United Press International - September 28, 2004
Hil Anderson

Opponents of the measure have publicly shied from the ethics and morality of conducting research on embryonic stem cells and have instead barraged Proposition 71 with allegations that it is no more than a lucrative gravy train for big science and a boondoggle for beleaguered taxpayers.

Christian organizations and right-to-life groups view the use of embryonic stem cells in scientific research as a moral wrong; however, Prop 71's opponents in the religious community are instead stirring up voters' apprehensiveness over budget deficits and corporate welfare.

"The Christian Coalition strongly opposes Proposition 71 and urges all California voters to vote 'no' on this unnecessary and wasteful spending measure," Christian Coalition President Roberta Combs said in a release Thursday.

Since the Christian Coalition and most other Washington lobbying groups have never shown much concern for California's finances in the past, their latest offensive against Prop 71's bottom line appeared somewhat out of the blue.

Many of Prop 71's supporters have been touting the measure as the road to miraculous medical cures, or at least significant advances in the treatment of spinal injuries and diseases such as cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

The idea was born in the wake of the Bush administration's decision to give stem-cell research only lukewarm federal support -- although the White House always points out that Bush is the first president to authorize any funds for such research. Research on limited numbers of stem-cell lines will be eligible for funding in a move that critics argued was unduly influenced by the religious community and its belief that microscopic embryonic cells represent human life.

Critics quickly played the illness card and accused Bush of appeasing part of his political base at the expense of stricken children, adults and celebrities such as the late paralyzed actor Christopher Reeves and Parkinson's patient Michael J. Fox.

But where critics saw the White House putting the damper on a promising line of medical research, California saw an opportunity to put the Golden State's biotechnology industry and research universities into the forefront of medical research by not just allowing research on adult, embryonic and umbilical-cord stem cells, but encouraging it with a $3 billion, 10-year bond measure that is a keystone of Prop 71.

The measure included safeguards such as a prohibition on extending research into work on full-scale human cloning and a state-run medical institute to oversee the funding of the research.

Various scientific and medical associations immediately jumped on the bandwagon, as did Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who publicly endorsed Prop 71 as one of those "win-win" deals that would both advance medical science and give the biotech sector a much-needed shot in the arm.

"The creativity and resources are right here in California," Schwarzenegger said in a recent statement in support of Prop 71. "We are the world's biotech leader and Prop 71 will help ensure that we maintain that position while saving lives in the process."

It was argued that the bonds would be paid back through the state's cut of patent royalties from new treatments and an eventual lowering of healthcare costs as expensive chronic illnesses are brought under control.

An Oct. 10 Field poll showed respondents leaning toward passage of Prop 71 by 58 percent to 34 percent; however, that was before the opposition zeroed in on the seeming weaknesses of the measure and painted the bond as nothing more than a cash cow for venture capitalists and career scientists who could coast toward retirement on a steady influx of public monies with no guarantee that they would come up with a cure for anything at all.

The increasingly vitriolic flak has been aimed specifically at the interest costs of the bond measure that would raise the total bill to $6 billion and the seemingly dubious promise of breakthroughs from embryonic stem cells, as well as the lack of public oversight over how the bond money is spent.

An independent committee is supposed to handle the monitoring of the money; however, opponents dismiss it as a puppet panel stacked with the same investors, biotech executives and stem-cell researchers who are bankrolling the passage of Prop 71 in the first place.

"That committee is neither independent nor representative of the citizens," warned Dr. David Stevens, head of the Christian Medical Association in Washington. "It would be run by the very individuals and institutions who stand to profit financially from the grants."

Stevens warned this week that the potential patents from embryonic stem-cell research could bring charlatans and "all-hat, no-cattle" scientists to the committee looking for bottomless bushels of funding.

Profits from patents are a driving force behind Prop 71 since they would be used to help pay back the bonds while providing jobs and tax revenues. The profit motive has also been of keen interest to publicly funded researchers both within and outside the stem-cell field for several years.

Money is as much the mother's milk of scientific research as it is of politics. The National Institutes of Health's budget approved last winter by Congress was a beefy $829 billion.

Actor Mel Gibson, a devout Roman Catholic, said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday that he had "an ethical problem" with work on human embryos that he said could lead to human cloning and asked "Why do I, as a taxpayer, have to fund something I believe is unethical?"

The statement bounced around the news wires and cable news channels Thursday, although the organized opposition to Prop 71 continued to publicly stress the potential financial risks to California voters rather an ethical debate over stem cells that is even less concrete.
040928
UP040906

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2004. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 2004. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .