Republican strategists who saw how quickly the commercial was downloaded, e-mailed and reshown on news broadcasts certainly thought so. Rush Limbaugh rushed in to discredit Mr. Fox, though he mostly hurt himself. Mr. Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, told his listeners that the actor either “didn’t take his medication or was acting.” Mr. Limbaugh later apologized for accusing Mr. Fox of exaggerating his symptoms, but said that “Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democrat politician.”Wheeling out Jesus, mumbling in Aramaic, is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen in a political ad. And accusing Michael J. Fox of hamming it up, looking extra-sick, is mindbogglingly stupid.
Republicans cobbled together a response ad that did not mention Mr. Fox but attacked the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. It included testimonials by the actress Patricia Heaton (“Everybody Loves Raymond”) and James Caviezel, who played Jesus in Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ.” At least in the advance version shown on YouTube last night, Mr. Caviezel’s introduction seemed either garbled or to be in Aramaic.
I think there are going to be a lot more attempts to produce the kinds of ads that push the envelope and make everyone want to watch on YouTube. But that's going to mean there will be all sorts of mistakes and lapses for us to talk about for days. It's great blog fodder, but I'm afraid we're going to get terribly distracted by these things. And we're only just getting started.
पोस्ट्स
५८ टिप्पण्या:
MJF has admitted to deliberately foregoing medication prior to appearing before Congress. I don't think it's a stretch to ask if he did it again.
The Stem cell stuff from the Democrats is despicable. Democrats and the media fail to mention that:
1) Private embryonic Stem Cell Research is legal.
2) the federal gov already funds adult stem cell reseach and some embryonic research.
3) There have been really no advances in embryonic stem cell research that would hint to a cure for Parkinsons.
4) Cloning will be required for embryonic stem cell use.
5) There really isn't 600,000 frozen embryos that "will go to waste." This statistic is just not true.
Rush had a point about Fox's performance. In his TV shows, Fox takes his medication which alleviates his symptoms. For the commercial Fox does not take his medication. The whole purpose of this tactic is to make the debate emotional - for people to sympathsize with Fox and other people suffering rather than to think about the issue intellectually.
This would be no different than a person having an ad showing burning victims jumping out of the World Trade Center or showing Nick Bergs head getting cut off and then asking who is better to get the terrorists.
I fyou think the above would be despicable, than Fox's ad is also despicable.
when you're that far along in the disease, taking meds makes you so stone-faced, it's impossible to speak clearly. you either get stone-faced, scary mjf, or one who's able to speak freely.... he has said this.
the fact people take rush's words on meds is beyond me...
The 2000 word Ammendment also defines cloning. Objections have been raised that the interpretaion of the definition of cloning would allow human cloning.
when you're that far along in the disease, taking meds makes you so stone-faced, it's impossible to speak clearly. you either get stone-faced, scary mjf, or one who's able to speak freely.... he has said this.
Does Fox appear Stone faced in all the episodes of Boston Legal he was in last year? Maybe he did, I don't recall...
ooh a link
2-3 weeks out of Election day is when the ads get really nasty. This is when campaigns put out their "home run" material - when it can stay fresh in the voter's minds.
In the last 3-5 days before the campaign ends, they switch over from attack ads to positive, fluff-spots (with the "independent" groups issuing the less-than-factual material).
Given the already high attention level and the expectations placed on this election....things are only going to get worse over the next week.
Ooh, do-it-yourself political ads on the Internet!
The slick ones on TV are a reason enough not to watch. Now blogs will be oozing YouTube clips nonstop.
Another great reason to yank that ethernet cable.
At "least" its not as bad as the GWB NAACP dragging James Byrd ad.
Not as bad..well two weeks to go
Stem cell research will go on with private funding whether or not the feds pony up.
True. But more funding = more research = quicker knowlegde / treatment developement which benefits science and medical practitioners = better, more effective treatments for you and civilization.
There have been really no advances in embryonic stem cell research that would hint to a cure for Parkinsons.
