Interesting discourse. 

Clearly what is or is not for common good is judgment-based, not formulaic.  The very existence of government is a political act.  Those with authority to set and administer policy across contending ideas/actions and to do so with integrity have some core guidelines but also wide latitude - they do sometimes sucuumb to political IOUs.  To the extent its political apparatus is corrupted - i.e. are specific instances, no matter how egregious, just peripheral examples, with the mainstream fundamentally intact or is there confusion as to which is the signal and which is the noise - a nation's prospects get shaped.

I view common good activities in terms of risk-adjusted economic returns.  Key characteristics would include: (a) unacceptable loss of life, liberty or sovereignty (competing wireless standards but not competing police, judiciary or foreign policy), (b) confering advantages of scale/scope i.e. lowering unit cost (e.g. postal service - despite all the horror stories), (c) potential path to value-creation where individual enterprises may not invest due to shorter-term time horizons (e.g. space or deep-sea exploration), (d) balance, whereby results do not favor one existing competitor over another.   Again, no absolutes, just ways to couch the judgment and a bias toward minimal government.

While the NIH is not deliberately pandering, the pharma industry has certainly framed the terms of debate to its advantage.  Vijay, I would wager that if we could hold a popular referendum, after you had an opportunity to fairly and fully present your views, a dominant majority would still vote to fund basic biomedical research along current modalities.   Is there a tinge of big fish eating small fish here - yes.  But given that, it presents an opportunity for others.  If alternative medicine, astrology, etc. have substance, they can draw private equity capital that is constantly seeking the "new hot thing", develop into the kinds of 'disruptive technologies" that Clayton Christensen refers to in The Innovator's Dilemma and leapfrog the dumb majority.  Nations can place bets here too.

The only other distinction I would make is between the use of public funds for research versus for teaching.   So much is unknown that a credible case for exploration can be made for virtually any field, but creating course content and making it part of curricula presupposes a maturity for the body of knowledge that despite millenia in the making, astrology does not compellingly possess.  So, by all means, study them but don't serve students as kool-aid, yet.

Amit S

For those who wish to delve a little deeper into this subject, please visit the following site (link at end of this para). The links to articles by academicians on this web page are interesting. Sometimes, though, I wonder whether Astrology is taken up as a strawman to attack worldviews that encompasss more than a physical framework. A more interesting discourse would be of competing worldviews and the resultant behaviours/actions (would it be correct to say that when nation-states act, they are called 'policies'?). The point of such a discourse would not be so much to denigrate and demean each other (especially if one is facile with language), but to gain better understanding of one's own worldview.

http://www.smitpotze.demon.nl/Astrology-and-Science/index.htm

Regards,
Jay

I view that as an unfortunate personal attack. I have tried very hard to separate political and linguistic dimensions. I would feel sad lost bitter defeated violated stultified ... if astrology got funded, but that would be a political defeat and certainly not a call to demean any one. I do get very excited and ANSWER-directed when I see blatant propagandistic abuse of language itself for political ends. How can one allow ANY politician ANYWHERE ANYTIME to dictate what a term means, regardless of majority P can produce? In US 2/3 majority is required for changing semantics. So also in India. What is more, supreme court has held that certain parts of constitution are off-limits. I remember well valiant struggle against IG-emergency and SC saying the government can neither arbitrarily redefine what property means, nor eliminate that fundamental right! Now we don't even have a constitutional effort, just a politician gone nuts.

>AS: While the NIH is not deliberately pandering, the pharma industry has
>certainly framed the terms of debate to its advantage.  Vijay, I would
>wager that if we could hold a popular referendum, after you had an
>opportunity to fairly and fully present your views, a dominant majority
>would still vote to fund basic biomedical research along current
>modalities.

VG: Amit, I would wager that if you had an opportunity to fairly and fully
present your views on the virtues of capitalism to the people of USSR in
1984, a dominant majority would have still voted for the status quo. In
other words, you cannot offset decades of propaganda, and trillions of
dollars of marketing, with one long presentation of your opposing views. If
you repeat something often enough, it becomes the truth (at least for the
dominat majority). Unlearning is much harder than learning!

>AS: Is there a tinge of big fish eating small fish here - yes.  But given
>that, it presents an opportunity for others.  If alternative medicine,
>astrology, etc. have substance, they can draw private equity capital that
>is constantly seeking the "new hot thing", ....

VG: This is a comment I often hear from many defenders of the western
medicine. If ginger or garlic (or whatever) is better than Viagra, they say,
why don't some smart venture capitalists fund research into these herbs and
beat Pfizer in the market place? But this point brings out one of the most
FUNDAMENTAL limitations of capitalism. Capitalism, or free market
competition, only works when the research has the potential of producing a
marketable, consumable, and profitable product or service.

Let us say that you spend $50 millions to find and test a non-patentable
natural herb which is better and safer than Viagra. Could you recover your
investment without patent protection? Not likely. Or, say that swimming has
the potential to cure asthma and it requires $10 millions of research to do
controlled trials, and determine an optimum swimming regimen. What is your
revenue model going to be? Could you patent the butterfly stroke? Or, say
that your research finds that drinking extra water every day along with
avoidance of calcium-rich foods eliminates kidney stones. Could you charge
people for NOT drinking milk?

In fact, Dr. Dean Ornish, who I mentioned in my earlier post, and who is a
pioneer in AM research, was simply unable to secure funding from mainstream
sources (National Institutes of Health, Cancer Society, or VCs) for his
prostate cancer research. His only sources were some charitable foundations,
and perhaps some (rich) individual believers in AM.  Moreover, even if his
AM trials are successful, he has little money to promote or advertise his
findings. So the dominant majority would only hear about the so-called
"miracle drugs" from the pharma industry.

