Moral vs. Practical Arguments: Stem Cell Research
By its very nature, government politicizes everything it touches. Science is no exception. Stem cell research needs neither government money nor politics. It is better is to get the government out and let the private sector continue its good work. Those people calling for increased funding could take out their checkbooks and support it. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research would not be forced to pay for it.This is a sound moral argument, but what about the practical ones?
1. Government does so much today that it has no business doing, and since this isn't likely to change appreciably anytime soon, isn't it better that at least some of our taxes go toward life-giving measures like stem cell research now?
Counterargument: two wrongs don’t make a right, and once government takes an industry into its tentacles, rarely, if ever, does it release it.
2. Isn't the state the only resource today that can underwrite significant research, a la California's Proposition 71 ($3 billion over 10 years)? Is stem cell research lucrative enough to draw the top scientists privately?
Counterargument: the Human Genome Project.
Postscript (10/5/05): Ronald Bailey documents the private sector's abundant efforts thus far.
comments powered by Disqus
- 159 scholars at Harvard sign petition reprimanding the school for rejections of Chelsea Manning and Michelle Jones
- Fact Check: Steve Bannon’s Bad History
- The Story Behind the Truman Quote in President Trump's U.N. Speech
- As Trump Declares Missing in Action Recognition Day, How Many Service Members Are Missing?
- The ‘nation’s report card’ says it assesses critical thinking in history
- Eric Foner discusses the manipulation of history
- Male historian tapped to lead Department of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of Kansas
- Decline in History Majors Continues, Departments Respond
- He’s 75 now. When he started teaching at the University of New Orleans students walked out on his class.
- ‘Fake news’ from 1738 offers lessons for modern historians, says Missouri scholar