Interferon was a drug being developed in the late 70's that was touted as the future sure-fire magic bullet that would cure cancer. Lots of money went into its development. When they were finaly able to mass produce it through gene splicing, it turns out the drug was a dissapointment. Wasn't nearly as effective as they had hoped. BUT, it turns out it works well in treating other diseases like leukemia, MS, and hepatitus C. Minoxidil (Rogaine) and Sildenafil (Viagra) are other drugs that were designed to treat one ailment, but because of unpredicted "side effects", ended up being used for treatment of other things also / instead. If you're an insulin dependent diabetic, do you refuse to take the insulin that will save your life, because as an animal rights advocate, you can't take it because the insulin treatment was developed through decades of experimentation on pigs and dogs in a laboratory??? While it is entirely possible embryonic stem cell research may never lead to a cure for Parkinsons, or any other disease that is being associated with it, the research is destined to lead to many medical breakthroughs.
HIV / AIDS was once a death sentence. I know a few people who succumbed to the disease. But knowledge gained through HIV / AIDS research has lead to much greater understanding of the immune system, and that knowledge naturaly spills over into the treatment of other ailments. That is the way science works.
Announcer: This is Tommy.
(camera pans to Tommy a wheelchair bound 8 year old, moving spastically as he watches his friends paly baseball)
Announcer: Tommy likes baseball. He would be able to play it today:
(camera shows montage of kid sliding home, getting a hit, giving high fives to other kids)
Announcer: If Democrats like Smith had not diverted money from promising adult stem cell research and diverted it to embryonic stem cell research by their pals, Tommy might be able to play.
(camera shows despondent Tommy in front of megalithic research lab).
Tommy: V-v-v-vote for J-on-es. I w--ant to play.
Is this how we want our political campaigns?
I'm still wishing for a P-Chip I can add to my television that would block all political ads.
As it is, the last couple weeks before national elections I tend to spend an inordinate amount of time watching ESPN/ESPN2/FSN.
"OOooooo. . . look! Junior college volleyball. . . ."
Attacking Fox was a stupid move, as it ensured a 2nd day of questions like "what is wrong w/ Republicans?"
Would have been rather easy, however, to focus on the main problems w/ Fox's statement:
1. the phrase "stem-cell research" is confusing on purpose
2. isn't it fair to hesitate re: the use of human life? embryos don't go on to become house cats or Chevy Impalas -- they become human beings
3. cures, not hope -- Fox asks for hope, but adult stem cell research has already provided some cures
Beating up the messenger was just a stupid move, especially w/ so many points of argument that could have been made.
I'm skeptical as to whether many YouTube ads will ever find their way to truly uncommitted voters. The main value of such ads is to create a pseudo-controversy (as in this case) that causes the ad to get discussed by the legacy media. So as others have commented, the main mistake by the GOP here was to take the bait.
And the underlying issue itself is almost 100% symbolic to both sides, with no practical consequences. Like Gettysburg, it's an otherwise unimportant location where the conflicting parties have collided, leaving destruction in their wake.
It's all about the ordained by God pro-life view--even protecting discarded embryos
This is one of the big misnomers - that there are frozen embryos that would just go to "waste." It's just not true.
I suggest a compromise:
1) Anyone who has excess frozen embryos that they have decided not to use for themselves have two options. Option 1 is to offer the embyro for adoption. If the person is not willing to offer the embryo for adoption, then they can take option 2) which is to destroy the embryo.
If the embryo is offered for adoption and no one chooses to adopt the embryo after a reasonable period of time, then the embryo can be given up to research. The embryo cannot be given up to research unless it is first offered for adoption.
While this compromise does not resolve the problem of destroying human life, it does help prevent the debasement of life by limiting any potential future market to produce embryos. Conservatives such as myself who tend to lean more moderate on social issues might accept such a compromise.
Does the NYTimes always have to be so obnoxiously remiss about linking to the online content they discuss in their articles? They almost never supply any links other than internal ones referring you to unrelated stories on named entities that pop up in the articles you're reading. Grrrr!
You people need to get your amateur pharamcology straight. When people who have Parkinsons fail to take medicine, they shake less, become stone faced, and in fact mostly freeze up -- difficult to move, talk, etc. They take the medicine not to control the shaking, but to allow themselves to unfreeze.
