am I a hypocrite?

[MDIndependent]

I am a supporter of Dr. Paul and his political beliefs, especially of limited government and reduced federal spending. But as a biomedical researcher at the National Institutes of Health in DC, which derives its budget directly from the taxpayers through Congress every year, I feel conflicted when supporting policy that would put me out of a job. I've also begun to take heat from my colleagues for my support of Ron Paul and I'm starting to feel a bit like a hypocrite. But I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on these issues if you feel inclined to respond:

What should the role of the federal government be (if it should have one at all) in funding breakthroughs in medical research?

Personally I think there is a BIG difference between tax dollars funding breakthroughs in cancer research or development of a vaccine to stop a world-wide flu pandemic vs. paying for grandpa Joe's lung transplant because he chose to smoke for 40 years. But that's just my opinion!

What if this is through funding U.S. investigators and laboratories directly vs. supporting projects and research centers overseas?

There is a lot of collaboration that goes on between NIH and the private sector for developing new drugs and therapies. Should this be left entirely to private industry?

On a personal note, I had to borrow a small fortune just to go to medical school, some of which is federally subsidized Stafford loans, and am still many years away from being able to pay it back. But now I feel like I shouldn't have even participated in those loan programs because of the strain on my fellow taxpayers. Your thoughts???

 

[norak]

There is a lot of collaboration that goes on between NIH and the private sector for developing new drugs and therapies. Should this be left entirely to private industry?

If you're libertarian, yes. The private sector handles it.

You have to ask yourself if your political views exist just to serve your own interests or not.

 

[forsmant]

How many breakthroughs have you had?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I am a supporter of Dr. Paul and his political beliefs, especially of limited government and reduced federal spending. But as a biomedical researcher at the National Institutes of Health in DC, which derives its budget directly from the taxpayers through Congress every year, I feel conflicted when supporting policy that would put me out of a job. I've also begun to take heat from my colleagues for my support of Ron Paul and I'm starting to feel a bit like a hypocrite. But I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on these issues if you feel inclined to respond

MD Independent, I highly recommend that you read the following articles:

Is Government a solution to anything?

Harming our Health

Protecting ourselves to Death

 

[FreeTraveler]

Calling yourself a hypocrite might be harsh, since you're aware of the conflict. Generally, I think of everyone who sucks at the FedGov tit as leeches, but hear me out.

Since FedGov takes half of what we earn, it has to provide research funding that we, The People, can't afford to fund. Since it is done with political pull instead of the free market, most of that funding is mis-directed.

As long as the primary source of your income is FedGov, you don't have much choice in employers. That being said, if you DON'T work hard to eliminate your job, and move to the private sector AS SOON as the situation starts to change, then I'd call you a leech. Since you're aware of the conflict, at least you're thinking, so I don't see anything to gain by calling you names.

I have a similar situation, in that I'll be collecting Social Security before long. I'd rather have been allowed to invest in my own retirement plan, but I was forced into the only approved option.

 

[CUnknown]

Dude, you're the opposite of a hypocrite. You are supportive of a policy you believe to be correct even though you might suffer as a result of it. That's self-sacrifice, not hypocracy.

And there is no way that the NIH is going away anytime soon. Even if Paul was elected, this is one of the last things he would ever touch. Much of the research I've been involved in has been funded by the NIH as well.

On a personal note, I had to borrow a small fortune just to go to medical school, some of which is federally subsidized Stafford loans, and am still many years away from being able to pay it back. But now I feel like I shouldn't have even participated in those loan programs because of the strain on my fellow taxpayers. Your thoughts???

Dude.. we need doctors and medical researchers in this country. There's a shortage. Strain on your fellow taxpayers? Ask them if they feel the strain when your research is helping them recover from cancer. Don't feel bad, not even for a second.

We go on and on about how bad the government is, about how they need to get off our backs, and how much better things would be if completely left up to the free market... and a lot of times, I agree with those sentiments.

But there are some valid aspects of the federal government, some legitimate functions it serves. Medical research and Stafford loans for doctors is one of these functions. They are not a big strain on taxpayers -- not compared to the Iraq war and military funding! Not compared to medicare! Not compared to the intrest payments on the national debt! Let's keep things in perspective here.

The private sector needs the NIH. I don't think people understand how amazingly productive public sector research is in this country. We have some of the best research labs in the world, funded by your tax dollars. This is a worthy investment, that pays massive dividends, both for the taxpayer -and- for private industry.

Private industry only very rarely does basic research. They prefer to do applied research, something that leads to an end product that is marketable, like drugs and so forth. But, they need a base to stand on to do that research, and that baseline of research is provided by the public sector.

I think someone asked "What breakthroughs have you made?" Is that for real? You're asking what breakthroughs the public sector has made in terms of medical research?

How about the structure of DNA, DNA sequencing, the Human Genome Project (that was both public and private sector, actually), vaccines, antibiotics, cloning, RNAi.. uh... uh... I mean basically everything. The work in the private sector can't hold a candle to what's been done publically.

