The bottom line is to win -- in the case of the stem cell measure -- by Nov. 3. If the proposition fails, the California stem cell agency dies.
Many commentators argue that often the first casualties of such "wars with deadlines" are "facts" and "truth." And then there are matters that are arguable, at least in the eyes of some.
Consider the monetary description of the initiative. The proposal is dubbed a $5.5 billion measure. That is the amount of state bonds that would be issued. But bonds are simply borrowing by the state. There is interest that needs to be paid by California citizens -- an estimated $2.3 billion.
So is it a $5.5 billion or $7.8 billion measure? Which is correct? Which figure should the mainstream media use? Which figure should the California Stem Cell Report use? Is it a "lie" to indicate that the measure amounts to only $5.5 billion? We are deeply interested in how this is perceived. It will affect how we write about the measure over the next four months. Please send your responses to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
In all fairness, we have used a $5.5 billion figure almost entirely, and a $3 billion figure for the last 15 years for a quick shorthand reference to indicate the size of the effort since 2004. We have had qualms about using the figures and have laid out the interest costs from time to time.
Another possible casualty of the "war with a deadline" involves what seems to be simple: the number of clinical trials that have been backed by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the stem cell agency is formally known.
The campaign issued a news release on Monday that reported 80 trials. The CIRM website says only 63. What gives?
We asked the campaign about the matter yesterday. It responded quickly with an explanation that basically said it was counting all clinical trials anywhere that somehow involved results generated from CIRM-financed work.
Is that a "factual" way to describe to voters how many clinical trials the state of California/CIRM is participating in or has participated in? Or is it exaggeration/hype that will ultimately discredit the campaign or the stem cell agency? Especially when it becomes part of a host of claims that seem to push the envelope.
Again, I invite readers to weigh in at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. Or you can respond by using the comment function at the end of this item.
Here is what the campaign sent the California Stem Cell Report yesterday on the clinical trial question. Our thanks to them for a quick and straight-forward reply.
"Our news release from earlier this week said 'CIRM’s program has already saved and improved lives through the advancement of more than 80 clinical trials.'
"This has been done through CIRM directly funding 60+ clinical trials and another 20+ trials conducted based off CIRM funded scientific discoveries. Please see below for list of trials and their clinical trial ID that would not have been able to advance to clinical trials without the initial funding from CIRM."
I think it more honest to list the amount requested, 5.5 Billion then add, itemized, the interest. To many do not understand it has to be paid back WITH Interest. I do not think a few thousand jobs should depend on the voters, if this work is important enough, a it may be, the Feds are more in a position, this does California very little plus how much has gone to China, what kind of security do they run?
ReplyDelete