A germ of an idea regarding stem cell research.

[skypilot]

This thought occurred to me after something I heard on the news last night. Maybe it's been discussed before but here goes:

Could Bush's resistance to federal funding of stem cell research have less to do with any "culture of life" issues and more to do with not wanting to get in the way of private investment and potential profits if a breakthrough is made? Does my question make sense? I'm asking it because on the news last night Bob Schieffer briefly spoke with a woman about stem cell research funding and she said that even though the federal government under this administration denies funding for the research, private companies and individuals can still provide funding (although they don't provide as much as the federal government could).
She said that a private funder would be in a position to lay some claim to the breakthrough and then have a say in how much to charge for it. That's not exactly how she worded it but that was the jist as I understood it. In essence, is Bush's resistance to federal funding about private investment or principle?

On edit: Of course, he can have it both ways. Appealing to private investors and the "pro-life" crowd.

[HockeyMom]

1. Both

[kaygore]

2. Federal funding goes to research institutions

These institutions work with the drug companies. Federal grants have a section where the people applying for the grant explain how the research will be commercialized. The federal government doesn't fund research to make money itself; it does so to spur the economy. This is what China is doing right now with stem cell research. The Chinese government will not make money off the results of Chinese economy--taxes, jobs, etc.

[James T. Kirk]

3. Actually, Bush does provide federal funding for ESS research.

It is limited to pre-existing stem cell lines, but it received federal funding for the first time under him.