that money responsibly.

Please note the condition of Federal Finances, and how well and frugally the government spends even limited amounts of money.
(can you say "Pork"?? How many bridges in W. Virginia are named for Robert Byrd??)

Also note the condition of "basic Research" in the U.S., and the grant-chasing that goes on (along with hyperbole such as the Hockey-stick global-warming graph).

The Federal Government actually has an obligation to help fund "Useful Arts" per the Constitution. (I'll dig up a link to the appropriate section sometime tonight, though I half-expect Cat-Tribe will beat me to it...) "Useful Arts" would include Scientific research (including basic research) under the usage that section was written in. It's a Legitimate governmental expenditure-unless it's abused by charlatans and snake-oil-salesmen.

The real question is, "How much", and "What Field"?

U.S. Patent law handles ownership of new processes and such rather well, and protects the rights of those who put forth the risk. A properly worded grant-agreement can prevent something from being patented. This of course, eliminates any and all desire to do any work in that area by the private sector, but...

So, just out of curiosity, do you think this in every field? Are you unwilling to act on the opinion of any expert? Do you regularly go against doctor's recommendations, for instance?

Not necessarily, but I do reject it as an argument coming from people I've never met and especially when I have no way to prove what they say about themselves over the internet. I'm not unwilling to act on the opinion of an expert, but I am forced to reject the idea that you are an expert automatically because you tell me you are.

You talk about me putting words into your mouth, then you turn around and do stuff like this. How quaint.

{from Melkor Unchained's link, section 4}


Melkor Unchained's arguments are based on free-market concepts, Dempublicent's arguments are based on his being reliant on the system in question. Both sources are biased, and both participants are talking past each-other.

It is interesting to point out, that it appears to be that every time the Government takes over something, the Population becomes complacent and/or apathetic about that thing. For example: Small businessmen pay quarterly taxes-themselves. Their taxes are not deducted automatically, they have the money, and must part with it.
People who pay quarterly tend to be more incensed by both Waste, and the taxes themselves, than those whose taxes are deducted from their paycheck automatically.
Likewise, people who pay for private education tend to value it over publically funded education. They work harder to learn whatever it is they have paid for.

This hooks up with other things, from Pension plans to IRA's to the 401(k) plan.

Dempublicent argues that without government funding, basic research will whither away. He points out that 95% of the funding comes from Public sources as opposed to private institutions.

He further points out that the public is in general too apathetic to contribute to such endeavours.

He may have a point-at an average of 20% tax-rate, most people can't afford to contribute money to private research, and rely on Government to spend that money responsibly.

Please note the condition of Federal Finances, and how well and frugally the government spends even limited amounts of money.
(can you say "Pork"?? How many bridges in W. Virginia are named for Robert Byrd??)

Also note the condition of "basic Research" in the U.S., and the grant-chasing that goes on (along with hyperbole such as the Hockey-stick global-warming graph).

The Federal Government actually has an obligation to help fund "Useful Arts" per the Constitution. (I'll dig up a link to the appropriate section sometime tonight, though I half-expect Cat-Tribe will beat me to it...) "Useful Arts" would include Scientific research (including basic research) under the usage that section was written in. It's a Legitimate governmental expenditure-unless it's abused by charlatans and snake-oil-salesmen.

The real question is, "How much", and "What Field"?

U.S. Patent law handles ownership of new processes and such rather well, and protects the rights of those who put forth the risk. A properly worded grant-agreement can prevent something from being patented. This of course, eliminates any and all desire to do any work in that area by the private sector, but...

Agreed, for the most part. What this usually ends up boiling down to, when talking to someone like me about something like this is generally "well goddamn, just how much of a minarchist are you?!"

I'l agree that regulation of basic societal necessities is a good thing. I wouldn't even mind the subsidies if they didn't come from my paycheck. I'm not saying the money shouldn't exist, I'm saying they should find another way to get it.

Not necessarily, but I do reject it as an argument coming from people I've never met and especially when I have no way to prove what they say about themselves over the internet. I'm not unwilling to act on the opinion of an expert, but I am forced to reject the idea that you are an expert automatically because you tell me you are.

If you doubt something I saw, you could always ask for proof. TG me your email address and I'll send you my CV if you like. Like I said, however, my argument doesn't hinge on it, so it doesn't matter anyways.

You talk about me putting words into your mouth, then you turn around and do stuff like this. How quaint.

Do what? I had a was genuinely curious how far you went with this. You said that you disagreed that an expert generally knows more about their own field. You have apparently now changed that to say you only believe an expert who can provide proof of their expertise. That makes a bit more sense.

I'l agree that regulation of basic societal necessities is a good thing. I wouldn't even mind the subsidies if they didn't come from my paycheck. I'm not saying the money shouldn't exist, I'm saying they should find another way to get it.

And herein lies the problem. Most people feel that "basic societal necessities" encompasses a bit more than you do.

And those are generally the same people who like to tell us "This is what you need to be eating" and "This is what you need to be drinking," and "This is how you need to sort your trash." The presence or volume of their opinions does not make them right.

And those are generally the same people who like to tell us "This is what you need to be eating" and "This is what you need to be drinking," and "This is how you need to sort your trash." The presence or volume of their opinions does not make them right.

So anyone who disagrees with you must disagree to the extent that they are on the other extreme?

What a cute little black and white world you live in.

So anyone who disagrees with you must disagree to the extent that they are on the other extreme?

What a cute little black and white world you live in.

Well, answering this more or less requires me to write a book that explains why, which is something that doesn't strike me as pariculraly practical or worthwhile in this instance.

Nonetheless, I fail to see how I illustrate just why people must "disagree to the extent that they are on the other extreme?" Maybe I'm missing something here.

I find myself very conflicted over this, but not because of any religious beliefs or such. :(

I love that quote in your sig, Eutrusca. It owns.

I don't understand the conflict. If you value life, you should accept that if a being is dying but can contribute to preservation of other life, then using it for such is not a human rights violation.

If a fetus is going to die anyway, and its stem cells could contribute substantially to preserving the life of another person, then the stem cells should be used. You are not going to keep a fetus alive by banning stem cell research. These are fetuses that are going to die from causes other than having stem cells removed.
BTW, I saw another thread around here with a "picture" of a fetus/embryo. The picture didn't show a fetus it showed a blastocyst which is the stage just before the person becomes a fetus.

I don't understand the conflict. If you value life, you should accept that if a being is dying but can contribute to preservation of other life, then using it for such is not a human rights violation.

If a fetus is going to die anyway, and its stem cells could contribute substantially to preserving the life of another person, then the stem cells should be used. You are not going to keep a fetus alive by banning stem cell research. These are fetuses that are going to die from causes other than having stem cells removed.
BTW, I saw another thread around here with a "picture" of a fetus/embryo. The picture didn't show a fetus it showed a blastocyst which is the stage just before the person becomes a fetus.

I know this is pedantic, but you are incorrect.

At the blastocyst stage, it is already considered an embryo. It remains an embryo until about 8 weeks of development - when it enters the fetal stage. None of these embryos will ever reach the fetal stage.

You are correct, however, that embryonic stem cells are removed at the blastocyst stage - when the blastocyst begins to hollow out and the stem cells are bunched to one end.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt the bill stipulate that it can only use stem cells that would otherwise be discarded anyway? IIRC, it explicitly forbids people from using stem cell facilities as "hatcheries" like in Brave New World.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt the bill stipulate that it can only use stem cells that would otherwise be discarded anyway? IIRC, it explicitly forbids people from using stem cell facilities as "hatcheries" like in Brave New World.

You are correct. The stem cells can only be obtained from embryos originally created for the purpose of reproduction (ie. excess embryos from in vitro fertilization), with informed consent from the couple that was seeking the treatment and absolutely no payment given to them.

Yeah, I remembered the part about no compensation for donation. I'll agree with that much. But I still say the subsidies are full of shit ;)

An update on the whole thing:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/congress.stemcells.ap/index.html

While I certainly respect the views of those who oppose this research (so long as they are also lobbying against in vitro fertilization - something I have not heard Tom Delay doing), I have to wonder if Tom Delay ever knows what he is talking about. Dismemberment generally refers to the removal of limbs, does it not? How can you remove limbs that don't exist? Ah well.

