3 ms·

Medical research should really, really not be publicly funded. Say goodbye to anything remotely controversial. From life extension, to genetic engineering, to a

• pdabbadabba 12y ago
  I think this is a great point. Not sure why it's getting so many downvotes. Though I might quibble that medical research should not be exclusively government funded, or that it should not depend on government money. I'm OK with the government steering some extra money to the projects that need it (sometimes good social policy and private economic incentives don't align the way you'd like), but I agree a system where research is totally dependent on government money could be very bad.
• DennisP 12y ago
  The bill didn't outlaw pharmaceutical patents, it just provided an alternate funding mechanism that would produce drugs without patents. Any area the government wasn't funding would be the same as it is now. We should at least publicly-fund antibiotics research, given that the current system is almost completely failing on that front.
• toomuchtodo 12y ago
  The NIH and its $30 billion a year in funding seem to be doing a fairly decent job. http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm Funding report by disease/research area: http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx Note: Over a billion dollars a year is spent on stem cell research.