The Objectivism Online Meta-Blog

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Via HBL, I learned of an outstanding piece (registration required) in the New York Times that illustrates in lurid detail how the federal grant system systematically prevents and impedes groundbreaking scientific research.

For 25 years, Eileen K. Jaffe received federal grants to run her lab. As a senior scientist at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, with a long list of published papers in prestigious journals, she is a respected, established researcher.

Then Dr. Jaffe stumbled upon results that went against textbook explanations, suggesting that it might be possible to find an entirely new class of drugs that could disable proteins that fuel cancer cells. Now she wants to find chemicals that might be developed into such drugs.

But her grant proposal was rejected out of hand by the institutes of health, not even discussed by a review panel. She had no preliminary data showing that the idea was likely to work, something reviewers always want to see, and the idea was just too unprecedented. [bold added]

But even this system doesn't have a 100% kill rate. Some scientists do know how to game it, although I wonder how long such an option will last.

Some experienced scientists have found a way to offset the problem somewhat. They do chancy experiments by siphoning money from their grants.

"In a way, the system is encrypted," [molecular biologist Keith] Yamamoto said, allowing those in the know to wink and do their own thing on the side.

Great discoveries have been made with N.I.H. financing without manipulating the system, [Richard] Klausner [a former Director of the National Cancer Institute] said.

"But," he added, "I actually believe that by and large it is despite, rather than because of, the review system." [bold added]

Read the whole thing. Amusingly (in a sick way), the NIH is "experimenting" with ways to improve this inherently broken system by encouraging innovation with "challenge grants," even as the best way to encourage truly cutting-edge research lies hidden in plain sight.

Now women with excess HER-2 proteins, who once had the worst breast cancer prognoses, have prognoses that are among the best. But when Dr. [Dennis] Slamon wanted to start this research, his grant was turned down. He succeeded only after the grateful wife of a patient helped him get money from Revlon, the cosmetics company.

Too bad so many scientists think that, without government loot, scientific progress would be retarded because those big, evil corporations "have no interest" in scientific research. That misconception will unfortunately cause companies like Revlon to have to continue to pay the highest corporate taxes in the world to finance mere tinkering, rather than have more of their own money at their own disposal to use for real innovation. (And no, government research prizes are not an "answer," either.)

Read the whole thing.

-- CAV

By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

 
Ayn Rand Scholars and Fans Gather in Boston

July 1, 2009

Irvine, CA On July 3rd the Ayn Rand Institute will hold its annual Objectivist Summer Conference (OCON) at the Seaport Hotel in Boston.  From all over the world admirers of the late novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand will gather for nine days of intellectual stimulation and fellowship.
 
OCON will feature classes by the world’s leading Objectivist scholars and businessmen, such as BB&T Corporation Chairman John Allison, and the President and CEO of Hutchinson Technology, Wayne Fortun.  Ayn Rand Institute president and executive director Yaron Brook will also be giving a course on the causes of the financial crisis. 

“OCON is a very unique opportunity for enthusiasts of Ayn Rand to associate and discuss Objectivist ideas”, Dr. Brook said. “For many of our conferees this is their only, and most cherished, vacation of the year.”

### ### ###

 

By Debi Ghate from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Protests in Iran continue despite the theocracy’s attempt to crush them. As Tehran launches its usual accusations of “American interference,” could it be that America hasn’t “interfered” enough?

Imagine what might happen—what potential benefit there could be to us and to Iran—if this speech were made by an American President.

“Good evening. I am here to address events of great significance to the American people. Over the past weeks, we have witnessed the murdering, beating and intimidation of Iranian protestors by a theocratic regime clenching its iron fist to retain power. I strongly condemn these unjust actions of the Iranian regime.

It is time for America to be unequivocal and to recognize its past errors. It is time for the United States to make it clear that it does not recognize the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has not had a legitimate government worthy of our recognition for decades. The country has been ruled by a series of murdering clerics who seized power outside of any legitimate political means. They were not chosen through any representative process. They are dictators of the worst kind.

For decades, the Iranian regime has repeatedly declared itself an enemy of America, openly acting in violence against our citizens. We’ve known it since the clerics and their supporters took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. We’ve known it in the form of multiple Tehran-backed attacks on Americans since: 1983 in Beirut where we lost 241 people in a bombing; 1985 when TWA 847 was hijacked by Iranian-trained Hezbollah fighters and we lost a Navy diver; 1996 at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia where we lost 19; the list goes on. We’ve heard their message: “Death to America.”

