California Set to Vote on Expanded Stem Cell Research

Support from California’s academic medicine community continues to fuel the debate behind a $3 billion ballot initiative that could make the state a trailblazer in embryonic stem cell research. But not everyone is enthusiastic about the campaign.

If approved, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act, also known as Proposition 71, would open the door for research on a wider variety of stem cells, including cord blood stem cells and those harvested from in vitro fertilizations and therapeutic cloning. According to the initiative, this research and the universities and facilities that conduct it would share roughly $295 million in bond money annually. California residents will vote on the initiative Nov. 2.

“We’re concerned about the lack of funding with respect to stem cell research right now,” said Roger Salazar, spokesman for the Proposition 71 campaign. “We’re trying to provide a steady revenue stream to conduct lifesaving research. Without this funding scientists can’t adequately look into and research potential cures and treatments that will have a positive impact on medicine.”

Proposition 71 would establish the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a self-supporting center that would bestow grants and loans for stem cell research similar to how the National Institutes of Health allocates funding for research. The majority of funds would be awarded to research methods that, to date, have not received much federal fund-ing, specifically embryonic stem cell research. A 29-member advisory group, would govern the institute.

Provisions in the ballot initiative state that the institute and its research would receive the $295 million “without regard to fiscal year,” meaning the state would allocate money to the institute despite other funding needs.

This mandate poses a great danger to the state, according to opponents. In addition to misleading voters, it is fiscally and scientifically irresponsible, they said. The initiative could bankrupt other scientific efforts in the state, as well as hinder any progress currently being made through adult stem cell research, said Vincent Fortanasce, president of Doctors, Patients and Taxpayers for Fiscal Responsibility, a group campaigning against Proposition 71.

“This legislation would require that stem cell research get its money every year no matter what California’s budget looks like,” said Dr. Fortanasce, a clinical assistant professor of neurology at the University of Southern California. “Soon we’ll be closing emergency rooms, decreasing funding for HIV research and shutting down baby clinics.”

Evan Snyder, M.D., Ph.D., professor and director of the stem cell and regeneration program at the Burnham Institute, a life science organization, said Dr. Fortanasce’s forecast could not occur because the proposed institute requires no new taxes or economic input from the state.

Although there is no guarantee embryonic stem cell research will produce substantial therapeutic strides in the coming years, Salazar said if advancements decrease healthcare costs by only 1 percent, the money saved could easily pay for the institute’s operations. Dr. Snyder agreed and said embryonic stem cell research could improve many of the state’s healthcare problems by yielding a number of unrelated discoveries in much the same way research on immunology and virus cultures gave rise to the polio vaccine.

The ballot initiative could open several doors for medical research and remove most of the barriers to stem cell research, according to Terry Gach, vice president of resource programs at the Burnham Institute.

“We could see a specific, dramatic acceleration in what we’re doing now,” Gach said. “We’ll be able to go forward at an incredible pace and treat diseases.”

According to Irving Weissman, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Institute for Cancer and Stem Cell Biology and Medicine at Stanford University, Proposition 71 would be highly beneficial to California’s medical schools and would open the door for exploration into previously prohibited areas of research and potential disease therapies.

“We’ll be able to do research that we currently can’t do if this initiative passes,” Dr. Weissman said. “At Stanford, if we get state funding, the NIH can’t blackmail us by threatening to take away funding if we work with new embryonic stem cell lines in other research areas.”

However, this summer, the California Republican Assembly (CRA) agreed with Dr. Fortanasce and voted to oppose the legislation because it largely denies funds to current adult stem cell research. Giving money to efforts that have provided little results, such as embryonic stem cell research, is fruitless, said Mike Spence, chairman of the CRA’s committee opposing the initiative.

Spence said the CRA also opposed Proposition 71, even though the vote carried no official weight, because the initiative prompts ethical concerns about human cloning, even though it specifically states the research will not be conducted for reproductive purposes.

However, Susan Frank, vice president for public policy at the Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation, said Republican fears were unfounded because there would be no opportunity for cloned embryos to be used for reproductive cloning. The Kirsch Foundation is a steadfast supporter of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

“Money would be given to the institutions and methods with the greatest potential to have breakthroughs,” Frank said. “Legislation has been passed that allows for creating embryos from tissue for the purpose of using it for research. There’s no possibility that cloned embryos would be used to impregnate a human, and anyone who did it would go to jail.”

—Whitney L.J. Howell

Contact Us    © 1995-2008 AAMC    Terms and Conditions    Privacy Statement