Stem Cell Research Should Be More Than a Promise

Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells and Cures initiative will be controversial to anyone who believes that an ex vivo fertilized egg has the same moral status as an infant. But to the vast majority of people, including some who oppose abortion, these embryos, which in fact may lack the capacity ever to develop much beyond the blastocyst stage, do not have the status of infants, and the Potential benefits of engaging in research far outweigh its costs. Anyone who supports stem cell research should support Proposition 71. Stem cell research, and particularly embryonic stem cell research, though very promising, is still in its infancy. It is imperative that basic research be funded so that everyone can benefit in the long run. That is why we spend so much money on basic research through governmental entities like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. While the private sector also provides a great deal of research funding, usually research must be close to practical application in order to attract funding from, for example, large pharmaceutical companies. Since the current administration has virtually eliminated funding for embryonic stem cell research, small biotech companies have had to carry the load. This is undesirable for many reasons. It means that the research is underfunded and may not develop. It places the research in the hands of companies that have no products to sell and whose only assets are represented by the intellectual property they can claim, which may encourage those companies to hype spurious work to help attract needed venture capital. (1) It is likely to lead to the worst sorts of incentives with respect to intellectual property. (2) Private control and ownership of the cell lines available to research will likely restrict who has access to the tools necessary to do stem cell research (as will intellectual property in the basic techniques such as somatic nuclear transfer). Placing such early stage research into the IP system and the private sector will likely furthur slow development of the technology, in addition to creating limits on the clinical results of any future successes. These companies are far more likely to engage in exclusive licensing arrangements, which will inhibit both science and the practice of medicine. Finally, in many states, these start-up companies are doing the research outside of any regulatory oversight. Clearly it is important to provide public funding for stem cell research. The federal government has been unwilling or unable to do so. Now California is stepping in. This has several advantages. First, became this research would take place in California, it would fall under the state legislation that provides oversight, particularly to research cloning. (3) California law requires that all such research go through an IRB, insuring that there will be a regulatory oversight that is lacking in similar private sector research in other states. The initiative itself creates further review by creating a citizens oversight group that would largely be made up of representatives from specific disease patient advocacy groups and representatives from the state's major academic institutions. This should provide an ideal combination, as the focus coming from the academic community will be tempered by the advocacy groups' push for tangible results. Second, the initiative allows for direct public buy-in to the goals of biomedical science. …