Tough Editorial Calls for Rejection of $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Measure; Therapies Have not Materialized

 A hard-hitting editorial this morning ripped this fall's $5.5 billion ballot measure to refinance the California stem cell agency, declaring that the proposal was unnecessary and "out of the question."

The article appeared online in the the San Jose Mercury News and the East Bay Times in the San Francisco Bay Area. It declared: 

"Long-term, sustained funding was never the intent when California voters passed Proposition 71 in 2004, authorizing the state issuance of $3 billion of bonds for stem-cell research....

"It’s time for California’s stem-cell agency to continue its work as a self-sustaining non-profit or close down and allow federal grants and private business to push the industry forward."

The editorial on Proposition 14 was the toughest of the four that have surfaced so far, going point by point through expectations aroused by the campaign of 2004 and CIRM's performance since then. 

On the state vs. federal research, the editorial said,

"Finding therapies for devastating diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes should be primarily the federal government’s responsibility."

On theoretical cost savings running as high as $1.1 trillion, it said,

"If those eye-popping, speculative estimates sound familiar, they should. Prop. 14 supporters made similar suggestions in 2004. But 16 years later the savings and life-saving therapies have not materialized."

On financial returns to the state, the editorial said, 

"In 2004, overzealous promoters of Prop. 71 said the state could expect as much as $1.1 billion in royalties from stem-cell research within 35 years. But, so far, the independent Legislative Analyst Office’s reports the state’s stem-cell efforts have provided just $350,000 in royalties."

On conflicts of interest, it said, 

"Prop. 14 does little to eliminate that ethical issue. If anything, it makes it worse by adding an additional six members to its board without substantially altering the selection criteria. Don’t look for elected state officials to provide the needed oversight. Prop. 14 prevents the Legislature from making any amendments to the law without a 70% vote of approval from both the state Senate and Assembly."

The editorial concluded, 

"California’s stem-cell research effort does not merit another $5.5 billion investment of state taxpayer funds. Vote no on Prop. 14."

Read the California Stem Cell Report regularly for the latest and most in-depth coverage of the effort to save the California stem cell agency from financial extinction. 

 

Fresh Media Endorsements of Proposition 14: Two Against, One in Favor

Two more media outlets this week took positions on Proposition 14, the $5.5 billion ballot initiative that would save the California stem cell agency from financial extinction. 

One outlet recommended approval. The other did not. 

The Orange County Register came down on the negative side. It declared, 

"For one thing, times have changed and the original rationale — California doing what the feds wouldn’t — is no longer applicable. For another, private enterprise has taken a bigger interest and stepped up research in this field. 

For another, Prop. 14 doesn’t resolve a longstanding lack of oversight and accountability. And finally, imposing new costs on residents is hardly merited when most are struggling....Stem cell research will go on, CIRM or no CIRM. No on Prop. 14."

The editorial did not mention that UC Irvine, which is in its circulation area, has received $125 million from the agency. 

The Bay Area Reporter, which serves the San Francisco area LBGTQ community, said, 

"Continuing medical research is vital. While CIRM board member Jeff Sheehy, a gay man who's a former San Francisco supervisor, has been quoted as saying he is 'troubled' by the proposal because he thinks it might oversell potential benefits of stem cell research, Robert Klein, the real estate investment banker who spearheaded the 2004 initiative, has created an accessibility and affordability working group. The state needs to continue this research."

News media positions on the measure now total three. The Bakersfield Californian is the third. It is recommending a no vote. 

(CIRM, of course, is the anacronym for the official name of the stem cell agency.)

Bakersfield Californian Says No to Proposition 14, the Multibillion-Dollar Stem Cell Measure

The Bakersfield Californian is likely the first paper in the state to take a stand on the $5.5 billion California stem cell measure, advising its readers to reject the "mega-bond" as financially unwise. 

In an editorial published online yesterday, the newspaper said, 

"As California continues to struggle under the catastrophic burden of the coronavirus pandemic, increasing state budget deficits loom, public service cuts are likely and economic recovery is likely to take more than a decade.

"In 2009, President Barack Obama lifted most of the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and demand for the cells has been greatly reduced as other research and technologies have advanced.

"Adding $5.5 billion to the state debt for just stem cell research would be unwise in these economically dire times. Vote NO on Proposition 14."

The newspaper also said that the agency, officially known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM),  "created an impressive infrastructure of research institutes." The Californian continued,

"Stem cell research greatly advanced in California, but the promised spectacular breakthroughs have lagged – a result of the tedious and time-consuming nature of research.... 

"Voters and earlier proposition advocates should be proud of the progress the initial $3 billion stem cell investment has accomplished. But times have changed and passage of another mega-bond now would be unwise."

How important are newspaper endorsements nowadays? They are one concrete standard that campaign managers can be measured against, so they may take on outsized importance. But newspapers are a dying breed, reaching fewer and fewer readers. Even in their heyday, decades ago, only about 25 percent or so of readers turned to the editorial pages on a regular basis. 

However, a wave of negative editorials could take on a life of its own, leading to mentions in the coverage of Proposition 14 as an indicator that the measure is in trouble.  That said, don't expect heavy coverage of the proposal. 

Both print and online news media are short-staffed. Most of their efforts will focus on higher-profile issues, including presidential matters, local ballot races and other propositions, such as rent control and property taxes involving the state's sacrosanct Proposition 13. 

And for the record, Proposition 14 will cost taxpayers an estimated $7.8 billion because of the interest on the $5.5 billion that the state will have to borrow.

-------

Read the California Stem Cell Report regularly for the latest and most in-depth coverage of the effort to save the stem cell agency from financial extinction.