An update on the whole thing:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/congress.stemcells.ap/index.html

While I certainly respect the views of those who oppose this research (so long as they are also lobbying against in vitro fertilization - something I have not heard Tom Delay doing), I have to wonder if Tom Delay ever knows what he is talking about. Dismemberment generally refers to the removal of limbs, does it not? How can you remove limbs that don't exist? Ah well.

Even I wonder what goes through his head and he is part of the same party I am. That's saying something. However, I can be in favor of this bill. I think it has merit.

BTW: I'm also pro-life.

They need to stop!!!!! They don't know what they're doing!!!!

Passed in the house. =)

Similar bill possibly pending in the Senate.

Bush threatening a veto. Apparently he thinks that embryos shouldn't be destroyed to advance human life - that they should be destroyed for no reason instead.

Passed in the house. =)

Similar bill possibly pending in the Senate.

Bush threatening a veto. Apparently he thinks that embryos shouldn't be destroyed to advance human life - that they should be destroyed for no reason instead.

I saw that it past the house. I don't think it'll pass the Senate however. The Senate will be a tougher fight.

I saw that it past the house. I don't think it'll pass the Senate however. The Senate will be a tougher fight.

Most likely much tougher. However, many Republicans are supporting this bill and I think it will pass.

I think the real question will be if Bush grows balls and actually uses the veto. This would be the first time he's vetoed anything if he does. And I doubt it will have the votes to get past a veto. =(

Most likely much tougher. However, many Republicans are supporting this bill and I think it will pass.

I think the real question will be if Bush grows balls and actually uses the veto. This would be the first time he's vetoed anything if he does. And I doubt it will have the votes to get past a veto. =(

depends on the vote in the House. I think it can there. The senate thoug.....

that is a whole different ball game.

95% of all money that is being used in the research process is donated by the government.

Keep that in mind when you're talking about taking away all research money.
1. Bullshit.
2. Taking away research money? That's what the government is doing.

Jordaxia and Dem: I'll respond to you after work tonight. First, though, I wanted to touch on this.

Property rights exist because property is life. The money or possessions earned by an individual represent the sum of his labors; it represents the time he took out of his life to provide a service to someone else. My computer is property, my phone is property, and my money is goddamn property too.I agree with you and myself. Material things are necessary for life, but if these material things were not scarce, you would not need property rights. Air is something we all need to survive, yet nobody I know 'owns' air. You don't need to own air, because there's more than enough to go around.

If I went out and found a miracle combination of chemicals, that would be property too.What would? The formula? Why? Because it's the result of your labor?

Look, I'm not entirely decided on the question of intellectual property rights, but I feel compelled to refute any claim that there's no difference between them and physical property rights. There are many many differences:

-When you own physical property it is yours forever, you even get to decide who gets it when you die. Intellectual property is yours until the law says it belongs to the public. I think that patents last 17 years and copyrights last 50 or 100 years in the US. If you see no difference between the two types property, you should demand that patents and copyrights last forever as well.

-Protecting physical property primarily requires that you keep and eye on your stuff. Courts and law enforcement may be used to get your stuff back if somebody takes it, but they are not essential to the right. Protecting intellectual property is not that simple. It absolutely necessitates a government bureaucracy to award and enforce a patent or copyrights. Patents can be very difficult ot work with, in particular. In some industries the cost of patent law compliance can be higher than the cost of US tax law compliance. It also seems feasible that within a decade or two the US Patent Office may well give up on some types of emerging technology, due to it's inability to keep up with patent requests.

-Two people can idependently come up with the same idea. I think it's a safe bet that the bow and arrow was invented at least twice in ancient history. This leads to having competitors competing for the patent instead competing to actually bring the thing to market. You never have to worry about two people literally earning the same money.

I guess the bottom line is that physical property rights are a natural way humans have developed to take care of our needs while addressing the issue of scarcity. Many animals even observe the property rights of each other to some extent. OTOH, intellectual property rights are artificial (monoply) rights granted by the state.



By subsidizing everything under the sun and taxing the ever loving bejesus out of me, you're basically telling me that I'm not allowed to decide what I do with my life. It's a sinister double standard.
Don't blame me. I am not taxing you. I've never voted for, voiced support for, or acted in support of any taxes. And I don't really see the 'double standard' relation.

I agree with Melkor as a rule of thumb; small government is good. I think this is a field where an exception can be made, however. I don't know his reasoning, but the reasoning of most small government advocates is that large government restricts freedom, ignores many intentions of its own people, creates large self-serving bureaucracies, subverts individualism, and so forth.

I don't see any of that in the field of government funded scientific research. In terms of efficiency, other than the cost of paying employees of regulatory agencies (which should be as small as possible), the money is relatively equally effective as through private donations. The main difference is motivation, and the money being spread out in the areas it needs to be. I have no problem with corporate profit, and individual profit. When the motivation for the particular field of scientific research is solely profit, however, I begin to worry. If the cure for cancer were not so profitable as the treatment, does it really benefit the human race to keep it secret? If the cure for AIDS is possible, but would cost more money than it makes, is it ethical to not bother? Profit may motivate some government-funded research as well, but I'd like to believe that some of it is truly for the sake of the public's best interest. I have to agree with Dempublicents about information sharing as well. Exclusivity during development screws the public for the sake of monopolization. Better to have 10 labs working together than 10 working apart. Obviously, it's not the government's role to force corporations to share secrets of privately funded research, just a commentary showing the benefit of non-profit-based government controlled research.

Sure, removing government funded research wouldn't stop the process, but it would be severely underfunded in several areas. Universities and private corporations would continue to make contributions, as would some private financiers, and indeed they would have more money to spend with lower taxes. The difference therein, however, would be quite large. I don't have the actual numbers and I don't claim to be an expert, but suppose this:

All businesses which would be the type to contribute to scientific research are given a tax break proportionate to the amount of money the government spends on scientific research. Are they going to immediately go out and spend 100% of that tax discount on R+D? Hell no. As for private financiers, you're talking about a small portion of the population. A large majority of such wealthy philanthropists prefer throwing money into dead end causes like providing food for starving Africans, rather than research, as well. The average person is self-interested, doesn't have money to throw into such causes, and doesn't see the long-term picture anyway. Corporations are great sources of capital for such ventures, but of course look out only for that which will make them money, as well they should. Again, there is the possibility of great discoveries which could go unmade due to the narrow viewpoint of solely profit based ventures, and we could suffer for that.

It would be nice if our government tried more privatization of several of its departments, on a trial and error basis. I just think Scientific research should be one of the last ones to be tried, given its seemingly uncorrupt and well-intentioned nature. Don't bother to dispute my points on a scientific basis, I'm a historian, not a political scientist, just tossin in my two cents.



Off subject: By the way Melkor, I sent in about 15 issues to NS in the last week (and they're well written, thought out, follow all the rules, etc.). Every time it says I'll receive a telegram if it's accepted, and I've got nothing. Do you know if they're still taking them, or anything about the process I don't? It's kind of frustrating, they're pretty good issues, I'd like to see em up, or at least a response.

Arlen Specter seems to think that they not only have the votes to pass the bill in the senate, but also to do their part to override a veto, should Bush use it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/29/stem.cells/index.html

Arlen Specter seems to think that they not only have the votes to pass the bill in the senate, but also to do their part to override a veto, should Bush use it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/29/stem.cells/index.html

Hopefully it doesn't come to that but if they do, then good.

I agree with you and myself. Material things are necessary for life, but if these material things were not scarce, you would not need property rights. Air is something we all need to survive, yet nobody I know 'owns' air. You don't need to own air, because there's more than enough to go around.

The thing that people frequently fail to realize is that anything beyond the basic requisites for life are [i]amenities. Medicine is no exception.

What would? The formula? Why? Because it's the result of your labor?
Yes.

Look, I'm not entirely decided on the question of intellectual property rights, but I feel compelled to refute any claim that there's no difference between them and physical property rights. There are many many differences:

-When you own physical property it is yours forever, you even get to decide who gets it when you die. Intellectual property is yours until the law says it belongs to the public. I think that patents last 17 years and copyrights last 50 or 100 years in the US. If you see no difference between the two types property, you should demand that patents and copyrights last forever as well.

Yes, and medicines are patented. Which means, after 17 years, other people can make them too. Notice how they have generic prozac now?

-Protecting physical property primarily requires that you keep and eye on your stuff. Courts and law enforcement may be used to get your stuff back if somebody takes it, but they are not essential to the right. Protecting intellectual property is not that simple. It absolutely necessitates a government bureaucracy to award and enforce a patent or copyrights. Patents can be very difficult ot work with, in particular. In some industries the cost of patent law compliance can be higher than the cost of US tax law compliance. It also seems feasible that within a decade or two the US Patent Office may well give up on some types of emerging technology, due to it's inability to keep up with patent requests.