This is a regime that loudly calls for jihad on the West—for the violent imposition of sharia law—it calls for Islamic totalitarianism. It provides the intellectual leadership for the Islamist movement: training, financing, and otherwise encouraging a multitude of terrorist organizations—including those responsible for the September 11th attacks on our soil.  America has not forgotten that this regime orchestrated and participated in three decades of deadly assaults upon its people and is ultimately responsible for them. We have nothing to say to the Iranian regime—except that we will no longer repeat our grave errors of the past. We know what you stand for, and what threat you pose.

But we do have much to say to the brave Iranians voicing their opposition to the Supreme leader, making it clear his regime does not represent them.

To those among you standing up in the face of threats; to those among you saying “We will continue to speak even if you, Supreme leader, claim that Allah forbids it”; to those among you deciding that it is time for freedom in Iran—we say: you have our encouragement, and our sanction.

To those among you protesting against more than the electoral results, who are wholesale rejecting the oppressive nature of theocratic rule—we offer you our moral and financial support. And if necessary, we will offer you military support to the best of our ability. You see, we share your goal of ending the Iranian theocracy and of eliminating the threat it poses to our own nation. We have had the moral right to end it for decades; you not only have that right, you have the moral fortitude.

To those few in Iran desperately seeking liberty: rejecting theocratic rule is critical, but what are you fighting for? Seize this opportunity to fight for a nation founded on principles that protect individual rights. As America once fought for its independence, so can you. Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness: these are your inalienable rights. The time is now to fight to create a free nation upholding these principles.

It will not be easy. Our thoughts are with you as you face imminent danger and uncertainty. It will take courage and conviction. But to you, the true friend of freedom, we say: we are with you as you take your first important step towards real revolution. You have rejected the iron fist that smashes you down through religious rule. You have spoken. Stand firm, and we will stand with you.”

Unfortunately we will not hear this speech. Only a President acting on a foreign policy that properly defends the rights of its own citizens—a foreign policy of principled self-interest—would take this bold stand.

 

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Wow, this news from the Institute for Justice is surprisingly hopeful:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 29,2009

First Amendment Blockbuster at the Supreme Court:

Court Orders New Arguments in Citizens United, Majority Appears Poised
To Strike Down Electioneering Communications and Corporate Speech Bans

First-Ever Study of Impact on Nonprofits Demonstrates Need
To Rein in Out-of-Control Speech Regulations

Arlington, Va.--The U.S. Supreme Court today ordered a new round of oral arguments in Citizens United v. FEC, the "Hillary: The Movie" case. The Court wants parties to address whether Austin v. Michigan, a case that bans certain political speech by corporations, including nonprofit corporations such as Citizens United, should be overturned. The Court also wants to consider whether part of McConnell v. FEC, upholding the so-called "electioneering communications" ban in McCain-Feingold, should likewise be overturned and the ban struck down entirely.

"The Court has set up a blockbuster case about Americans' First Amendment rights to join together and speak freely about politics," said Steve Simpson, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Citizens United v. FEC. "A majority of the High Court appears to recognize the grave threat to free speech posed by both the electioneering communications ban in McCain-Feingold and the ban on corporate political speech. This case could mark a significant advance for First Amendment rights and will have major implications for state laws nationwide."

Indeed, a study released today shows the critical need to rein in speech regulations that have flourished since the Court upheld the electioneering communications ban in McConnell. At least 15 states have electioneering communications laws, and in many cases those laws regulate even more speech by more groups than the federal ban. Indeed, just last month, in response to a lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice, a federal judge struck down Florida's law. He noted that "no court has ever upheld such a sweeping regulation of political speech."

The study is the first ever to examine the impact of speech regulations on the kind of nonprofit corporations at issue in Austin. The study shows that these laws impose on nonprofit groups a heavy regulatory burden for their speech and most lack the resources to comply. "Locking Up Political Speech: How Electioneering Communications Laws Burden Free Speech and Civic Engagement" by political scientist Dr. Michael Munger of Duke University is available at http://www.ij.org/citizensunited.

"Since McCain-Feingold, campaign finance regulation has exploded, leaving practically no room for free speech about politics," said Bill Maurer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice and lead counsel for the Institute on its Citizens United brief. "With each new regulation, more citizens are shut out of the political process. That is why it is essential for the Court to revisit and indeed overturn Austin and McConnell."

