On 12 Oct 2004 18:27:35 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

"riverman" wrote in
:

They let others do research, and the public
benefits from the research. I can support someone who does not go into
stem cell research because they feel its religiously immoral, but not
people who block the benefits of others doing that research.


The government doesn't block anyone from doing research on or developing
any stem cell line they want-- they just won't pay for it. Any researcher,
even those who get NIH money, can do this, so long as they can demonstrate
entirely different funding lines for the research.

And stem-cell research is only one of the things the Fed, States, etc.,
refuse to pay for, regardless of who is President. Even, for example,
travel. Ever seen travel expense guidelines? And IMO, this is like
voluntary abortion (I choose to differentiate between "voluntary" and
"medically-necessary"): until it can be shown that "life" begins at
conception, it isn't a legal issue in the purview of the Fed, and it
ought to stay out of such areas - COMPLETELY out of them - no banning,
no funding, no pro or con opinionating, etc. And the argument that it
REALLY important or _might_ lead to a/the miracle cure for whatever is
not material as someone would say the same about _any_ research in which
they might have a vested interest.

TC,
R