As I said above, I am in favor of more federal money for stem cell research whether that point is correct or not.

It is important though I think to have accurate information on the issues and no the full extent of what the ramifications of different actions are.

I could see, depending on how extenstensive the restrictions were, agreeing with such a position if I agreed with the core issue. Supposing I was against stem cell research and felt that the federal funding ban was a moral imperative, I wouldn’t want federal money going to project ‘A’ to supply and equip a large lab and then having the lab actually spend all its time working on project ‘B’, which was stem cells. I could imagine Project ‘A’ being less a real project than a method of getting funding for Project ‘B’.

Obviously work is interconnected in labs and resources are shared, so drawing a line appropriately would be difficult at times. I certainly don’t claim to know the entire funding rules for stem cell research and federal moneys, but the source you cite makes it sound as though it would be impossible for a researcher who worked at a university (which all get some federal money) to work on non-federally funded stem cell projects. Since I have seen articles on non-federal research being done at universities, I find that implausible.

I would imagine that there is some degree of rules to make sure that federal money doesn’t go to stem cell projects that are contributed to it, I would hope that to some extent there is accounting for all government money going into academia that requires it be spent where it is supposed to (and hence not where it is not suppossed to.)

Not right now, no. I find it plausible because I have personal experience with the way the federal government tries to put restrictions on Legal Services Corporation funding, preventing recipients from doing things with non-government money that Republicans don’t like, such as class action suits, constitutional challenges, etc.

I don’t have the energy right now to research it further. Assuming for the sake of argument that I’m right, I assume by your response you would oppose such a restriction. Assuming for the sake of argument that I’m wrong, I will concede that that’s not a factor in deciding whether or not to federally fund stem-cell research.

I am pretty sure that the second point there is not correct. Stem cell research is being done at many universities that certainly get federal funding. Do you have any better sources than an anonymous reader of Andrew Sullivan’s site for that?

First of all, the private sector does not have an incentive to fund research so basic that its payoff is too remote to justify. But without such basic research, a lot of important advances wouldn’t get done. A lot of important pharmaceutical advances are made by the National Institutes of Health, for example, and then there’s this internet thing, courtesy of DARPA.

Secondly, the ban on federal funding also bans researchers who get federal funding for other projects from accepting funding for stem-cell research from non-federal sources, which is pretty restrictive given the interconnectedness of various funding streams for scientists.

The veto was only for funding (or funding of additonal stem cell lines), not actually keeping reseach from happening.