Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ian@SI who wrote (23835)	5/29/2007 2:35:12 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

I was thinking more of how the political system deals with complex scientific issues, rather than who funds science. There is really no real good alternative to hiring high-caliber technocrats (like those at the FDA) and letting them do their thing untrammeled by political concerns. Unfortunately, the current administration marks a historical low point in that approach. The climate is a very complex system, and I have little doubt that blaming everything on CO2 is a considerable oversimplification. Whether it is a useful simplification I have no idea. But for those that truly believe CO2 is the culprit, then nuclear energy surely should be one solution. But only a very few environmentalists have actually turned around and embraced nuclear. (From a strictly environmental viewpoint I am pro-nuclear, but I do concede that proliferation concerns have tempered my enthusiasm of late). If CO2 is indeed a major culprit, it is interesting to note that the free market system by itself would not respond well to the problem. It's a combination of the tragedy of the commons and very long time-horizons. Thus only government regulation could curtail CO2 emissions. (A tax on CO2 emissions is the most logical and simplest response, but don't hold your breath). Peter