O...K...? What are you trying to tell me here?

-Two people can idependently come up with the same idea. I think it's a safe bet that the bow and arrow was invented at least twice in ancient history. This leads to having competitors competing for the patent instead competing to actually bring the thing to market. You never have to worry about two people literally earning the same money.

Umm.... and whoever gets the patent gets to bring it to market. Are you implying that if two people invented the same thing at the same time it would be produced more slowly than if just one person had though it up? Preposterous.



I guess the bottom line is that physical property rights are a natural way humans have developed to take care of our needs while addressing the issue of scarcity. Many animals even observe the property rights of each other to some extent. OTOH, intellectual property rights are artificial (monoply) rights granted by the state.

Right. And?

Don't blame me. I am not taxing you. I've never voted for, voiced support for, or acted in support of any taxes. And I don't really see the 'double standard' relation.

I didn't blame you, but if you cant see the double standard you're not looking hard enough or you're refusing to see it for one reason or another. We live in a democracy that's supposedly 'for the people, by the people' that's allowed to do a lot of things that the people would be arrested for doing. In many cases this is a sensible policy [eg, building nukes, maintaining an army, etc etc], but in a social sense it's totally irresponsible. If I stole your paycheck, paved your driveway with it, and gave $10 to a bum, I'd still be arrested for theft even if I gave you the change. The government, on the other hand, it allowed to do this in the name of the 'public interest.' I'm not prepared to hold my government to a different [fiscal] standard than I hold myself.

Off subject: By the way Melkor, I sent in about 15 issues to NS in the last week (and they're well written, thought out, follow all the rules, etc.). Every time it says I'll receive a telegram if it's accepted, and I've got nothing. Do you know if they're still taking them, or anything about the process I don't? It's kind of frustrating, they're pretty good issues, I'd like to see em up, or at least a response.

Be patient. I don't generally deal with issues, so I wouldn't know.

Arlen Specter seems to think that they not only have the votes to pass the bill in the senate, but also to do their part to override a veto, should Bush use it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/29/stem.cells/index.html
I especially like the way Arlen Specter slapped down Brownback over when life begins. He said "Well Sam, I'm a lot more concerned at this point about when my life is gonna end." He's suffering from cancer right now and may not survive until the end of his term--the chemo may kill him first. Nothing like a mortal illness to help you get a little perspective.

If the Senate overrides the Presidential Veto, it may be a devastating blow to the Bush administration. It would show that the Senate is not full of a bunch of Republican Zombies, as would be Bush's hopes. If he loses support in the Senate, his power will be VERY limited.

Considering that 58 Senators(At least 8 republicans here) will likely support this bill even if bush gives the "nay" and that there are possibly 20 more who wished to remain anonymous, this could very well happen.

If the Senate overrides the Presidential Veto, it may be a devastating blow to the Bush administration. It would show that the Senate is not full of a bunch of Republican Zombies, as would be Bush's hopes. If he loses support in the Senate, his power will be VERY limited.

You also forgot one thing. The veto has to be overriden by the house too. And most likely, that'll happen if they choose to pursue it. And just because they decide to override his veto DOES NOT mean he lost the support of the Senate.

Considering that 58 Senators(At least 8 republicans here) will likely support this bill even if bush gives the "nay" and that there are possibly 20 more who wished to remain anonymous, this could very well happen.

Can only hope and pray.

I don't look at this bill from a taxation/regulation point of view so much as a moral point of view: should the U.S. be funding research that kills people? This sounds overly simplistic, but it is not. Embryos used for stem cell research are fertilized, which means they will develop into independent human beings naturally. Embryos have unique DNA just like I do. Therefore they are human beings just as much as any other member of society. The government already gives money to subsidize the killing of people through embryonic stem-cell research, and (like so many other similar things) restricts only based on "choice" or "consent." The government has no business subsidizing the killing of its own citizens.

