Impatient proponents: What's wrong with the California stem cell and cures act?

For some, the traditional and time-honored processes of representative democracy do not move fast enough. Those fearful that same-sex marriages will bring about the decline of our society wish to circumvent the slower judicial and legislative processes involved in deciding the question, and rush instead to alter the Constitutional source. In California, this impatience with process has led to the widespread use of the ballot initiative, whereby concerned citizens eager to promote a righteous cause attempt to bypass the legislature and put new laws directly on the ballot. The ensuing discussion of the issues involved in the proposed law threatens to become less a matter of rational and reasoned public debate than a battle of commercial ads and marketing ploys. Recently enacted California law both allows for and supports stem cell research in the private and public sectors. (1) Despite progress concerning the oversight and regulatory structure of stem cell research, a subsequent bill providing for its public funding failed to pass. (2) Perhaps California legislators decided that funding education, ensuring access to basic health care services, or providing security to their constituents was more important. Frustrated and impatient stem cell proponents reacted by recruiting paid-by-the signature-workers to place "The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act" on the November ballot. If passed, the initiative would amend the stave constitution to guarantee a "right" to conduct and fund stem cell research. The initiative seeks to grant up to $3 billion of public funding for the research (subject to an annual limit of $350 million), to be generated through the issuance of general obligation bonds. The amendment also contains a complete regulatory scheme, which would supercede the existing state laws dealing with the regulation and oversight of such research. The provisions of the new law cannot be changed except by a legislative supermajority, together with the governor's approval. A new institution, the "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine," would be created to distribute the funding to researchers (in the form of grants and loans). The institute would be guided by an "Independent Citizens Oversight Committee" (ICOC). Actually reading and understanding the entire act would be for most overextended and overcommitted voters a lengthy and time-consuming process. Thus the proponents have developed a glossy web site that attempts to explain but also to sell the initiative with an assortment of shortcuts, buzzwords, and wondrous claims. (3) The commercial pitch selling the amendment: "It's about saving lives." Readers are led to believe that cures are within reach for millions suffering from practically every common chronic and life-threatening disease. An economic windfall for the state is promised as well. The promised cures would purportedly save millions, maybe billions, in health care costs, and the institute would generate millions of dollars in jobs, projects, and royalties shared from the commercialized fruits of the research. These miracles are overstated at the very least. Two decades ago, the same immediate cures, still unrealized, were predicted to emerge from research on fetal tissue transplantation. Certain cancer treatments that relied on substantially less complicated methods than the cloning process took decades to materialize. Similarly, as scientists in the field have noted, these proposed stem cell remedies are unlikely to be available for most people now suffering from the targeted diseases. (4) Even a leading proponent of the initiative, Irving Weissman, remarked in the New York Tunes that "this field has been overhyped." (5) Yet these potentially damaging and unrealistic promises are the driving force for this initiative. Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, alluded to the strategy: "To start with, people need a fairy tale. …