I would have to disagree with you on this. Parkinson's meds such as Sinemet can often help the tremor, it's not taken solely to relieve bradykinesia as you imply. Now Sinemet can cause dyskinesias in itself, maybe that's what you are thinking of.
Anyway we should have a national discussion on the topic of stem cell research, but unfortunately right now it seems to be actors and radio personalities driving the discussion, neither of whom seem particularly well suited for it.
You're essentially saying that Republican policies on scientific research could arguably lead to the loss of life, just as Democratic terrorism policies could arguably lead to the loss of life
Cohen, this was not my point at all. I was commenting on the advertisement and the use of gratuitious emotion to carry a message. There are a lot of very emotional conservatives (if that is not a contradictory statement) who would love to show commericals of a partial birth abortion procedure on prime time and then ask people whether or not they support it. MJF is entering that realm.
I agree that the attacks on Fox are reprehensible. I'm not upset with him. But McCaskill's use of a sick man to win office is pretty low. Then again, she's also stated that Bush left people to die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and black.
It's not infuriating that Fox presents a visible face to the issue, but that using his illness is a cheap way around a much-needed discussion on stem cells and research. Sloan makes a fair comparison to partial-birth abortion images.
I seriously wonder how the GOP became so anti-science (and so indebted to the religious right) that they would rather see unused embryos from fertility clinics be thrown into the trash rather than allow them to be used to help improve and even save lives in some of the most promising medical research in our lifetime.
I'm not sure how the President's compromise to fund ESCR is "anti-science." Regardless, the issue in Missouri is not frozen embryos but writing protection into our state constitution for a particular form of medical research which creates and destroys human life. The amendment, by the way, has received 97% of its funding from one couple who happen to own a stem cell research center.
And the arena of promising medical research is adult stem cells, not embryonic. Embryonic stem cells tend to do things like cause tumors, while adult stem cells are actually treating Parkinson's.
I maintain that your comparison is not favorable to anti-research Republicans.
Whether its favorable or not - no doubt the pro-death democrats would complain if Republicans used images of burning victims leaping from WTC.
Something that's always puzzled me is this: if stem cells promise to be such a panacea, why do we NEED government funding? Hell, curing just ONE of the diseases stem cells will allegedly cure would make the inventor of that cure filthy rich beyond his wildest dreams.
JohnK, although you say you think the ad is disgusting, your comment reads like you haven't seen it. I haven't either, but even I know that Fox speaks just of hope, not of help, not of a cure, just hope that this technique might help. I think for sufferers of a fatal disease, hope is something to grab for.
Having not seen the ad, I must say it has to be pretty effective given the gymnastics the Right Echo Chamber is participating it to pull it down.
revenant -- gov funding is needed in the early stages of any technology for it to be viable (hybrid cars, the internet, etc)
dick - that argument basically is "well if there's no results then there should be no research" following that, it is certain we will never have results.
It would be interesting, by the way, to produce a political ad for YouTube (although I'd have to equip my computer with flash so I could actually view it).
Would cutting snippets of News footage for a Political Ad be considered fair use? I suspect not. When there are snippets of Some Politician saying Stay the Course -- is the original distributor of that sequence of images being compensated?
Suggesting that Michael J. Fox is hamming it up may be stupid in a political sense. But only in that sense. The fact is, that is exactlywhat he has done in the past, by his own admission. Specifically, he chose to forego his medications when testifying before Congress so as to better illustrate the ravages of the disease.
Now to be honest, I don't have a problem with him doing that. In fact, I think it's a good idea, because it better illustrates the effect the disease has on the body. I do think there's a possibility that the same motivation could lead him to unconsciously exaggerate the symptoms as well. But even that I would forgive, if his intentions were honest.
But frankly, I don't think his intentions are entirely honest---any more than John Edward's intentions were honest when he said that Christopher Reeve and others in his condition would walk again if John Kerry were elected. In fact, I waver back and forth as to whether MJF's ad is worse than what John Edwards said.