Now, I'm sure people will accuse me of being callous to those with major diseases who see stem-cell research as a savior. To these critics I have three arguments:
1) You will die anyways. Stem cells cannot make you immortal. Therefore, embryonic stem-cell research only leads to more deaths than otherwise. The gain may be short-term comfort for the afflicted, but the loss will be the wastage of human potiential on a vast scale.
2) The miracle properties of stem-cell research have not been proven, nor can they be proven except by conducting the research. Which means that there is a potential for the wastage of time, talent, and energy, which are of some value, and human life, which is the most valuable resource this country has.
3) Stem-cell research is not limited to human embryos. While human material must of course be used, stem cells are also found in the umbilical cord and in mature human beings. Utilizing these sources kills no one; in fact, it works in harmony with life instead of destroying it.

I am not anti-science or anti-progress. But we're all going to die one of these days, and I really don't believe that giving a sick person 10 or 20 years of comfort at the end of life justifies the murder of Americans who haven't even begun to live yet, who haven't yet had the chance to make this country a better place. And I REALLY don't believe that our government should be supporting the situation with my tax dollars.

I don't look at this bill from a taxation/regulation point of view so much as a moral point of view: should the U.S. be funding research that kills people? This sounds overly simplistic, but it is not. Embryos used for stem cell research are fertilized, which means they will develop into independent human beings naturally. Embryos have unique DNA just like I do. Therefore they are human beings just as much as any other member of society. The government already gives money to subsidize the killing of people through embryonic stem-cell research, and (like so many other similar things) restricts only based on "choice" or "consent." The government has no business subsidizing the killing of its own citizens.

Now, I'm sure people will accuse me of being callous to those with major diseases who see stem-cell research as a savior. To these critics I have three arguments:
1) You will die anyways. Stem cells cannot make you immortal. Therefore, embryonic stem-cell research only leads to more deaths than otherwise. The gain may be short-term comfort for the afflicted, but the loss will be the wastage of human potiential on a vast scale.
2) The miracle properties of stem-cell research have not been proven, nor can they be proven except by conducting the research. Which means that there is a potential for the wastage of time, talent, and energy, which are of some value, and human life, which is the most valuable resource this country has.
3) Stem-cell research is not limited to human embryos. While human material must of course be used, stem cells are also found in the umbilical cord and in mature human beings. Utilizing these sources kills no one; in fact, it works in harmony with life instead of destroying it.

I am not anti-science or anti-progress. But we're all going to die one of these days, and I really don't believe that giving a sick person 10 or 20 years of comfort at the end of life justifies the murder of Americans who haven't even begun to live yet, who haven't yet had the chance to make this country a better place. And I REALLY don't believe that our government should be supporting the situation with my tax dollars.

I did ask that this not become a debate over stem cell research. I'll be happy to start a new thread if you would like to have that debate. I would point out that you are incorrect - federal money does not go to the destruction of embryos, nor has it.

I would also ask if you are opposed to in vitro fertilization. Do remember that these embryos are going to be destroyed whether they are used for research or not. The question is whether or not we should waste them.

Umm.... and whoever gets the patent gets to bring it to market. Are you implying that if two people invented the same thing at the same time it would be produced more slowly than if just one person had though it up? Preposterous.


No, but the fact is that corporation persue patents in order to secure potential future profits. They patent technologies that they have no idea what to do with because they may find some use for them 10 years down the road. Meanwile, if someone else has a use for it today he can't do anything about it.



I didn't blame you, but if you cant see the double standard you're not looking hard enough or you're refusing to see it for one reason or another. We live in a democracy that's supposedly 'for the people, by the people' that's allowed to do a lot of things that the people would be arrested for doing. In many cases this is a sensible policy [eg, building nukes, maintaining an army, etc etc], but in a social sense it's totally irresponsible. If I stole your paycheck, paved your driveway with it, and gave $10 to a bum, I'd still be arrested for theft even if I gave you the change. The government, on the other hand, it allowed to do this in the name of the 'public interest.' I'm not prepared to hold my government to a different [fiscal] standard than I hold myself.


If you don't like taxes then don't pay them.

No, but the fact is that corporation persue patents in order to secure potential future profits. They patent technologies that they have no idea what to do with because they may find some use for them 10 years down the road. Meanwile, if someone else has a use for it today he can't do anything about it.
And if he gets a job within said corporation, he can tell them how to use it and he'll be paid handsomely for his innovations.

