The New York Times published an interesting article about California’s new stem cell initiative. I’ve been really excited to see a state doing something like this as a result of federal inaction, but this article draws attention to the potential problems that arise when any government body does anything. Well, the scope of the article isn’t that broad, but it’s what it’s got me thinking about.
I would like to see stem cell research being conducted. My first reaction to anything, though, is that I don’t want to see government spending money, especially on things a large number of people object to on moral grounds (I know, I know, this is not a robust argument). This kind of research apparently doesn’t happen with private funds, though, so it does seem like it’s going to take government dollars. A state ballot initiative is, I think, a great way to address the issue. States can decide whether or not they want to spend money on it, those who do have the opportunity to attract scientists and companies to work on it; those who don’t can pay less taxes.
But it also seems like the further the decision making process is removed from those funding the program (IE, the taxpayers), the less responsible the spending will be. The NYT article makes it sound like the initiative includes safeguards to prevent abuse of the funds, but, of course, only time will tell.
Anyway, I always hear fiscal conservatives and libertarians (including myself) argue that less government intervention leads to more innovation. It doesn’t seem to be true in this case, though — perhaps partly because the drug industry is so well established and profitable. The possibilities seem great enough that this is the kind of thing that should be pursued *somehow*, and it’s frustrating to me that there is no easy answer as to how.