Putting stem cell research in California in jeopardy, the
Institute of Regenerative Medicine went on trial Monday, as
taxpayer groups questioned the constitutionality of Proposition 71
in state law.
Approved in November 2004, the proposition, also known as the
Stem Cell and Research Cures Act, created the state-run institute
to regulate stem cell research and provide funding through grants
and loans for research and research facilities.
The two lawsuits, filed separately but being tried together, are
led by the People’s Advocate and National Tax Limitation
Foundation and the California Family Bioethics Council,
respectively. These two groups argue that the institution lacks
proper state supervision, therefore violating the use of the
taxpayer funds according to the state constitution.
As a result of Proposition 71, the UCLA Institute for Stem Cell
Biology and Medicine, launched in March 2005, received $3.75
million in grants, the largest amount the state gave to any stem
cell research institution.
But in light of the lawsuits against the Institute of
Regenerative Medicine, the funding has not yet been allocated and
distributed.
The chancellor and dean have earmarked funds for the
university’s stem cell research department to recruit
faculty, providing $20 million last year to start up the institute,
said Steven Peckman, the department’s associate director for
Administration and Planning.
“I think all researchers in the state as well as 60
percent of the people that voted for the proposition are all very
much interested in the resolution of the suit and the release of
the money,” Peckman said.
Stem cell researchers hope to use human embryonic stem cells,
found in the beginning stages after conception, to replace tissues
harmed by diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
But due to concern about the ethics of the dissection and therefore
elimination of human embryos, President Bush has limited funding
for stem cell research, capping the funding at approximately $25
million annually and banning all federal funding for research that
involves the destruction of an embryo.
Taxpayers will provide $3 billion overall to keep the
San-Francisco-based California Institute of Regenerative Medicine
running and is authorized to distribute an average of $300 million
in research grants annually to statewide stem cell research
institutions.
Both socially conservative groups, People’s Advocate is
represented by Life Legal Defense, an abortion opponent group that
played a major role with Terri Schiavo in the right-to-die case.
One of the California Family Bioethics Council’s
“foundational pillars” is the protection of unborn
individuals.
One of the main points the taxpayer groups emphasized was the
lack of state supervision over the operations of the committee.
“There is one major big wrong with this thing. … There
is absolutely no oversight from the legislature,” Ted Costa,
CEO of the People’s Advocate, told the Los Angeles Times on
Monday.
In his opening statement, Robert Taylor, a representative of the
People’s Advocate, said none of the 29-member committee who
oversees the institute were elected or public officials. Rather,
they were appointees of advocacy groups or people with connections
to the public officers of those groups.
“The delegates who were selected from time to time were
acting as free agents,” Taylor told Alameda County Superior
Court Judge Bonnie Lewman Sabraw, who is hearing the trial without
a jury.
Of the 29 members, five are University of California officials,
a move that could partially benefit the university’s various
campuses to receive millions in research funds, said David
Llewellyn, a lawyer representing the California Family Bioethics
Council.
Bob Klein, chairman of the institute’s oversight
committee, defended the appointment of the UC officials, saying the
oath they take proves their honesty.
“They do not come to represent those institutions,”
Klein said.
Deputy attorney general Tamar Pachter argued for the institute
during the hearing as well, saying Proposition 71 “bypassed
state and federal legislation and it expresses the will of the
voters.”
A ruling on the case is expected later this spring, according to
a CIRM press release.
With reports from Bruin wire services.