If you don't like taxes then don't pay them.
If there's some way I can not pay taxes and end up somehwere outside of a jail cell, I'm all ears.

Yes, and medicines are patented. Which means, after 17 years, other people can make them too. Notice how they have generic prozac now?Actually, I haven't noticed, but I'm well aware that patents expire. That's what I was saying, but I wonder what you think. Is 17 years the proper length of time to grant a monopoly to the patent holder? Should it be shorter? Longer? Should it depend on the type of technology? How long should this patent (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,368,227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227) last?
-Protecting physical property primarily requires that you keep and eye on your stuff. Courts and law enforcement may be used to get your stuff back if somebody takes it, but they are not essential to the right. Protecting intellectual property is not that simple. It absolutely necessitates a government bureaucracy to award and enforce a patent or copyrights. Patents can be very difficult ot work with, in particular. In some industries the cost of patent law compliance can be higher than the cost of US tax law compliance. It also seems feasible that within a decade or two the US Patent Office may well give up on some types of emerging technology, due to it's inability to keep up with patent requests.


O...K...? What are you trying to tell me here?I'm pointing out the difference between intellectual property and physical property rights. The reason for doing so is to try and show that any good argument for physical property rights doesn't necessarily work for intellectual property rights. Previously, you wrote as though they're the same thing.

Specifically above, I'm trying to show that in order to have intellectual property, you need to have government. And that government needs to take your physical property to pay the costs of maintaining patents and such. I also, think that everyone should understand that as technology expands, it will eventually become impossible for any government to issue and maintain patents in a timely and sensible manner. The US patent office already seems to be having some trouble. Based on this, and the ever increasing cost of patent law compliance, we may well be better of without such law. If not now, perhaps in the future.



Umm.... and whoever gets the patent gets to bring it to market. Are you implying that if two people invented the same thing at the same time it would be produced more slowly than if just one person had though it up? Preposterous. No, where would you get that idea? What I'm saying is that two seperate people could invent the same thing at the same time with no knowledge of each other at all, but only the one who gets a patent issued first would be permitted to profit from it. Without patent law, the first one to market would 'win', although legally they could both profit. Imagine if you were the guy who didn't get the patent and you were better prepared to bring the product to market. Further imagine that your intellectual competitor was unable to do so because either he had a crappy buisness plan or he simply lacked capital. You might be able to buy the patent from him, but you might not. If you're a day late to the patent office, not only do you not get a monopoly on the use of your idea, but you can't use your idea at all. Is that fair? Or to use language you might find more acceptable, is that justice?



Right. And?
Okay, I guess that doesn't bother you. You seem to be a fan of free markets and small government. I would suspect that you generally aren't big on government granted monopolies, but I suppose I may be wrong.


I didn't blame you, but if you cant see the double standard you're not looking hard enough or you're refusing to see it for one reason or another. We live in a democracy that's supposedly 'for the people, by the people' that's allowed to do a lot of things that the people would be arrested for doing. In many cases this is a sensible policy [eg, building nukes, maintaining an army, etc etc], but in a social sense it's totally irresponsible. If I stole your paycheck, paved your driveway with it, and gave $10 to a bum, I'd still be arrested for theft even if I gave you the change. The government, on the other hand, it allowed to do this in the name of the 'public interest.' I'm not prepared to hold my government to a different [fiscal] standard than I hold myself.I still don't know what double standard you're talking about. I don't quite see how what you're saying directly above relates to talking about intellectual property. Perhaps it has something to do with stem cell research? Ohh, it's that the government won't spend your money on something you see as good but will spend it on something you see as bad? That might be worded stupid, but am I on the right track? Or are you saying that it's not fair that the government can get away with taking my money while you can't? Okay, I don't think you're actually saying that, but it's a pretty funny thought.

As far as what you're saying here, I'd tell you that you're preaching to the choir, but it's more like you're preaching to the pope. Okay, except the part about the nukes and the army. Not to say there should be no military or even no nukes, but the level of spending for the US military is far beyond necessary. That you specifically mention makes me wonder what you would thing about this piece (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory74.html) defining the Perfect Objectivist Government.

I can't really say there's much in the above post that I find issue with; I'm aware of the differences between physical and intellectual property rights, and I'm sort of starting to wonder just what the opposition's position is on these issues; I don't currently have a problem with the way patents are run and upheld, as a general rule.

The enormously stupid patent you link to is an unfortunate side effect of having bureaucracy like this; stupid shit will sift through the cracks all the time. Does it mean we should do away with the concept completely? Not necessarily. It just means we have to be more sensible about it, which is an ability those in power seem to be lacking.

That part about "Imagine if you were the guy who didn't get the patent and you were better prepared to bring the product to market," left a sick sort of taste in my mouth since I'm not really interested in debating hypothetical situations when I talk about philosophy, at leastnot in this context. People try to get me to change my mind based on lots of "well, what if..." type situations, and they never fail to bore me. The fact of the matter is, this problem or a problem with similar implications would be possible in any system, even an Objectivist one.

I'm not sure what you would do to propse a solution to a problem like this, and I'm frankly not too interested in such a solution unless it can somehow uphold the property rights of the original creator. Yeah, that would suck, but I'd rather be consistent about it than open the door for people to appeal to have patents rescinded because they think they can do a better job of it.

Preposterous. Research always fails. Research continues anyway. When someone gets it right, they know it. And the people who sit around waiting for other people to come up with ideas for them are of little merit anyway: I see no reason to applaud their actions. Saying "if everyone thinks like that" is a fallacy because, simply, not everyone thinks like that. Your final thought is an assumption that nears the volume of my ego. You have no idea what corporations would do if given the chance.

We've seen throught the course of history, on the other hand, what government does.

People who sit around waiting for others to come up with ideas aren't who we're talking about, I suppose; who we are talking about are the Hawkings and Penroses; the Lobachevskis and Mobiuses; the Fitzgeralds, Lorentzes, Levi-Civitas and Einsteins; the Davys, Faradays and Oersteds; the Brahes and Keplers; and, if you go back far enough, the Archimedeses, Erastotheneses, Herons, and Al-Jabirs. Those who, through consideration of other's work and correspondence with those others, came to conclusions that transcended the work of any as an individual. Einstein (who, ironically, worked in a patent office) did not come out of the blue; he, for example, had the Michelson-Morley experiment disproving the existence of the ether; Fitzgerald's statements and Lorentz's enumerations of the contraction caused by relative motion and were later explained by Einstein; Dalton, Rutherford, Bohr, and many others who performed experiments that led him to his proof of the existence of the atom; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

This was the sharing of information that we are discussing. For example, though Levi-Civita invented Tensor calculus by himself and Einstein was, confessed by himself, an awful mathematician, Einstein was able to correct Levi-Civita on several applications of Tensor calculus after he had begun to develop his own renowned theories. None of these men were privately employed.

Even then, ideas like the xerography machine (your everyday copier) were devised my men who could not get support of their ideas because they were so radical and different(the copier was based on an application of - coincidentally - Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect instead of on well-known photographic priniciples). The inventor of the copier (I forget his name) lived in poverty his whole life, working in rundown, sooty houses with no heat in winter to develop the machine that would change everyone's life.

Equally, free discussion is often stifled by those who get profit from the continuation of old ones. John Harrison, who single-handedly in the mid-1700's devised a way of telling longitude (before then an impossibility) by use of clocks was derided by the Royal Society, whose paychecks and principles were founded in an astronomical way of finding one's distance west or east of London. Finally, at age 71, Harrison got the 20000-pound prize he deserved when King George III heard of his plight and forced the Royal Society off its lofty pedestal.

And you say we don't know what corporations do? Take a look at Standard Oil. Carnegie Steel. The Vanderbilt Railroads. Et cetera. General conditions in late 19th-Century America. Those were corporations, unregulated by government and unregulated by the concerns of the public.

Oil companies today exhibit much the same behvior, opposing - and getting their friends in Congress to oppose - anything that would deny them a profit, including the ANWR preserve in Alaska, wetland reclamation efforts in Louisiana, and hydrogen cars. Of course, there is a little going into these pursuits, but not as much as would if politicians didn't have their pockets lined with money from America's utter dependence on oil.

Certainly there are "good" corporations, but, sadly, the profit motive often gets in the way of business altruism. This is where the government, as protector of the people's rights, must step in sometimes to make sure progress is taking place.

All you have to do is take a couple glances - minute glances - at history and you'll find the answers.