The Citizens United case came about because the Federal Election Commission banned the airing of "Hillary: The Movie," produced by the nonprofit Citizens United, on cable TV and required the group to "name names" of the film's backers by disclosing to the government detailed personal information about donors if the group ran TV ads for the film. At oral argument, justices appeared concerned that if the government could ban corporate-funded films about candidates, it could also ban books. Revisiting Austin and McConnell allows the Court to fully consider whether speech regulation has gone too far.

"The Court will now squarely confront the inevitable consequences of regulating political speech: If the government can ban ads, it can ban movies and books as well," said Simpson. "But we don't ban books in America. Once you start regulating political speech, there is no place to stop. This is exactly why the First Amendment forbids government from controlling and limiting speech in the first place."

Simpson continued, "It takes money to speak effectively, so the right to free speech must include the right to spend money and raise money to make that speech heard."

"Reconsidering Austin and McConnell is a critical start to fixing what is wrong with campaign finance regulation, but it should not be the end," said Simpson. "The root of the problem stretches back 30 years to Buckley: the belief that some speech deserves government regulation simply because it advocates for one candidate over another. In America, we have the right to try to convince fellow citizens how to vote. It's called 'political speech,' and it's exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect. We cannot fully protect First Amendment rights until the Court does away with the distinction between 'good' speech and 'bad' speech altogether."

All my hopes are with Steve Simpson and the other good folks at the Institute for Justice! I am so grateful for their hard work hard to protect our rights -- and for this ray of sunshine in the bleak landscape of American politics today.

By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Atlas Shrugged on Floor Displays at Largest Bookstores

Washington, D.C., June 29, 2009-- Shortly after Independence Day, new free-standing floor displays of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, first published 52 years ago, will be placed in more than 850 bookstores across the United States. Borders will display the novel’s trade edition at 520 of its stores and Waldenbooks will feature the mass market paperback edition at 336 of its stores. Thousands of copies of Atlas Shrugged will be on display.

Barnes & Noble also had copies of Atlas Shrugged for sale in special floor displays in most of its bookstores from late May into early June.

According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “This is the most prominent and widespread display for this novel in all of its publishing history. It is particularly remarkable because it comes more than a half century after its initial publication.

“The fact that the largest bookstore chains in America have chosen to make such a prominent display of Atlas Shrugged is a testimony to the current and growing interest in Ayn Rand’s novels and ideas, and an encouraging sign for America’s future.

“As Americans confront the scary growth of government control over their lives and the economy, they need, more than ever, to learn about Ayn Rand’s conception of a new morality of rational self-interest and her unprecedented defense of freedom and individual rights.”

---------------- 
 

 

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A good friend wrote me about the speed with which the government is erasing freedom and establishing a fascist regime, and the despair this phenomenon can cause: “If presented with an existential crisis, I don‘t see a modern day Sons of Liberty around to fight for liberty.”

I will reply that we are the new Sons of Liberty. We’re all over the place. You will recall that the Sons of Liberty, for about ten years leading up to Concord and Bunker Hill, communicated with each other all over the colonies through committees of correspondence, trading intelligence, ideas, strategies, and progress reports. The new committees are facilitated by the Internet. Fundamentally, there is no difference between their functions, except the element of time. It might have taken two weeks for correspondence from Boston and Sam Adams to reach Richmond and Richard Henry Lee. Now, it takes mere seconds for anyone‘s communications to reach a hundred times the number of addressees.

Another chief difference is that the committees of yore were guided in their policies and actions by many of the Founders, who acted as intellectual workmen. Today, many of the movers behind the Tea Parties are acting in the same capacity. They are not especially intellectuals, but they will come around eventually, out of necessity, in order to present arguments, and not just stage ad hoc demonstrations of anger and disgust. Objectivists are making their presence known at the Tea Parties, and they are attracting lots of attention, especially from protestors looking for moral and intellectual guidance and not more of the “same old, same old.”

Here’s another parallel: In the Founders’ time, before the Declaration, opposition to Crown policies was expressed by a number of groups. Call them 18th century “libertarians,” religious based groups, conservatives, and the like. But by the time of Bunker Hill and the second Continental Congress, most of them were agreed on the fundamentals of why the colonies should separate from the Crown. We are in the same situation today. Religious groups, libertarians, conservatives, and other groups opposed to Obama and the Democratic Congress’s policies are all vying for attention and trying to dominate especially the Tea Parties. But Objectivism is the only philosophy that offers a consistently rational politics. None of the other forces do.