On one hand, it's worse because MJF should know better, because he is such an involved advocate on Parkinson's research, that he knows far better than John Edwards how much BS he is peddling. On the other hand, it is hard not to sympathize with someone in the midst of such a difficult physical ordeal and their temptation to stretch the truth to accomplish what they might honestly think is the proper goal.
But that pity only goes so far---far enough to forgive him for his transgression but not enough to withhold challenge to his deception.
Revenant said:
"why do we NEED government funding?"
Indeed we need less of it as practiced today, but without giving up on the science. The current system is much more corrupt than people realize, heavily relying on cronyism at the level of individual grant awards.
Also, there is tremendous pressure to be topical, rather than to conduct basic research because what little bureaucratic oversight does occur is typically of the sort:
“So doctor so-and so, you’ve had this grant for this long, why haven't you cured X yet?” Hence the steady emergence of fraud in science, something that was unheard of a generation ago.
Government-funded scientists are complacent because they have a monopoly. Recall the threat posed by J. Craig Venter several years ago. While he didn’t succeed in his audacious plan, he sure did light a fire under some butts.
I think it fair to say that a silver lining of the republican approach would be to repatriate and return some basic science to the private sector. Of course, that flies in the face of socialism.
Why do liberals insist on using laws to impose their views on the value of life through law over the rest of society?
97% of the money for the Missouri amendment is from one couple with a stem cell research center.
This is the new super-colliding super conductor. It was going to unlock the mysteries of the universe, remember? And it would have been great for the people of Waxahachie, too -- except research was already being done with existing particle accelerators. Some scientist always thinks cold fusion is right around the corner.
Except now we'll be paying to create and destroy human embryos, not particles.
I have seen the ad. I found it annoying due to it's fundamental deception.
To illustrate, at one point Fox states "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope."
As has been pointed out, embryonic stem cell research has actually been a non-starter. Adult stem cell research has, by contrast, already resulted in treatments that are in clinical trials. A common comeback is that the hasn't gone on long enough; but it has.
One other point; there is strong evidence that umbilical cords would be an excellent source of stem cells. But the pro-embryonic cell research folks want nothing to do with that any more than they want to talk about the success of adult stem cell research.
One final, and admitedly negative, note. Fox will never be cured. Even with all the funding directed just at Parkinson's the scientific community has barely scratched the surface. We may find better treatments in the next few decades, but a cure is a long way out and will likely not be possible at all.
(We know a lot more about the common cold and can't cure that.)
This issue begs for a mature, rational, and informed national discussion. Unfortunately that would require mature, rational, and well informed debaters and a proper venue. The Senate would work but for the Senators.
Could we have another Lincoln v. Douglas debate? I doubt it. Even if we could find another Rail Splitter and Little Giant, we'd lose interest after fifteen minutes.
But we should try it anyway. The question then becomes who to speak? Hillary v. Frist? Rudy v. Gore? They're all political pygmies.
revenant -- gov funding is needed in the early stages of any technology for it to be viable (hybrid cars, the internet, etc)
That's a load of crap.
That's a load of crap.
Well, that convinces me.
I'm not sure if hybrid technology received a boost from government grants -- I suspect it did at some University. Certainly the internet did, since it started in the Dept. of Defense. But really, revenant, a good counterexample here would work wonders.
JohnK, I may be amoral and with no scruples. Another possibility is that I have observed the slow decline and death that Parkinson's offers someone, and seen what hope meant to them. And maybe I want to spare other families going through this. If Mr. Fox's ad changes a couple minds, and they decide that using embryonic stem cells in experiments is maybe a better use of them than burning them in a furnace, that's great.
I'll repeat that given the gymnastics that some employ in trying to pull down this ad, it must be powerful.
Badger: do please try to keep up. I am not claiming he is deceiving us in any way about Parkinson's. But he is most certainly deceiving us about the politics. And he's doing so by deliberately conflating stem cell research that destroys embryos will all other forms of stem cell research.
So, for example, he is flat-out lying when he says that Jim Talent "opposes stem cell research." There is no debating this.
And in my opinion he's also lying---but I would be willing to grant simply being disingenuous---when he says that "George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research." After all, adult and cord-blood stem cell research has far better track record in actual human treatments than embryonic stem cells. If MJF was willing to be up front about that, do you really think his claim that ESRC is the "most promising" would pass the smell test?
