Both Point 08 Acres and Adam Reilly watch last night’s gubernatorial debate and came away with similar conclusions: Chris Gabrielli needs to talk about more than stem cell research. I missed the debate but suspect they’re right. Gabrielli’s ads are slick and smart advertising, and I think his stem cell one might be effective as political advertisement. But is this the major thing on voters’ minds?
More to the point, is it a good idea? I don’t mean stem cell research per se; pretty much all of us beyond the theocrats and/or pro-life absolutists see that the benefits justify cloning cells that aren’t viable on their own. But the issue isn’t whether stem cell research should be allowed in Massachusetts, it’s whether the commonwealth should fund it. The biggest argument against such funding it is that the economic boost is overstated, and that in any case the state usually does a poor job when it tries to micromanage economic development and decide that some economic sectors are “good job” and others “bad jobs.” We should focus on the business climate in general (Deval Patrick has some refreshing specificity on this front) and leave the sectoral decisions to the market.
And, too, there’s the free rider issue. We all benefit potentially from expensive state-aided research along these lines, but why should Massachusetts and California be the only ones to pony up the money? Sure, the Feds are going to resist support as long as the GOP is in power, but this is one of many areas where state-by-state patchwork might not be the best approach.
No comments have been added to this post yet.