I think that offering this prize is bound to dilute PETA's pro-vegan marketing efforts. It makes it pretty clear that their concern is for the animals being eaten, and not for the people eating them.

If we COULD get to the point where we could 'grow' large amounts of meat in a vat, in some kind of factory setting, it could have very large beneficial effects on the environment.

Right now, food prices are soaring across the world, which could possibly lead to serious famines in poorer countries. [Some people in Haiti have been reduced to eating 'mud cookies', unable to afford even rice.] Part of the reason for soaring food prices are the growing affluence of countries like China and India, and a growing taste for meat among the middle class in those rapidly-developing nations. But meat requires a large amount of grain, and water, and land.

This issue actually goes far beyond the putative health benefits for humans of a vegan diet, and the ethical issues of killing animals for meat. It is deeply connected with the much broader issue of sustainability.

Doesn’t any one else see the inherent problem with presuming it would be more economical to grow protein slabs (i.e., meat) in large scale cell culture facilities than it is to raise and slaughter chickens and cattle traditionally?

It may be possible to as you say grow large amounts of meat in a vat, but if doing so promised to reduce costs of production there’d be no necessity to offer cash incentives to encourage doing so—companies would already be pursuing it in pursuit of profit.

Generic Voter:

I think that offering this prize is bound to dilute PETA's pro-vegan marketing efforts. It makes it pretty clear that their concern is for the animals being eaten, and not for the people eating them.

PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

JGC says:

Doesn’t any one else see the inherent problem with presuming it would be more economical to grow protein slabs (i.e., meat) in large scale cell culture facilities than it is to raise and slaughter chickens and cattle traditionally?

It may be possible to as you say grow large amounts of meat in a vat, but if doing so promised to reduce costs of production there’d be no necessity to offer cash incentives to encourage doing so—companies would already be pursuing it in pursuit of profit.

LeRoy: I am actually not PRESUMING it would be more economical to grow meat in large scale cell culture facilities. I simply think it is an interesting line of research that should be pursued. As I'm sure you know, firms do not always have the incentives to pursue areas of research that society might well find beneficial: how much evolutionary research would firms fund? As economists understand, research can have extensive public good and positive externality characteristics, and so the natural assumption is that the market, left to itself, will not provide the socially optimal level of research. Firms in many cases will not be able to collect the full benefits of their research, because the knowledge will diffuse out to the wider society. Indeed, this is why we have (and SHOULD have) so much public funding of research and in the general advancement of scientific knowledge. [It's why we have NASA, for instance.] Having said all that, I tend to agree with the posters who think this is kind of a publicity stunt by PETA, because I think $1 million is a paltry amount as a reward for a research project that might well require 20 years and billions of dollars in funding. As I said at the beginning, I do not know whether it will work or not, in terms of being less costly than our current methods of raising meat. But I do think we should try to find out.

I have the solution...think star trek,think replicators...think bye ,bye peta!Do not laugh,we are closer to this than you may be aware of.