California’s Proposition 71, endorsed by 61 percent of
voters in November 2004, was intended to create a $3 billion West
Coast counterpart to the National Institutes of Health, focusing on
biomedical research into human embryonic stem cells, distributing
an average of $300 million annually in research grants over 10
years.
In my Jan. 13 submission (“Scandal shouldn’t mar
research field”) I discussed how falsified cloning research
in South Korea by renowned scientist Hwang Woo-suk set back the
scientific agenda and scandalized the entire stem cell field.
Now, one year into its 10-year lifetime, the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine appears to be entering a new
era of declining expectations that have clouded the field since
that incident.
The program has been stuck in a seemingly endless legal morass.
In 2005, several lawsuits were filed against the institute by a
vocal minority that strongly opposes embryonic stem cell
research.
In a trial that concluded last week, the plaintiffs argued that
the 2004 initiative violates the California Constitution because
the institution was set up with too much independence from elected
decision-makers, lacks proper state supervision, and so violates
the use of taxpayer funds.
Although the trial is over, the judge will not issue a ruling
until later this month at the earliest.
UCLA’s Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Medicine
received $3.75 million in grants from Proposition 71. The money has
yet to be distributed because of the pending lawsuits.
Russell Korobkin, a UCLA law professor and senior fellow at the
UCLA Center for Society and Genetics, wrote in the Los Angeles
Times that the lawsuit’s primary claim is unwarranted because
prior rulings place the administrative structure of Proposition 71
clearly within the law.
Regardless of the legal ramifications of this ruling, the
plaintiffs’ stalling tactic is an affront to the will of
voters, slowing progress in seeking cures for a variety of
illnesses and imperiling this state’s ability to become a
leader in stem cell research.
Until the court ruling is released, the institute is continuing
to seek $50 million in temporary private funding. The first problem
with this alternative financing is that it is nowhere near the $300
million earmarked annually for the institute.
Secondly, state support may not remain as crucial as it is
today. State support is only significant now because the Bush
administration refuses to use federal money to fund most stem cell
research. The state’s main advantage was filling the void
left by the federal government.
Many, like Korobkin, expect those restrictions will be eased
soon after Bush leaves office, if not sooner. Once federal money is
available, state money will become much less important. In short,
California has three years to gain a competitive edge in this
field.
In the meantime, UCLA, other universities and research entities
across the state will suffer as the money is withheld.
Stem cell research is controversial. The debate and lawsuits are
not going to go away any time soon. All we can do now is strive to
do more with fewer resources.
It is only a matter of time before we as a society will develop
greater acceptance for this type of research ““ or at the very
least, respect the will of the voters of California ““ and
stop using weak legal justification to delay the inevitable.
Shefizadeh is the founder and president of Students for
Organ Donation at UCLA.