Red Clay Citizen

Global Warming? Cooling? So Much for Consensus

It appears that the scientists can't even agree on the temperature over the last ten years, much less what it will be 50 years into the future. Warming or Cooling?
-Max Borders

Climate Change: Technology or Regulation?

If (and that's a big if) man is causing global warming... and if such warming would actually result in negative or catastrophic consequences, should we allow for technological solutions that will arise from prosperity and innovation, or should we regulate ourselves into an economic recession?
-Max Borders

Stem Cell Research: Some Good News

All too frequently this blog is filled with bad news and enough evidence to convince anyone we’re all running off the rails. So once in awhile it is certainly nice to report some good news. On Tuesday, researchers in Japan and Wisconsin reported a major breakthrough in stem cell research that provides researchers the advantages of embryonic stem cells but bypasses all the ethical objections. Researchers successfully reprogrammed skin cells to mimic embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells were produced without ever destroying a human embryo. While many specifics are yet to be worked out and the benefits might be years away, the breakthrough is significant  Those on all sides of the stem cell research issue including  politicians, stem cell scientists  and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are lauding the work of researchers.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research and all those who value the protection of human life at its earliest stages should welcome this news.  These developments will help to chart a path for this research to move forward in an ethical manner... Something to add to your list of things for which to give thanks on Thursday. 

Cascades, Groupthink and Mistaken Consensus

A lesson for global warming alarmists.

Stem Cell Research: More Trouble from the Liberals in Congress

The Senate will soon begin debate on a mammoth government spending bill: the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2008 (S.1710). The bill contains mixed news for  pro-lifers and those committed to protecting the dignity of human life. The good news: the bill continues Hyde Amendment provisions which prohibit the federal government from funding abortions as a health care services option under Medicaid. The bad news: the bill also calls for a complete reversal of current federal policy regarding embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) inserted a provision into the bill that would allow the National Institutes of Health to fund research on embryonic stem cell lines created prior to June 15, 2007. Current policy, enacted by the Bush Administration in August 2001, allows NIH to only fund research on stem cell lines created prior to August 9th 2001. At the heart of this policy was the belief that financial incentives should not be an influence on decisions to create or destroy human embryos. Harkin’s provision would not only overturn the current stem cell policy, but would go further by providing financial incentives to conduct human embryo research -- and require taxpayers to fund it. The President should veto this legislation not because the bill comes in almost $10 billion over his spending request – but most important, because the bill places the federal government in the position of sanctioning and encouraging the destruction of human life.

The Democrats continued obsession with embryonic stem cell research remains a curiosity.  Doubtless, links to the abortion movement shed some light. Still, from a scientific perspective, the Democrats preoccupation with ESCR lacks a compelling logic. In addition to the obvious ethical considerations, ESCR is plagued by many problems not the least of which are genetic incompatibility (often resulting in the body rejecting the stem cells and the creation of tumors) and research results that have been less than promising. Fortunately, research in other such areas as adult stem cells and amniotic fluid-derived stem  (AFP) cells bypass the ethical concerns and offer more promising research results than ESCR (For more information see: Stem Cell Research in North Carolina...What's Really Going On?). Among many in the scientific community, it’s no secret whose research agenda is driven by politics.

Stem Cell Circus

On Wednesday, proponents of stem cell research failed in their efforts to gain public funding for HB 1837, “The Stem Cell Research Health and Wellness Act,” which would allocate $10 million in public funds to nonprofit organizations for stem cell research. Informed by leadership that there was little chance money would be made available for the initiative, sponsors of the legislation introduced a substitute amendment, which essentially included the major provisions of HB 1837 – sans the funding. Individuals in the room at the time of the vote on the substitute amendment report that the committee vote was 31-31, meaning the substitute failed to pass. Appropriations Committee Chair Mickey Michaux, however, actually announced the vote as 31-30. When asked by several agitated Republican legislators to release vote totals, Michaux refused and adjourned the hearing. The Appropriations Committee has scheduled a re-vote on the legislation for Thursday morning. We'll continue to monitor this bill - because, whether it is funded this year or not, it is clear that HB 1837 is meant to lay the groundwork for future state funding for ESC research. ...Yet, given that higher-ed institutions in North Carolina are already conducting ESC research, it is difficult to see why this legislation is necessary at all.

Rock the Patch?

Cigarettes: The delivery system is wonderful to be sure; but they're not good for you. Still, the drug in there - nicotine - is currently being directed toward therapeutic uses, as this Wired article explains. (There is a Winston biotech company mentioned in the article, too. Sorry disappoint lefty conspiracy theorists: I received no money to write this post.)

Fishy Fears and 'Buy Local' Fetishism

Andrea Verykoukis over at the Progressive Pulse urges us to "buy local" in light of the feed scare created by a Chinese company having adding chemicals to animal fodder.

First, there is no reason to think that local farmers might not have bought the feed, themselves. To think otherwise would suggest a deep faith in local farmers' also buying local -- particularly when they can buy more cheaply abroad (and - gasp - profit).

Second, the "buy local" fetish is based on a very narrow understanding of how wealth is created and concentrated as these bright economists discuss (posted here before). Obviously Verykoukis should be free to shop where she likes -- and I certainly love my local farmer's market -- but encouraging people only to "buy local" as a matter of principle misses out on the gains from buying abroad (notwithstanding the miniscule risks associated with tainted feed from China). [Oh, and poor people in other countries live better lives when we trade with them.]

Finally, the "dose makes the poison." Irrational fears of chemical toxicity underlie almost all liberal warnings for people to buy local and organic.  But even water can be toxic if consumed at a certain level. Most pesticides and other agents are not toxic at the concentrations found in foods. Such is not to apologize for this Chinese food fraud, but for heaven's sake -- go, eat, and buy what you like. You have a better chance of having your health adversely affected by your drive to the farmer's market.

(Note: We should probably be more concerned about germs like e Coli found in organic food.)

Stem Cell Research: The Opportunity Costs

North Carolina Democrats want to dump public resources into stem cell research.

OK, so let's just leave aside for a moment the ethical issues of researching stemcells for curing diseases like Parkinson's. There is still a terrible problem in the idea that public money should go towards such research. There's a little concept you might have learned in Econ 101. It's called opportunity cost.

You see, there is a limited number of scientists.  There are even fewer scientists capable of working on genetics, stemcells, or what have you. When the government subsidizes an subset of the industry (like medical science), scientists follow the money.  But for every scientist you set to work on stemcell research, that's one less scientist working on any number of other diseases.  Private funding allows a better system of priority to emerge. Markets match the actual needs of patients with an array of live-saving tools and smart people.  So when you hear people argue that limits to public funding for stemcells will cause people to die, they are wrong on net. In fact, the reverse may be true: other, perhaps more people could be saved if money (value) isn't concentrated on a disease du jour. The government-funded stemcell scientist may have otherwise worked on something immanently more curable or technologically feasible. Bureaucrats can't possibly make rational investments in such technology for us.

Should we stand by and let the NC government create an artificial market when there are health needs elsewhere that need addressing from these scientists?  If you want to be a do-gooder, try a little Econ 101.