Opinion: Stem cell stumbles
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
From Sigrid Fry-Revere’s piece on stem cell research funding yesterday:
In 2004, California voters approved Proposition 71, which provided $3 billion in public funds for stem cell research. Two years later, challenges to its constitutionality are still pending. Religious and taxpayer groups lost a first round in court, but their appeals, or any other state attempts to fund stem cell research, are likely to be tied up in court for at least another year. Luckily for California, several private philanthropic organizations have loaned the state $14 million to start providing grants. This confirms the conclusions of a September 2005 article in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., which found that when public funding for research lapses, private funders almost always step in to take up the slack, often funding projects at a higher rate than did the government. Other states have had similar experiences. The Ohio governor earmarked $19.4 million for Case Western University for stem cell research, but the Legislature banned it. Funds pledged by Illinois and New Jersey — $10 million and $5 million, respectively — are tied up in legislative limbo because politicians can’t agree on what types of stem cell research should be funded and where the money should come from. Only one state got it right: Missouri. This month, voters passed a ballot initiative amending the Missouri Constitution to protect the right to pursue and benefit from any stem cell research or therapies allowed under federal law or available to other Americans. Government funding was not the issue; it was the need to guarantee that research could proceed without political interference. The Stowers Institute for Medical Research was standing by with $2 billion in funding. Once the amendment passed, research began within days.
The story of the Missouri initiative reflects one of the main drivers of the original Prop 71. At the time, proponents of 71 were arguing, to me at any rate, that the goal of that initiative was not so much to get public funds as to get the state on record as being in favor of stem-cell research—and by extension, to head off a series of efforts to ban this research outright. Here’s how Robert Klein—then head of the Yes On 71 committee and now chairman of the oversight committee for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine—described it:
‘In 2002 and 2003, when the Weldon bill was in the House of Representatives, Proposition 71 wasn’t even a dream,’ says Robert Klein, chairman of the Yes On 71 Coalition. ‘The Brownback bill didn’t involve public funding at all. The Bush administration has gotten Costa Rica to front a UN bill outlawing this research worldwide. It’s initiatives like this that made our own congressional allies to tell us ‘We can’t hold this dike back forever. You need to get enough funding to scientists so they can show some results.’ Historically, public funding has broadened public support.’
That last bit is a perfect specimen of the kind of mad logic public funding brings with it. The best way to convince yourself that a new scientific process is not evil is to spend your own tax dollars convincing yourself it’s not evil. The worst part is that I’m not sure Klein was wrong about this.