Maybe he hadn't yet heard about the most recent results on ESR-based Parkinson's treatments. You know, the ones that suggest that the treatments would cause brain tumors. Or maybe he had, but figured we couldn't be bothered with such details, when the research is just so promising.
Correction. MJF did not say Talent opposes stem cell research; he said he opposes the expansion of stem cell research. (And we're specifically talking about what he said in the advertisement.) But this is still false.
By the way, is anyone aware of the current status of Michel Levesque's work on using adult stem cells to treat Parkinson's?
I guess it must have been a big bust, because otherwise MJF wouldn't be able to tar the Republicans as attempting to prevent the most promising research, right?
Just remember: You can elect Claire McCaskill who shares his hope for cures.
Or you can vote for Talent, who, you know, doesn't want cures.
Personally, I want a candidate who shares my hope for cold fusion.
Embryonic stem cell research has been the subject of Congressional legislation, Presidential veto, and various initiatives in the states. Yet Ann says that she "hate[s] the way the stem cell research issue is used to manipulate voters' minds ...." Well, yes and no.
The MJ Fox ad for McCaskill, and the Pro-Athlete responsive ad opposing the ballot initiative in Missouri, both reduce complex issues to a simple emotional message. Rush Limbaugh and others complain that the Fox ad exploits a "sick man" for political purposes. I suppose it does, but only because the "sick man" wants to be used that way. So what. Political ads have always used (exploited) emotional angles to hit hard on larger policy issues. While that may be manipulative in one sense, it can also be clarifying in another.
Conservative Republicans have opposed federal funding for expanded stem cell research on frankly moral and religious grounds, and the President cited those grounds in vetoing the measure. Even if this were more promising as an avenue of research, they would still oppose it on those grounds. Good for Bush and the conservatives. The Democrats generally take the view that religious and moral considerations are out of place here; utilitarian values should rule this roost, according to them. Good for them. Politics is all about presenting the voters with a choice, and these ads help frame a clear choice for the voters to choose from, even if that choice is mostly framed in the subtext of the ads.
The two major parties differ fundamentally on where they look for the values that they think should be embodied in public policy -- the R team being the more friendly to overtly religious themes, values and appeals, and the D team being more overtly secular and thus unfriendly to the same religious sources. In that sense, the beginning of the Pro-Athlete ad, featuring Caviezel in a churchyard, standing near a partially displayed religious statue and mumbling something in Aramaic, made perfect sense to frame the issue (whether or not it proves effective is another matter). The difference between the parties at this basic level of values, and where they look to find them, is key to understanding the reasons why the parties so often differ on value-laden issues across the political spectrum.
Ann worries that ads of this sort will result in "all sorts of mistakes and lapses for us to talk about for days. It's great blog fodder, but I'm afraid we're going to get terribly distracted by these things." It's certainly true that there are lots of factual and medical claims that can be debated here. But I'm not sure that makes these ads a "distraction." Fussing about whether embryonic stem cell research is more promising than adult stem cell research, whether Fox didn't take his meds so he would look bad in this ad, whether either of the ads gets the relevant science even remotely right, is fine as far as it goes, but if that's all you see here, then I think you are missing the upside of ads like these. They focus the debate on fundamentals; they cut through the clutter and the details and give the voters a pretty good look at what values the contending candidates will bring to bear in deciding between policy alternatives; and they do it in a direct and clear way.
So, while those who are interested blog away on the "mistakes and lapses," real or fancied, that they see in these contending ads, don't miss the forest for the trees. Whatever you think about the merits of embryonic stem cell research, these two ads are pretty good at suggesting the reasons why the parties differ on issues like this. I don't have a problem with that.
But really, revenant, a good counterexample here would work wonders.
I'm not Revenant, but I'll point to the X-Prize as an example.
Whatever you think about the merits of embryonic stem cell research, these two ads are pretty good at suggesting the reasons why the parties differ on issues like this.
