Stem Cell Research Under the Microscope

Re “Stepping Out of Line in Stem Cell Research,” Commentary, Oct. 25: Yesterday I sent in my absentee ballot and voted yes on stem cell research. I did so with mixed feelings because this is high-tech, high-cost medicine to save relatively few. Those billions of dollars on the low-tech, low-cost scale could do preventive medicine here in the U.S. more good for more people, and be spent on women’s health and family planning in Third World countries, save lives, lessen misery and help even the planet survive. But, of course, people wouldn’t vote for a bond measure for the latter.

Jane Roberts

Redlands

*

Despite being a clinical scientist who may benefit from Proposition 71 funds, I have to agree with writer Daniel Sarewitz’s critique that the proposition offers little accountability of a very large public investment. Money is likely to be spent on buildings, faculty recruitment packages and venture capital-driven tech firms that chase unsound notions.

No one knows whether as much as $300 million a year and $6 billion total with interest can be wisely spent for stem cell research. That sum was pulled from the mind of one Proposition 71 sponsor who has a child with diabetes, not from the scientific community. Most important, a lot of basic scientific research must go into understanding the biology of human stem cells that may someday partially repair the injured nervous system or replace body tissues.

The promise of such research is an uncertain reward that needs support and patience, but not a jackpot mentality.

I wish the proposition was not so poorly designed -- maybe the governor and Legislature ought to acknowledge bad public policy, help defeat this approach and then design a more solid way to build stem cell research.

Bruce H. Dobkin MD

UCLA professor of neurology

*

Laura Bush does not have the medical expertise to be predicting the success of embryonic stem cell research for treating and curing multiple diseases and injuries. Her “false hopes” message is completely out of line. I’ll side with the stem cell research scientists’ predictions.

Clairice Veit

Encino