The California Supreme Court rejected the final appeal of a lawsuit filed by opponents of a 2004 ballot measure which allowed state bonds to fund stem cell research.
Dana Cody, an attorney and executive director for the Life Legal Defense Foundation, which represented the plaintiffs, said the appeal was the last legal attempt to block the measure.
“The denial of our petition was the end of the road,” Cody said.
As a result of the measure, Proposition 71, the UCLA Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine will receive $3.75 million, the largest amount the state granted any stem cell research institution.
With the lawsuit over, the state will now be able to allocate the funds set aside by Proposition 71.
“Today’s action by the California Supreme Court is a victory for our state because potentially life-saving science can continue without a shadow of legal doubt,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement.
Proposition 71 was passed in 2004 and created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), a board that regulates funding for stem cell research.
The proposition also allows the state of California to sell bonds for 10 years to fund stem cell research, said Steve Peckman, the associate director of the UCLA Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine.
The institute coordinates efforts regarding stem cell research on campus.
“The benefit to UCLA is that there is California funding available to fund stem cell research. … The institute and researchers here at UCLA … are ready to respond to grant announcements as they arrive,” Peckman said.
The taxpayer organization People’s Advocate and National Tax Limitation Foundation filed a lawsuit against the proposition because of tax issues, Cody said.
A separate lawsuit was filed by the California Family Bioethics Council which challenged the constitutionality of the proposition.
The council argued that the board in charge of research funds does not have proper state supervision and is a violation of taxpayers’ money. The two lawsuits were tried together.
The lawsuit prevented CIRM from using its $3 billion, but the institute was able to issue grants earlier this year after the governor authorized a $150 million loan.
A lower court ruled the proposition was constitutional and was not a violation of taxpayer funds because the institute is overseen by the state.
The bioethics council also argued that the institute was facing a conflict of interest because the schools of university officials sitting on the board were also applying for funding in research grants from the board.
But the proposition states officials must excuse themselves when the board is considering an application from their schools.
With reports from Bruin wire services.