Very often, the government just wastes our tax money. But, sometimes they actually spend it for the good of the people. I know it sounds crazy, but it does actually happen sometimes.

 

[jclay2]

If there is such major breakthrough's to be made, then my guess is that whoever makes them will become very rich. Thus creating the free market solution. Yeah!

 

[Kade]

I am a supporter of Dr. Paul and his political beliefs, especially of limited government and reduced federal spending. But as a biomedical researcher at the National Institutes of Health in DC, which derives its budget directly from the taxpayers through Congress every year, I feel conflicted when supporting policy that would put me out of a job. I've also begun to take heat from my colleagues for my support of Ron Paul and I'm starting to feel a bit like a hypocrite. But I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on these issues if you feel inclined to respond:

What should the role of the federal government be (if it should have one at all) in funding breakthroughs in medical research?

Personally I think there is a BIG difference between tax dollars funding breakthroughs in cancer research or development of a vaccine to stop a world-wide flu pandemic vs. paying for grandpa Joe's lung transplant because he chose to smoke for 40 years. But that's just my opinion!

What if this is through funding U.S. investigators and laboratories directly vs. supporting projects and research centers overseas?

There is a lot of collaboration that goes on between NIH and the private sector for developing new drugs and therapies. Should this be left entirely to private industry?

On a personal note, I had to borrow a small fortune just to go to medical school, some of which is federally subsidized Stafford loans, and am still many years away from being able to pay it back. But now I feel like I shouldn't have even participated in those loan programs because of the strain on my fellow taxpayers. Your thoughts???

MicahNelson and myself are both at high risk of losing our jobs by supporting Ron Paul...

An open invitation for more of you forum clowns to attack me again. It's fun.

 

[CUnknown]

The thing is, with the structure of DNA or a similar breakthrough, the person who discovers it doesn't get rich -- they get famous. And then they get rich. But that's another story. When you have the structure all figured out, you publish a paper, you don't market it. You can't sell the structure of DNA, there's no product there. So, the private sector doesn't do research like that.

The private sector is very good at what it does -- develop products for the market. It is very bad, and always will be bad, at the research that goes on before product development starts. The private sector needs the public sector. And the public sector needs the private sector to quickly and efficiently turn its basic research into products. Because the public sector is bad, and will always be bad at that.

We need a mixed system, at least as far as scientific research goes.

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[Fudwamper]

No you are not a hypocrite.

I am military nurse that went through school on federal loans and military assistance. I would have taken private loans but the interest rate is to high. If you were rid of the federal loans private companies would swoop in and be glad to loan you money at a more reasonable interest rate. They would all compete for those millions of dollars in college loans. Since they can't the federal government has a nice monopoly on the market at the tax payer expense.

 

[therealjjj77]

I am a supporter of Dr. Paul and his political beliefs, especially of limited government and reduced federal spending. But as a biomedical researcher at the National Institutes of Health in DC, which derives its budget directly from the taxpayers through Congress every year, I feel conflicted when supporting policy that would put me out of a job. I've also begun to take heat from my colleagues for my support of Ron Paul and I'm starting to feel a bit like a hypocrite. But I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on these issues if you feel inclined to respond:

What should the role of the federal government be (if it should have one at all) in funding breakthroughs in medical research?

Personally I think there is a BIG difference between tax dollars funding breakthroughs in cancer research or development of a vaccine to stop a world-wide flu pandemic vs. paying for grandpa Joe's lung transplant because he chose to smoke for 40 years. But that's just my opinion!

What if this is through funding U.S. investigators and laboratories directly vs. supporting projects and research centers overseas?

There is a lot of collaboration that goes on between NIH and the private sector for developing new drugs and therapies. Should this be left entirely to private industry?

On a personal note, I had to borrow a small fortune just to go to medical school, some of which is federally subsidized Stafford loans, and am still many years away from being able to pay it back. But now I feel like I shouldn't have even participated in those loan programs because of the strain on my fellow taxpayers. Your thoughts???

Welcome aboard!

If this were left entirely up to the private sector and unregulated, then it could be done at 100 times less then what it currently is(at least that's how much it expanded on average per drug research since the inception of the FDA when countering for inflation).

How many more drugs could be researched if you could do it at 1/100th the cost? How much faster would medical technology expand when you eliminate these financial and competition barriers?

You probably would be in higher demand. Also, regarding subsidized loans, the only difference with those is that they pay the interest while you're in school. That's it. You would have had no problem getting privatized loans and if the banking and loan regulations regarding those were removed then those possibly could cost less as well in interest.

Also, maybe people would voluntarily want to contribute to having the government get involved in this. If those people choose to do that and aren't coerced or forced, that's entirely their prerogative. Or maybe they would contribute to a private organization instead.

The problem with the current dilemma we face is when the government wants to, for example, research the sex a fruit flies, they do it without the permission of the taxpayer since they have coerced people into paying taxes and can print more money to make up for the short fall.

The way it should be and the way it was originally established is that the government could not use these methods to acquire funding and so they had to approach the people to ask for permission and for funding from the people. If it was some rediculous pet project the people could say no and not give the money for it. If it was something that people felt was helpful or useful, they could voluntarily give the funding. And those who didn't feel it was helpful could choose not to.