Then why is there no mention whatsoever of the word "embryonic" in either of MJF's advertisements? You would have a far better case if MJF made that distinction, maybe even saying something to the effect that "Republicans are more concerned about protecting a clump of undifferentiated cells than curing Parkinson's." I mean, that's still demagoguery, but it's a couple steps in the right direction.
To those on my side of the debate, the adult/embryonic distinction is meaningless. We don't make it because we just don't care. A stem cell is a stem cell, not a "human life," regardless of where it came from. Let the researchers decide what kind to use.
And if the government restricts its funding of embryonic stem cell research, then it is restricting stem cell research, period. If the government retricts funding of research on Mars, then it's restricting planetary research, regardless of how many other planets can still be studied with government funds.
What technology has the X-Prize advanced that hasn't piggybacked earlier federally funded research?
But really, revenant, a good counterexample here would work wonders.
Vaccination
Steam engines
Transistors
Internal combustion engines
Cars
Transplant surgery
Antibiotics
Printing
The telegraph
Airplanes
Blood transfusion
Radio
Most plastics
Photography
Television
Cellular phones
Liquid crystal displays
Fiber optics
X-rays
Air conditioning
... the list goes on and on.
So, to sum up, my analysis of the statement "gov funding is needed in the early stages of any technology for it to be viable" as "a load of crap" was spot on.
Madisonman said:
"What technology has the X-Prize advanced that hasn't piggybacked earlier federally funded research?"
Gee we'll see. and if there's none, I doubt the X-Prize will be around.
I think the Human Genome Project is a better example.
But you're a Madison man though, as I once was, so you depend on government.
This is meant as a real question: Can anyone name an AIDS drug developed as a result of government funding?
Just a lawyer:
Hmmm, that doesn't jibe with the story told here:
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_protease_inhibitors.htm
Do you suppose that Mary Bellis is just a shill for Big Bad Pharma?
And if the government restricts its funding of embryonic stem cell research, then it is restricting stem cell research, period. If the government retricts funding of research on Mars, then it's restricting planetary research, regardless of how many other planets can still be studied with government funds.
Ah, Smilin' Jack, too clever by half. I understand your disinterest in the distinction, but you haven't succeeded in justifying MJF's lies.
First of all, MJF is not saying that "Jim Talent is hindering the expansion of stem cell research", he isn't saying that "Jim Talent is placing restrictions on the expansion of stem cell research". If he'd chosen phrases like this, you'd be onto something. Unfortunately for him, MJF is saying that Jim Talent opposes stem cell research. And that is directly contradicted by the material efforts Jim Talent has participated in to expand the non-controversial areas of stem cell research.
Secondly, it simply isn't true that "a stem cell is just a stem cell." The whole reason scientists want to get a hold of embryos is that they are a prime source of a particular type of stem cell (pluripotent stem cells) with different properties than adult stem cells. The distinctions are what motivate an entire branch of stem cell research to try and harvest pluripotent stem cells without resorting to embroys: not just for ethical reasons, I might add, but also because it eliminates the need to perform cloning in order to grow them. Finally, the distinctions are important for the very practical reason that adult stem cells have generated effective human treatments and embryonic/pluripotent cells have not.
It would seem MJF isn't really trying to play the semantic games you are, he's just lying.
Geez, there I go again. I said MJF said Talent opposes SCR, but he said he opposes the expansion of it. But again, that is simply not the case.
You're right, Freder. A number of things on those lists (like the accomplishments of Bells Labs) would never have happened without government funding. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point out the more egregious errors. As it turns out, a lot longer than I anticipated.
Basic research provides the building blocks upon which private industry can produce viable and profitable products. Basic research often leads up blind alleys and dead ends and is very risky and takes a long time with very uncertain results. That is why private industry, which is focussed on profits and results in the near term, is ill-suited to conduct it.
Well said.
Abraham said...
In fact I doubt you can name one method of mechanical transportation that would be viable without direct or indirect government subsidy.
Bicycle?
If you only ride your bike on privately built roads, you won't get far.
Dear Freder
Nice comments so far, but you are being a bit disingenuous about basic and applied research. I'll cite one famous example which suggests that you have it backwards(though you do espouse the mantra that I learned):
Government subsidy wasn't neccessary to get Leo Szilard to conceive the nuclear chain reaction in 1933. It did take a sustained (and secret) government effort to reduce it to practice.
