4 ms·

This is a beautiful example of a state, in desperate need of revenue, supporting legislation that encourages businesses to start up without increasing/decreasin

This is a beautiful example of a state, in desperate need of revenue, supporting legislation that encourages businesses to start up without increasing/decreasing taxes. Now if only the US could do the same thing with stem cells.

pdx 15y ago
Is the Nevads government subsidizing research into self driving cars with tax money? If not, than I see no parallel to stem cells. For the last 10 years or more, you're welcome to do anything you want with stem cells. Go crazy. You just haven't been able to get tax money to fund it, if the stem cells happened to be embryonic.
- thetrendycyborg 15y ago
  There's not really an advantage to embryonic stem cells anyways.
  - ori_b 15y ago
    Are you sure? How was this determined without doing experimentation with embryonic stem cells?
    - georgieporgie 15y ago
      I thought the only 'difference' was the timeframe of availability, but apparently not: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Scientists believe that tissues derived from embryonic and adult stem cells may differ in the likelihood of being rejected after transplantation.
      - thetrendycyborg 15y ago
        They have actually managed to make adult stem cells pluripotent (research at the UW Madison did this), and furthermore have managed to make them from a person's own skin (again, UW Madison ftw). And adult stem cells are less likely to be rejected. Embryonic stem cells grow at a different rate than adult stem cells (they grow much faster) which causes higher rejection rate and can in fact act much like a tumor. The difficulty isn't being able to research them. There's a lot of money flowing both ways that is very politically motivated, but it's pretty simple to say that the adult stem cells have actually resulted in recoveries and cures (embryonic have not) and do not have the ethical problems. Being able to research embryonic stem cells doesn't make them more viable. At this point, they don't have advantages.
- unexpected 15y ago
  wow, I didn't know that! Thanks for the education. Maybe I can fill in other industries (like the transcanada oil pipeline!) instead.
- wisty 15y ago
  In an ideal world (according to economists), this isn't an issue. In the world we happen to live in, basic health research is publicly funded. Maybe it shouldn't be, and research funding should be purely commercial, or philanthropic. But with public funding crowding out commercial and philanthropic funding, banning public funding for some kinds of research has a similar impact to banning it.
  - roel_v 15y ago
    How can public funding 'crowd out' other funding? There are more 'fund takers' than there is funding available, so if there were private funding available, it would be put to use. I don't understand your reasoning.
    - wisty 15y ago
      Research funding requires scientists. There's a relatively fixed supply of people who want to do research. Those who can get government or university jobs. Those who can't get jobs in the private sector. If you can't find any scientists, you don't employ any in your research lab. This is an empirical observation, and isn't based on micro-economics, though you could frame it as such if you wanted. It's not true in all cases - Google might lure a few top computer scientists away from academia by giving them massive amounts of funding. See, academia has non-monetary rewards - the glory of working for as an academic (this may be a con), and government jobs look stable and for the public good (though libertarians might argue). Thus public funding secures the scares resource (talented scientists) at a lower cost, and private funding goes down (supply and demand, unless research happens to be a Giffen good, which I doubt).

pdx 15y ago

Is the Nevads government subsidizing research into self driving cars with tax money? If not, than I see no parallel to stem cells. For the last 10 years or more, you're welcome to do anything you want with stem cells. Go crazy. You just haven't been able to get tax money to fund it, if the stem cells happened to be embryonic.

thetrendycyborg 15y ago
There's not really an advantage to embryonic stem cells anyways.
- ori_b 15y ago
  Are you sure? How was this determined without doing experimentation with embryonic stem cells?
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    I thought the only 'difference' was the timeframe of availability, but apparently not: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Scientists believe that tissues derived from embryonic and adult stem cells may differ in the likelihood of being rejected after transplantation.
    - thetrendycyborg 15y ago
      They have actually managed to make adult stem cells pluripotent (research at the UW Madison did this), and furthermore have managed to make them from a person's own skin (again, UW Madison ftw). And adult stem cells are less likely to be rejected. Embryonic stem cells grow at a different rate than adult stem cells (they grow much faster) which causes higher rejection rate and can in fact act much like a tumor. The difficulty isn't being able to research them. There's a lot of money flowing both ways that is very politically motivated, but it's pretty simple to say that the adult stem cells have actually resulted in recoveries and cures (embryonic have not) and do not have the ethical problems. Being able to research embryonic stem cells doesn't make them more viable. At this point, they don't have advantages.
unexpected 15y ago
wow, I didn't know that! Thanks for the education. Maybe I can fill in other industries (like the transcanada oil pipeline!) instead.
wisty 15y ago
In an ideal world (according to economists), this isn't an issue. In the world we happen to live in, basic health research is publicly funded. Maybe it shouldn't be, and research funding should be purely commercial, or philanthropic. But with public funding crowding out commercial and philanthropic funding, banning public funding for some kinds of research has a similar impact to banning it.
- roel_v 15y ago
  How can public funding 'crowd out' other funding? There are more 'fund takers' than there is funding available, so if there were private funding available, it would be put to use. I don't understand your reasoning.
  - wisty 15y ago
    Research funding requires scientists. There's a relatively fixed supply of people who want to do research. Those who can get government or university jobs. Those who can't get jobs in the private sector. If you can't find any scientists, you don't employ any in your research lab. This is an empirical observation, and isn't based on micro-economics, though you could frame it as such if you wanted. It's not true in all cases - Google might lure a few top computer scientists away from academia by giving them massive amounts of funding. See, academia has non-monetary rewards - the glory of working for as an academic (this may be a con), and government jobs look stable and for the public good (though libertarians might argue). Thus public funding secures the scares resource (talented scientists) at a lower cost, and private funding goes down (supply and demand, unless research happens to be a Giffen good, which I doubt).