The government’s interest is two-fold: Make it financially justifiable to find cures, often by underwriting early research, in order to bolster US standing in the global marketplace, and to solve public health problems.

And I like when I read a long, well-reasoned post and then get the “JK” at the end as thought you were just kidding.

Good times.

When the federal government funds basic biomedical research in the form of a grant…there are no expectations from the government that the results be favorable in a particular direction. Not so, when there’s a profit motive.

No, I am not saying “profit,” is bad. No one would argue the point that industry has been behind some of the greatest inventions and discoveries in history.

It’s just that their increasing influence in the laboratory changes the dynamic of the research enterprise, and we need to be aware of it.

JK

Caruso and I go back a long way. Probably 10 years. Or close to it.

I have repeatedly “informed” Jay, and people like Jay why federal funding of basic biomedical research is needed. The problem, for Jay, is that he’s very smart on some issues, but this is one with which he has always expressed a moderate amount of cluelessness.

I won’t bore everyone with yet another explanation of why basic, federaly funded, research is needed, other than to simply say that I’m glad that members of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle, are smarter than Jay.
They know that the NIH funds over $20B to fund a lot of basic research that corporations won’t do because the long-term risk is too high, and results uncertain.

We have a public/private RD partnership that is without question, the best in the world. Yet Caruso wants everyone to pull out their checkbook. Sometimes, it’s better to remain silent when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Jay, on this issue, you are simply lost.

There’s another side of this. Read Jennifer Washburn’s, “The Kept University.” It’s about the increasing influence of corporate America on the University campus, and the changing face of the the R&D enterprise.

It’s very hard for researches to get funded. It’s very competetive, and the review process very demanding. That’s the way it should be. However, one of the results of the shrinking federal pie is that universities are looking to corporate America for funding. Essentially, there’s a lot of expertise on most campuses, for very little $$. Much less money than it would take to develop similar intellectual property in the private sector. (It doesn’t take a whole heck of a lot of $$ to pay for a bright grad student.)

One of the unfortunate effects of this trend, is that corporations are putting increasing pressure on researchers to give them results that will reflect positively on their corporation. Scientists are being prevented from publishing the results of their research if the results aren’t good for the company. That runs counter to the traditional mission of ANY academic community, which is, of course, furtherance of knowledge for the public good.

Corporate funding is necessary. Very necessary. Right now, however, there isn’t a formal understanding between the two institutions, the two cultures, and that has the end result of compromising research integrity.

So, Jay couldn’t be any more wrong. He’s a lost cause, but since this happens to be something *I* know a lot about, I need to get it out there.

JK

I m thinking you re wrong. So are lots of scientists.

Maybe there are vacancies on Devil s Island?

I’m divided on the death penalty: peronally, I’m opposed to it (you killed someone, so we’re going to kill you” doesn’t seem right to me), but I also fully understand that people think retribution is crucial to justice (you took a life, so yours must be taken”).

Recent studies ahow that there are two types of pedophiles: One, who because he feels inadequate in “normal” relationships, seeks the company of children, with an almost inadvertent molestation to follow; and two, there is the sexual predator, who seeks out children to overpower them (as rapists do adult women). It is difficult to tell them apart. So, while chemical castration might seem “appropriate” for type 2, type 1 can often be rehabilitated.

Maybe there are vacancies on Devil’s Island?

factcheck (Lawd, whatever made you think of that name?): The myth that people opposed to abortion don’t care about children after their birth, has been dispelled years ago.

Christians are involved in prenatal care, as well as adoption procedures for the children given away. Of course, women are encouraged to marry and raise the child, but they are supported in whatever their choice, provided they choose life for the child.

BirthRight.org, and other organizations come to mind.

BirthRight.org, and other organizations come to mind.

Adding to this argument, Smith finds a central problem with bioethics in its  social definition rather than a biological definition of life and death, allowing someone in a  persistent vegetative state to be deemed a  non-person.
Smith exemplified this idea with the philosophy of leading bioethics researcher Peter Singer. Singer s definition of human life holds that someone must be  self-aware over time. Under this definition, the unborn, those with certain disabilities and newborns can be used as instruments; they are no longer people, but harvestable commodities.

OK, from the top to the bottom

No problem, Athene, welcome to the Fun House

duros62:

OK, then I apologize — I will resist the temptation to make an immigration remark.
You don’t know who Krusty is?

{I just heard Lady Day sing “Strange Fruit” — spine chilling every time}

duros62 . The stem cells from an abandoned emryo in a fertility clinic could have saved Terri Schiavo s brain. What do you do? Go.
I would never trade a life for a life. I wouldn’t ask a volunteer to die for her — would you? Why would I ask an unwilling volunteer?

factcheck:

…one of the big problems I have with the pro-fetus crowd is that they value a blastocyst the same or more than a living, thriving, human life.
I don’t see why… When was the last time you shot a dog?
Did you ever swerve out of the way of an animal on the road? Why?
Because it’s a living thing…

mikebdot:
Have they cured MD? Raising some money doesn t mean that enough has been raised to make a dent into the research.
Is government money magic? MDA has received millions of dollars over the last 50 years. They’ve done amazing things with physical therapy, prosthetics, and assistive technology; from which many more people than MD have benefited. They have probably received a ton of government money, too. I’m not buying Jay C’s argument whole hog, but I do believe that it’s a better test of people’s concern when they are asked to give money, then when they are forced to.

Holy crap do I look forward to that day.

Amen. I’m still borrowing, until at least 2007. 50 plus thousand.

duros62:
duros: The potential for human life is not the same as human life. To me, a distinction without a difference.

For more information please check out the following sight.

Just because urban dictionary doesn’t have the correct meaning doesn’t mean I’m using it incorrectly.