Getting back on topic, we're talking about a cure for a disease here, so the problem has already moved beyond basic research to applied research.
Even so, basic and applied research are not as distinct as you imply, thanks in part to Bayh-Dole. Anyone unfamiliar with that act should spend a little time researching it and consider what effect it might have on university's "basic" research. I think you really meant to take a swipe at "industrial research".
btw, you would be shocked, shocked to learn the level of my education hard science.
Your point about the Branson story is?...
My point was that you had myth-characterized the nature of basic and applied research, and had really just meant to take a swipe a "private industry" research.
"And here, of course you are confusing theoretical work (literally pencil and paper work) with research."
Szilard's work was not "theoretical" he actually got a patent on the chain reaction in Britain (UK Patent 630726). He pushed the idea of a weapon and convinced Einstein to write his famous letter to FDR. Szilard came to oppose the development of the bomb, because the government gained control of the project.
I don't believe Heisenberg got the math wrong- he didn't have the engineering resources. But then, as you say, we may never know.
For instance, transistors came out of Bell Labs, which of course was a joint government/AT&T consortium that was one way the Bell system was allowed to maintain its telephone monopoly by reinvesting some its profits back into basic research for the benefit of the entire country.
I realize that you're a leftist and therefore inclined to equate, as you did above, "the government didn't destroy the company" with "the government helped". But Bell Labs was a private enterprise, not a joint government-private project. Failing to violate AT&Ts rights by breaking up the company isn't the same as helping AT&T develop products.
As for airplanes. We are over one hundred years beyond the undisputed invention of the airplane and it still isn't commercially viable
Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. There are airlines that exist (and turn profits) without government assistance, and of course the private airplane business is profitable as well. The notion that the airplane isn't commercially viable has no basis in reality. The notion that the government's assistance is needed, when government meddling itself is responsible for most of the industry's problems, also has no basis in reality.
Basic research often leads up blind alleys and dead ends and is very risky and takes a long time with very uncertain results. That is why private industry, which is focussed on profits and results in the near term, is ill-suited to conduct it.
You don't have the foggiest fucking idea what you're talking about. American businesses spend far more on basic research than the government does.
Consider the possibility that federal money that doesn't go into embryonic stem cell research could go into some other type of research.
In economics, that is called "oportunity cost". Example: by sitting here to type this comment, I now have 5 less minutes in the day to do something else.
Freder said:
"You don't actually have to build something to patent it."
That is correct. But you also can't patent a theory.
Since you really appear to be clueless about what consistues basic and applied research, I'll cut and past portions from wikipedia:
"Basic research (also called fundamental or pure research) has as its primary objective the advancement of knowledge and the theoretical understanding of the relations among variables (see statistics). It is exploratory and often driven by the researcher’s curiosity, interest, or hunch. It is conducted without any practical end in mind, although it may have unexpected results pointing to practical applications..."
"Applied research is done to solve specific, practical questions; its primary aim is not to gain knowledge for its own sake. It can be exploratory, but is usually descriptive. It is almost always done on the basis of basic research."
Which of the above sounds closer to describing a cure for Parkinson's?
Again, I repeat, we're talking about a finding a cure for a disease here right?
Freder said:
"And Heisenberg did get the math wrong. He claimed he did it deliberately..."
Highly unlikely, where did you learn that, a recent play?
Canada, I dare say, has no biotech to speak of. This is not to pass judgement on Canadians. Plenty of good and ambitious students study and work abroad.
Just a lawyer said:
"These are basic science questions that are relatively hard, but not impossible, for the private sector to fund. As public funds generate a valuable public resource - knowledge, it makes sense to have governments and non-profits to take the lead in open ended funding."
The purest form of basic research is curiosity driven, driven by the researchers quest for knowledge, results to publish, a stellar degree.
While I'm certain that basic research remains to do on embryonic stem cells, the kinds of uses and applications that we've discussed here so far are applied- extremely applied. That we haven't yet cured Parkinson's may not be for lack basic research.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा