As befits a post-Christian, lost world.
It's on the Calif ballot as Prop. 71..& below is Assemblyman Haynes take on it, FYI.
Stem cell research generates more misinformation than any other single issue in the current public debate. The debate is usually cast in terms of being pro or anti-science and progress. The truth is you can be concerned about the direction of some of the research and still promote scientific progress.
The major source of confusion is that there are two distinctly different types of stem cell research. The first—human somatic stem cell research (SSC)—holds great promise for medical science and human health. The second—human embryonic stem cell research (ESC)—is a monumental failure with little promise of help or advancement in promoting the health of people. Companies engaged in SSC research have been able to raise millions in the private sector, because the promise of profit is real. Companies engaged in ESC are struggling, and are now trying to use the success of SSC to get voters to approve billions in borrowing to stay in business, through Proposition 71, an ESC scam.
Somatic stem cells, sometimes called “adult” stem cells, are available from a variety of sources—umbilical cord blood, nasal tissue, bone marrow, fat cells, and the like. These stem cells are taken without harm to the donor, and they have resulted in some amazing advancement in stem cell research. Everybody supports SSC research, because it shows great promise. Its success is best measured by the support it receives in actual research dollars. Private capital is investing heavily in the research in the hopes of being the first to profit from the medical advances SSC research can generate.
Embryonic stem cells come from one place—cloning. The researchers create a human being through an embryo, kill the embryo, and then extract the stem cells. Even given the moral issues surrounding the creation of a human being to kill it for the advancement of medical science (think Hitlerian style concentration camp research), ESC has failed to generate a single medical advancement. In fact, private capital, perhaps the best test of profitable research, will not go near ESC research, because those with the capital believe it to be a losing proposition.
Enter Proposition 71. It was put on the ballot to generate venture capital for the ESC researchers. It creates this capital however by having the government borrow $3 billion, lend it to these researchers, and have them pay it back from the profits they make from the research.
Of course, if there were profit to be made, government money wouldn’t be necessary. So we California taxpayers are going to borrow venture capital to finance this failed research.
Leave aside the idea of borrowing venture capital, (a really stupid idea if you and I were doing it), investing in a failed research project is a bad idea all by itself. Proposition 71 does not allow the state to invest in SSC research, only ESC, does not allow the state to participate in the profits (only to lend the money), and does not have any serious legislative or judicial oversight. It is a scandal that will make the current Secretary of State scandal look like child’s play. Is this really the kind of funding decision we wish to put to a public vote? Should we vote by initiative to determine how much government money is spent on every disease and malady? How much for AIDS? Diabetes? Cancer? West Nile Virus? Do we really need to go to the ballot to decide what is worthy and how much to spend?
To justify the initiative, supporters emphasize the advancements that SSC research has made in medical science, then prohibit investment in that lucrative research. It is money only a bureaucrat could love. You and I are going to lose our shirts in this tax subsidized scam, a couple of people are going to make a lot of money, lives will continue to be created and destroyed in the name of “progress,” and science will be hurt by the falsehoods of those who wish to profit at the taxpayers’ expense. In the end, we will all be better off by letting the private market finance and direct the research, and leave government out of it.