Now I know that President Bush's veto of Federal funding for stem cell research is going to provoke yet another wave of rants by the left. So before the deluge, let me add my two cents' worth.

What President Bush has done is simply to deny Federal funding. He has not in any way acted to prohibit any private research on stem cell applications.

This seems to be something widely misunderstood. Or at least, it was the last time we went through this. If the Federal Government provides no subsidies, then we are left with market forces only as the impetus behind the research. What this means is that such research will only be done if it looks commercially promising. But what does that mean?

To be commercially promising, stem cell research must hold out strong hope that the results will be widely applicable, and that their application will either be better than currently available tharapies, or will dolve problems that currently admit no solution.

As we should all realize by now, the return on investment in pharmaceuticals is very good, so the companies that are candidates to conduct such research are at no loss for funding. All they need is some reason to believe that the results will be worthwhile.

In general, businesses have a history of making far more rational decisions in such matters than has our government. Businesses must answer to investors, and their investors do not usually buy into the same flim-flammery that so often drives politicians.

So as I see it, this was a victory for reason, and for the taxpayer. And even for those who may reap the eventual benefits -- if any -- of stem cell research. And if, on the other hand, the research is not done, then we may safely assume that the expenditures were no warranted by what we can guage of projected outcomes.