The way the founders set it up is A LOT more stable and prosperous for the people then the current setup of government we have today.

 

[jclay2]

Ok, the private sector could probably not fund research to the whole extent that it needs to be. But like healthcare, the research funding should come from PRIVATE DONATIONS! In no way is scientific research funding a function of government. It is a function of the people.

 

[forsmant]

Thomas Edison had over 1000 patents and several businesses all without the help of government grants. General Electric was created by Edison. This is the free market at work.

Again I ask you what breakthroughs have you had while working with grant money? Do we use them?

I think many universities just pay people to study crap because they don't know how to do anything else.

 

[Liberté]

I am a supporter of Dr. Paul and his political beliefs, especially of limited government and reduced federal spending. But as a biomedical researcher at the National Institutes of Health in DC, which derives its budget directly from the taxpayers through Congress every year, I feel conflicted when supporting policy that would put me out of a job. I've also begun to take heat from my colleagues for my support of Ron Paul and I'm starting to feel a bit like a hypocrite. But I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on these issues if you feel inclined to respond:

What should the role of the federal government be (if it should have one at all) in funding breakthroughs in medical research?

Personally I think there is a BIG difference between tax dollars funding breakthroughs in cancer research or development of a vaccine to stop a world-wide flu pandemic vs. paying for grandpa Joe's lung transplant because he chose to smoke for 40 years. But that's just my opinion!

What if this is through funding U.S. investigators and laboratories directly vs. supporting projects and research centers overseas?

There is a lot of collaboration that goes on between NIH and the private sector for developing new drugs and therapies. Should this be left entirely to private industry?

On a personal note, I had to borrow a small fortune just to go to medical school, some of which is federally subsidized Stafford loans, and am still many years away from being able to pay it back. But now I feel like I shouldn't have even participated in those loan programs because of the strain on my fellow taxpayers. Your thoughts???

I am a strong supporter of Public Health. Remember when the Constitution was written there was no real organized PubH movement. This type of work is critical, and should be a federal priority.

 

[norak]

Dude.. we need doctors and medical researchers in this country. There's a shortage. Strain on your fellow taxpayers? Ask them if they feel the strain when your research is helping them recover from cancer. Don't feel bad, not even for a second.

JUst because there is a shortage, that doesn't mean government should fill that shortage. Libertarians believe the free market can better fill shortages than government can.

Medical research and Stafford loans for doctors is one of these functions. They are not a big strain on taxpayers -- not compared to the Iraq war and military funding! Not compared to medicare! Not compared to the intrest payments on the national debt! Let's keep things in perspective here.

Small things add up. If we allow the government to spend on anything that seems small compared to the Iraq war expenditure, we will add up all sorts of government spendings and all up it will cost taxpayers a lot. You cannot rationalize just because of self-interest. You must stick to the logic.

If we allow medical research, why not funding for operas, why not funding for government plants, etc?

 

[CUnknown]

Norak, well I can understand if you want the government to stay out of research because of libertarian principles. But realize that if this is done, the amount of research done will plummet to a fraction of what is being done now. The choices are basically: 1) We as a nation don't want to fund research, at least not at the current levels, or 2) We as a nation want research, and are willing to fund it through tax dollars.

Either one I think is valid, but don't say that "We don't need government grants to fund our research, the free market and private enterprise can handle it" or that "Research will improve once big government gets out of the way" because neither of those statements are true.

There are many areas in which I think Libertarian and free market principles are true, and are something we should aspire to reach. However, there are limits on the free market -- it can't actually solve all problems as well as government programs and institutions can. It can solve many problems better than government, but not all. Research is one of those areas where we really need a mixed system, if we are going to do it at all.

The US has the best University system, the best scientists, and the latest cutting-edge research in just about all areas. The rest of the world is trying to figure out how they can emulate our system. The credit for this amazing achievement is almost entirely due to the government and public sector scientists. I hate the government as much as the next person on this site, but you gotta give credit where credit is due. They occasionally get something right.

 

[Liberté]

JUst because there is a shortage, that doesn't mean government should fill that shortage. Libertarians believe the free market can better fill shortages than government can.

Small things add up. If we allow the government to spend on anything that seems small compared to the Iraq war expenditure, we will add up all sorts of government spendings and all up it will cost taxpayers a lot. You cannot rationalize just because of self-interest. You must stick to the logic.

If we allow medical research, why not funding for operas, why not funding for government plants, etc?

It is not logical to attack bio-medical research, or other hard science research. There are some few areas where the government should be involved. It is not logical to abandon a system that has done so much good. This is why the LP movement will never have sway with the general public, you need LOGIC in government.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The interest paid on student loans from the government goes to fund loans for other students- not to a company's profit margin. That is why the loans from the governmemt are at a lower rate than you would get from a private company.

 

[notcarljung]

whenever you buy something or get your pay check, uncle sam takes his share of your money. I don't see you as a hypocrite. Rather, I see you as a person whose smart enough to steal right back from him! heh.