Well actually Grunt, this all happened under Bush. And what I gathered from NPR, they were hopefull to be joining both programs togethere. I would think, that clearly, they (the faculty) are disappointed by this decsion.
Isi, this is pretty exciting technology, one of the fastest growing from what I understand. Honestly though, the idea of scientists scraping embrionic cells out of womens wombs, is disturbing to me. As is factory mass production of petre dish assymbly lines with DNA material. It raises lots of red flags and questions for me. Like when does life truely begin, and where does the line of unethical manipulation lay at.
However, as I said before, it does hold incredable promise. I know for my son, a development where we could successfully grow white brain cells and get them to do what it is they do. Could possibly be curative for my son's cerebal palsy and retardation.
(Chris has 100% of his "gray" matter, which is where we store information, and you can't get it back. The "white" matter, which Chris is missing about 30% of, acts like... insulation on the electrical wiring in your brain. Those cells could in therory be restored)
So wether or not government should be funding this, I have to admit that I have a very personal bias in favor for it.
But regardless of if we should or shouldn't be funding it with public dollars. I see it as yet another example of our social funding being done in a terribly wastefull manner. Almost on the high end scale of criminally stupid.
Another example of where Federal dollar intrusion into State affairs, has screwed things up.
California developed a program to send persons with handicaps, to go back to school for job retraining. Anyone with disabilities could apply, but they only took the most promising (read least hadicapped) canidates. It had a 60% success rate. The Feds offer to help fund the program, but with a caveat. All funding must be distributed equally amongst all that applied, or funding must go to the most grieviously disabled first. California agree'd and took the money, now the program has a 90% failure rate.
You know, seriously... while I am in principle, apposed to funding of "bridges to nowhere". I am also willing to go along with the voice of the people. Cause what the hell, thats what this grand experiment is all about. But it infuriates me when we fund things in a stupid manner.
A "bridge to nowhere", 10 year project, $10 million funding. Instead of saving to build, we issue bonds at 6% so we can eat our cake now. Except it aint really so sweet, when you consider that $10 mill * 6%= $600,000 interest. $600,000 * 10 years = $6 million total interest.
Using that math, if we were funding 5 "briges to nowhere" and saved the money, we could have built 3 more bridges. And if we had loaned out that money, in the form out micro-loans. And instead making interest payments like we do now, were receiving those interest payments ourselves, we could have funded another 3 bridges besides
Criminally Stupid funding of "bridges to nowhere" = 5 bridges
Intelligent funding of "bridges to nowhere" = 11 bridges
Tell me which makes more sense.