Also, labels are important: the name "alternative medicine" itself helps the
pharma industry frame the debate to its advantage. My preferred names for AM
would be NPM (non-profitable or non-patentable medicine) or NM (natural
medicine).

VijayG


PS: In a fundamental sense, the key villains in this story are not the drug
industry (they are just being good capitalists helping to boost the GDP!) or
the NIH. The real villains are: 1) the above-mentioned limitation of the
capitalism itself, and 2) people's preference for 30 second sound-bites and
their tendency to look for quick and easy cures AFTER they are sick.

Dear Vijay Sir Gupta

You, Sir, stole my thunder in that AM interests me because of abuses of NIH by drug companies, and abuses of people lile Dr. Ornish by NIH. That is why it is so important to define what NIH does so carefully - THE worst possible situation is for some government servant to be exercising brains to determine who gets funded. It is not even political or democratic since politicians are driven by short term interests of constituents. Ultimately the basis is free-enterprise and letting the moneyed win.The success of west as well as most of it evils can be traced down to patents and copyrights.

THE central crisis of capitalism, soluble using my brand of compulsory licensing, gives me unbelievable opportunities that arise from the precise problem you identified so well:

In fact, Dr. Dean Ornish, who I mentioned in my earlier post, and who is a pioneer in AM research, was simply unable to secure funding from mainstream sources (National Institutes of Health, Cancer Society, or VCs) for his prostate cancer research. His only sources were some charitable foundations, and perhaps some (rich) individual believers in AM.  Moreover, even if his AM trials are successful, he has little money to promote or advertise his findings. So the dominant majority would only hear about the so-called "miracle drugs" from the pharma industry.

You had to add an unfortunate PS - drug companies are acting like murderers, that is NOT the way to add GDP. "t he above-mentioned limitation of the capitalism itself" is well put. people's preference for 30 second sound-bites and their tendency to look for quick and easy cures AFTER they are sick that is how people are for they are generally NOT as fortunate as me with my family and one MUST make progress despite that and avoid feeling disillusioned hence. There are so MANY demands on their time. Why do you think capitalism wins otherwise despite its well-documented persistent evils?

PS: In a fundamental sense, the key villains in this story are not the drug industry (they are just being good capitalists helping to boost the GDP!) or the NIH. The real villains are: 1) the above-mentioned limitation of the capitalism itself, and 2) people's preference for 30 second sound-bites and their tendency to look for quick and easy cures AFTER they are sick.

VG: Prakash, I am not very knowledgeable about chaos theory. But the
reference to chaos theory is not really necessary here. The main point is
whether astronomical events like planetary motion and alignments could have
ANY possible effect on terrestrial/human life? For example, we know that the
moon affects tides on earth.

>AS: Public funds should be restricted for the indisputable common good...

VG: Amit, there aren't many thing that governments do that would qualify as
"the indisputable common good." Use or allocation of public funds is always
a political decision, not a scientific one. Scientists/intellectuals can
give their (often self-serving) opinions, but politicians, and indirectly
voters and special interests, decide how to use public funds.

To give an example, NIH in the US spends over $10 billion of our tax money
annually on subsidizing medical/pharmaceutical research. Most people have
been brainwashed by the drug industry (with their marketing muscle) and
scientists (often funded by the drug industry) that this research is for the
common good, and  most alternative medicine is bunkum. Some time ago Senator
Tom Harkins (who was personally helped by alternative medicine) tried to
allocate some of the NIH budget for alternative medicine research. He had to
fight tooth and nail to get just $2 million (0.02%) allocated. If I had a
choice, I would allocate the entire $10 billion for alternative
(non-profitable) medicine research, and let the drug industry pay for its
own (commercial) research.

Perhaps, the government should get out of everything except primary
education, law and order, and national defense (but even the defense budget
is far from indisputable).

Cheers
VijayG

>From: "Vijay Gupta" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Class-of-75] Jansanghis and astrology
>Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:53:56 -0700
>
>
> >
> >AA: The claim it does is my huble opinion even worse than mine who claimed
> >at
> >one point out of jest that silver lake and walden pond had common acqifer
> >and so ..., and a lawyer actually belived my conclusions! Nevertheless you
> >are entilted to make it, I will defend your right to state it, but will
> >also
> >be very harsh if you were to call it scientific. Knowing you, sharing most
> >of your views, any misfortune that befalls you is mine too, but in this
> >case
> >we must agree to disagree.
> >
>
>VG: Without getting into analogies, metaphors, and freedom of speech issues,
>can you categorically state that "planetary activities and positions have
>absolutely no impact on terrestrial life?" Please start your reply with a
>clear yes or no, if possible.
>
>
> >AA: Regardless of your favorbale anecdotes and justifiable scorn on drug
> >companies, Sir, calling some thing alternative medical research does not
> >entitle any one to raid NIH funds. Sir Harkins may well establish an AMF
> >and
> >give it 9 billion and cut NIH to 1 billion. But not by calling a spade a
> >club.
> > >
>
>VG: My point about NIH has to do with the proper use of public funds and how
>reasonable people can disagree on what is "common good." (since Amit S.
>suggested that study of astrology was not for common good.) My point is that
>medical research that is commercially viable (through patents and sale of
>drugs etc.) should not be subsidized by public (NIH) funds. The NIH should
>only subisdize research into "alternative" therapies which is not undertaken
>by private industry because the research would not produce a
>patentable/marketable product. Examples include: treatment of diseases
>through dietary changes and exercise regimens, natural herbs, acupuncture
>etc. Whether we should call them alternative medicine is not important here.
>
>VijayG