If Yaron Brook and ARI don’t exhaust themselves with speeches and appearances, in time Objectivism will come to dominate the political thinking. All the other groups are capable of compromise, whereas Objectivism is not. This stops the rationalizers and compromisers cold, and they have nothing to say, nothing to add, nothing to refute. You’ve heard especially Yaron on TV and on the radio expound the philosophy of individual rights and handily discard or rebut objections and reservations about the necessity of a consistent policy of individual rights, that is, a moral philosophy based on the nature of man, and not on religion or utilitarianism (capitalism and freedom promote the greatest good for the greatest number, etc.). He doesn’t give an inch. He doesn’t concede the fallacies of any of his opponents.

I agree with you that many Americans are now emerging tentatively from what Jack Frake and Hugh Kenrick might have called their “Plato’s caves.” Some are blinking, others are shutting their eyes or sidling back into the caves. They don’t matter. And some are bravely moving ahead. But it is we, the new Sons of Liberty, who never inhabited those caves, who are the point men in this conflict. Objectivists are now running and contributing to dozens of “committees of correspondence” today.

Remember also that all throughout the pre-Revolutionary period and during the war itself, the population here remained roughly divided in thirds: one-third loyalist, one-third neutral dross, and one-third that fought for independence or supported it. You cite the overwhelming number of people in the “masses.” The “masses” don’t count. Look what happened in Iran. For days hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets and had running fights with the mullahs’ armed thugs and their “thought police,” but the numbers of the protestors didn’t matter. They probably outnumbered the thugs. They were moved not by radical ideas, but by emotions. Their protests had to peter out. They have only a vague glimmering of “freedom” and worse yet some notion of “democracy,” which they associate with freedom. Well, “majority rule,” or those who support Ahmadinejad, spoke, and that was “democracy.” I haven’t observed any evidence, through the news, that anyone there has grasped that. (And I think that the U.S.’s Voice of America broadcasts to Iran and other countries ruled by dictatorships do more harm than good, because in a mealy mouthed way, they also promote “democracy”; this is the confused confusing already confused minds.)

Of course, victory for us isn’t guaranteed. It wasn’t guaranteed for the Founders, either. How it will all end, and when, is an open question. If Obama and the Democrats move to their final folly, which is censorship (and we know they very much would like to silence any and all moral opposition), then we may see actual rebellion against government force, and that may or may not be a good thing, given the state of the culture. It could backfire, as some Objectivists elsewhere have noted, and only provoke the government to impose even more stringent controls, and possibly result in the arrest of the most outspoken and rational critics. The statists are too close to their final goal, a “democratic” dictatorship in which everyone exists in support of and for the sake of the state, to concede rationality in any quarter or on any issue. If that end can only be achieved by becoming bestial, they’ll have nothing to lose and won’t hesitate to bloody a few heads (and that may be their undoing -- or not).

One thing we should not doubt -- and I noted this in “Obama contra Churchill” and in past commentaries -- is that if they cannot exercise complete political power over the country, they would rather see it die or descend into anarchy. That’s their death premise. No one should underestimate their viciousness. The obvious glee with which they legislate our freedom away will be matched by their bottomless malice for any resistance. Fundamentally, it’s as much “either/or” for the statists as it is for the advocates of a philosophy of reason, who act on the life premise. You can see it in their faces and hear it in their words. Their capacity for evil is sustained only by the confusion and mixed premises of their current and future victims. Atlas Shrugged dramatized that in no uncertain terms.

A major problem is the state of the American spirit. Generations of dumbing-down and educational indoctrination can’t be undone during a single repressive administration (which is how the Obama administration can only be characterized). Perhaps Americans will wake up quickly to their peril, perhaps not. They must be taught the value of freedom. Many do not even know what it is, and many don’t put a value on it. Where the Founders had the advantage of the spread of Enlightenment ideas, and a population receptive to them, we have the disadvantage of the decline of those ideas, and a population largely indifferent to or ignorant of them. This is quite an obstacle.

All we can do for now is keep on arguing, talking, writing, and protesting, to get as many people on our side as possible. To paraphrase Rand, by fighting for our future, we are living it now. For the moment, this is all that is within our power to do.

Long Live Lady Liberty!