Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by phillup (4419) on 2004.06.10 16:59 (#31429) Homepage Journal
    If you put your tin foil hat on just right, you may think that stem cell research could be the biggest area of financial gain in the field of medicine.

    And, you wouldn't want to spoil that by mixing in federal funds and possibly having to put the findings into the public domain.

    Taking the federal money out of the picture makes it a nice... um... "investment opportunity".
    • Backing up in general and ignoring the ethical issues ... that's the way I think it should be, anyway. The government should never fund stuff like this, because then it sets itself up in competition with private business. We should let private investment drive the space program, the educational system, disease research, etc. And I promise you that things would continue to be funded ... witness all the breast cancer marathons and such. In fact, I'm personally pledged that if the government quits taxing m

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • That is a nice theory, and it would most likely be better than what we have going on right now... if it worked.

        I'm not sure it would... here is why:

        As an investor, I would not want a cure for Aids... or a cure for Cancer. (for example)

        Instead, I would want a drug that allowed you to live a somewhat "normal" life (and in the casee of Aids, I would want you spreading the disease) for as long as you bought and paid for my "cure". This solution would bring a much higher rate of return than a solution that ac
        • Here's why I don't agree with you:

          As an investor, I would not want a cure for Aids... or a cure for Cancer. (for example)

          As an investor WITH AIDS, I would want a cure for AIDS.

          As an investor with relatives WITH AIDS, I would want a cure for AIDS.

          As a member of the public with some money that can be pooled in various charitable uses, I would want a cure for AIDS.

          I think if the public cares enough to vote dollars out of people's pockets for a given cause, then they care enough that they would dona

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • Did you or did you not see in my first post where I talked about breast cancer charities?

            Yes. And, I'm not trying to do a point-counter point discussion. I think that there is too much overlap for that... and, I'm not up to it.

            I do see merit in your ideas, I also see merit in my own. I don't think either would work. Mainly because they aren't flexible enough. I tried to allude to that with my last paragraph.

            Is it moral for you to insist that your way is the only way and use the threat of force to take
      • The Logic of Collective Action [amazon.com]. Whose basic thesis you can find outlined here [about.com]. (The book does a far better job though.)

        Believe it or not, the fact is that public goods are chronically underfunded. Flawed as government may be, there is no real question that in many areas government intervention is clearly a net positive good. (It is also clear that in other areas government intervention is negative, particularly when small groups manage to succeed in regulatory capture.)

        One of the areas where gover