Why Prop. 71 is a bad experiment for government
- Share via
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 trying to use the success of SSC to get voters to
approve billions of dollars in borrowing to stay in business through
Proposition 71, which is 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, 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, 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.
BILL FERRIL
La Crescenta