Of course, I should have written "who would have continued to live - if American biotechnologists had not been forcibly prevented from saving their lives."
The argument is still wrong, though Adam. It is not known the work of American biotechnologists will save even one life, and even if their work would do that, it is not the reason it is wrong to use force to prevent them from doing research, or doing anything else they choose to do. The argument is utilitarian, suggesting, if there work had no effect accept to waste money, for example, it would be ok to use force to prevent them from doing whatever they are doing. (It is implied, not stated, whenever the utilitarian argument is used.)
When the same argument is made by the nanny-staters, you don't like it. When they say, this law will save lives by preventing traffic fatalities, or accidental deaths, or whatever new coercive protective law is supposed to save us from, they will argue, if you prevent this law and people die because of it, "you are guilty."
It is objectively wrong to base any argument on what you hope will happen, what you expect to happen, or what, by all rights will probably happen, if it hasn't actually happened. It is, as the old saying goes, counting your chickens before they hatch.
I happen to think the thing you are arguing for is correct. There is no excuse for the government to be involved in research, or in anyway to restrict anyone from pursuing any kind of research they choose. But these arguments from, "potentials," "might be(s)," and estimates of how many lives, "could be saved," are technically fallacies, and undercut the real moral principles for opposing government involvement in research in any way whatsoever.
Oh yes, why did you say this: Today, there are 4 countries in the world that still have 50%+ socialist economies: North Korea, Myanmar, Cuba and Venezuela.
Socialism is not determined by what a country calls itself; Sweden is certainly more than 50% socialist (despite its claims otherwise), and how soon we forget Vietnam (and Laos and Cambodia). Burma (Myanmar) is no more socialist than its neighbors, India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh, whatever they call themselves. Whatever the name, where the government is a total oppressive tyranny, as most of the governments of the world are, it is that aspect of Socialism they embrace that is evil. Are England, Belgium, even Swizterland less than 50% socialist?