Though a judge recently rejected a challenge to the legality of
Proposition 71 ““ the 2004 act that gave embryonic stem cell
research $3 billion in state funds ““ debate continues over
how stem cells will be researched and where scientists will receive
the funding to do so.
Two taxpayer groups ““ the People’s Advocate and National
Tax Limitation Foundation and the California Family Bioethics
Council ““ are currently hanging their hopes of reducing
embryonic stem cell research funding on a lawsuit they filed
against the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which
regulates Proposition 71 funds.
The groups assert that the institution was unconstitutional
because it does not meet proper oversight laws for dealing with
taxpayers’ money.
The groups are expected to appeal the recent decision, possibly
drawing the legal process out for another year. Litigation has tied
up the institute’s ability to distribute state funds to
research institutions, and it is expected to stay that way until
appeals have been exhausted.
Earlier this month, the institute’s Citizens Oversight
Committee awarded stem cell research training grants for the first
time, after asking private entities to buy bond anticipation notes
in order to do so. The largest grant went to UCLA ““
$1,231,802.
Instead of addressing the ethics of the research, the plaintiffs
are addressing the funding for stem cell research.
“The lawsuit has nothing to do with the morality of stem
cell research,” said Catherine Short, legal director of Life
Legal Defense Foundation. “We don’t represent
(anti-abortion) groups. We represent two taxpayer
groups.”
Short said while her law firm is an organization that openly
opposes embryonic research, the larger issue regards what kinds of
projects are justified in receiving public funds.
But Steve Peckman, associate director for UCLA’s Institute
for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine, said several issues would arise
if the private sector led embryonic stem cell research.
“If the research is done in the private sector, then you
lose the ability to ensure adequate dissemination of the knowledge
to benefit the most amount of people,” Peckman said.
He said public funding also provides better ethical oversight of
embryonic search than private funding.
“By giving the money, (the government has) the obligation
to then see how that money is spent and to ensure there is
regulation and law,” Peckman said.
But the taxpayer groups claim the committee is not held
accountable to the public and is therefore illegal.
“If I, as a member of the public, go to one of their
meetings and say I don’t like this, I have no recourse. I
can’t go to the governor, I can’t go to the state
legislature,” Cody said. “Nobody has any authority to
impose anything on them should they be doing anything outside the
scope of (Proposition) 71.”
While funding has been a point of controversy, there are also
debates over how the research should be conducted.
Researchers wait to unfold the potential of embryonic stem
cells, but anti-abortion advocates prefer that research be limited
to adult stem cells.
Cecilia Cody, executive director of California Right to Life,
said the potential healing power of embryonic cells has not been
proven, though “adult stem cells have contributed to more
than 65 cures and treatments.”
Peckman said the reason adult stem cells seem more useful is
because scientists have had over 40 years to extract therapies from
them, while embryonic cells have been studied for less time.
Because scientific evidence has proven embryonic cells have the
ability to become more types of tissue than adult cells, they can
potentially contribute to more cures and treatments.
“The question is whether science should pursue those
avenues in order to address pain and suffering,” Peckman
said.
With reports from Bruin wire services.