Calif. to Vote on $3B Stem Cell Project

Silicon Valley tycoons, Nobel laureates and Hollywood celebrities are backing a measure on California's Nov. 2 ballot to devote $3 billion to human embryonic stem cell experiments in what would be the biggest-ever state-supported scientific research program in the country.

The measure — designed to get around the Bush administration's restrictions on the funding of such research — would put California at the very forefront of the field. It would dwarf all current stem cell projects in the United States, whether privately or publicly financed.

Proposition 71 promises to be one of the most contentious election issues in California, pitting scientists, sympathetic patients who could benefit from stem cells and biotechnology interests against the Roman Catholic Church and conservatives opposed to the research because it involves destroying days-old embryos and cloning.

What's more, cell research has emerged as a major campaign issue between President Bush (news - web sites) and John Kerry (news - web sites), who promises if elected to reverse Bush's 2001 policy restricting federal funding of such experiments to only those cell lines already in existence.

The measure would authorize the state to sell $3 billion in bonds and then dispense nearly $300 million a year for 10 years to researchers for human embryonic stem cell experiments, including cloning projects intended solely for research purposes. It bans the funding of cloning to create babies.

The amount of money involved far exceeds the $25 million the federal government doled out last year for such research and surpassed even Kerry's promise to expand funding to $100 million annually.

Many scientists believe stem cells hold vast promise for treating an array of diseases from diabetes to Parkinson's. Stem cells can potentially grow into any type of human tissue and scientists hope to be able to direct the blank cells to grow into specific cell types needed for transplant.

Stem cells are harvested from embryos, which are destroyed in the process. They were first discovered in 1997 and even the research's most enthusiastic supporters acknowledge that medicines created with stem cells are still many years away.

Some 22 Nobel laureates and many other scientists support Proposition 71 as a way to get around the Bush administration restrictions. They complain that the political climate has brought the field to a virtual standstill in the United States.

Many expect Proposition 71 to instantly breathe new life into the field while also boosting California's biotechnology industry.

"Stem cell-based therapies have the potential to alleviate suffering for millions of Americans," said Leonard Zon, president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research. "If this proposition is accepted, it will place California at the forefront of stem cell research and therapies."

The vote could be close: An independent poll released Aug. 15 found that 45 percent of 534 likely voters questioned were in favor of the measure, 42 percent were opposed and 13 percent undecided.

The pro-Proposition 71 side has raised far more money than the anti camp: more than $10 million versus just $15,000, according to campaign finance records filed this week.

Among those bankrolling the measure is Bill Gates (news - web sites), who contributed $400,000 on Monday. Silicon Valley tycoons such as Google investor John Doerr and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar have donated millions.

Real estate developer Robert Klein II has donated $2 million. Klein's son suffers from juvenile diabetes.

Several prominent Republicans have also endorsed the research, most notably former first lady Nancy Reagan. Also, millionaire developer Thomas Coleman, a regular contributor to GOP candidates, has donated $378,000. Coleman's daughter has diabetes.

The measure has also been endorsed by actors Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's, and Christopher Reeve, who was paralyzed in a riding accident.

Opponents of Proposition 71 concede they will be fortunate if they raise $1 million by November. They said they will have to wage a small-scale campaign even as the pro-Proposition 71 side prepares to open a TV advertising blitz.

"This is something that was put on the ballot by venture capitalists and people who stand to benefit," said opposition campaign manager Wayne Johnson. "The more voters find out about this measure, the more they'll turn against it."

State budget hawks, including the California Republican Party, oppose the measure because it would sink the state deeper into debt.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) has not taken a position on Proposition 71, and many predict he will not do so. Schwarzenegger has said he supports human embryonic stem cell research, but he has also vowed to stop California's slide into debt.

___

On the Net:

Yes on 71: http://www.curesforcalifornia.com

No on 71: http://www.noonprop71.org

Source

Biotechnology | Health | Stem cells | Technology and Society

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The candidates and Stem Cell Research

Everyone knows someone affected by diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injury or heart disease. Because stem cell research, and funding for such research, may well lie at the heart of future cures for these diseases, the outcome of this campaign might indeed affect your health or that of a loved one. Despite the importance and potential of stem cell research towards stamping out these diseases, there was only one question devoted to stem cell research during the debates: “thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells…. no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?” . Unfortunately, much mis-information was conveyed by this question. We wish to set the record straight on this, especially as John Kerry and George W. Bush hold quite distinct positions regarding the potential benefits of research on “adult” compared to “embryonic” stem cells.

The only adult stem cell documented to effectively treat patients is the stem cell that generates your blood and immune systems: the hematopoietic stem cell, or HSC, found in bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. HSCs have indeed been used to save lives of leukemia patients. However, these adult stem cells do not have the potential to treat other diseases because no other cell type has been reproducibly generated from HSCs, and certainly not in quantities necessary to contemplate therapy. For other adult tissues, such as brain, heart and pancreas, researchers must still conclusively identify, purify and learn to manipulate resident stem cells to the degree necessary to develop therapies for the diseases of these tissues. As research on adult stem cells goes forward perhaps the potential for these cells will be harnessed to treat diseases, but perhaps not.

In contrast, the unique promise for embryonic stem cell research is that progress has already been made in directing their development into specialized cells necessary for therapeutic treatments for additional diseases. Embryonic stem cells still “know” how to make insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, or muscle cells that might fix a damaged heart, or neurons in a spinal cord or in a brain ravaged by Parkinson’s. Last week a group of scientists in Israel published very promising results using human embryonic stem cells to repair the pacemaking activity of a pig’s heart. Adult stem cells have not been shown to do such things reproducibly and reliably. Scientists need to learn how to harness the potential of embryonic stem cells in order to develop stem cell-based therapies for these ailments. But Bush policies won't allow that.

The President based his restrictive decision on ethical considerations, but unclear ideas about how embryonic stem cells are obtained confuses debate on this issue. These stem cells are derived from embryonic cells, but such embryos have never been inside a uterus. As John Kerry stated during the debate, they are not obtained from aborted fetuses. When a woman goes to an infertility clinic, eggs are hormonally stimulated to mature, harvested from the ovary and then fertilized in a laboratory dish. Some of these embryos are placed into the uterus and may give rise to a successful pregnancy. “Excess” embryos are either frozen indefinitely or destroyed; there are over 400,000 frozen embryos in clinics across the United States. As John Kerry answered the question, it is respecting life to reach for a cure using embryonic stem cells from frozen embryos that will likely be discarded. Strong ethical oversight, such as that put in place in Britain, can be enacted to assure the proper derivation of new embryonic stem cell lines from such embryos.

While President Bush is the first President to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the administration’s policy is severely restrictive. First, only 22 such lines are available today, and as Kerry stated, many have abnormal chromosome numbers, and all have been grown together with helper cells derived from mouse, so therefore can never be used therapeutically in humans. Second, US scientists cannot use federal (largely NIH) funds to derive new embryonic stem cell lines, nor can they work on such lines derived by others. Therefore, the President’s policy severely compromises the ability of most American scientists to verify and extend discoveries of others on embryonic stem cell research, and speed their use to cure disease. It is embarrassing that America is not in the lead on such an important avenue of promising research and this is one thing to consider as you cast your vote on November 2nd.

Patricia Labosky, PhD
Assistant Professor of Cell & Developmental Biology

Steve DiNardo, PhD
Professor of Cell & Developmental Biology

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania