Can't believe no one's discussing this here, so I thought I'd start off the discussion. (I'm a political junkie though so beware ;) )
So Bush vetoed stem cell research funding... the FIRST veto in his tenure.
I'm torn on the issue.
As a scientist I see this as one more way we're letting the religious crowd dictate what we work on (no offense to religious folks, my mom and father-in-law are both 'preachers'). But the 'moral' arguments for not supporting this research through government funding are just putting us one step behind the rest of the world. We should be out there pushing research boundaries on all fronts. We should be ethical with our use of technology and resarch, but we shouldn't use morality to dictate what we research and what we don't.
On the other hand, as a liberty minded individual, I disagree with the federal government spending any money on resarch at all. That's our tax dollars! I guarantee I can spend my money better than the federal government can, and I'm betting so can you! I have a bit of a connundrum here in that as a grad student, I'm paid for by your tax dollars. It's a violation of the constitution for the federal government to be sponsoring all this research in the first place. Granted, only government entities can afford to do a lot of the fundamental research that goes on (it's just too expensive and not profitable for industry to do it). But it's still our tax dollars doing the work and is part of a bloated federal government operating outside of its constitutional bounds.
So, good thing or bad? I dunno. If it's so important and so promising to do, industry should just go ahead and do it. I do NOT agree with 'legislating morality'. But will it get done otherwise? Not sure.
What do you all think?
Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.