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. 

 

Where Has The Money Gone? A 10-cent Look at $3 Billion in California Stem Cell Spending

CIRM graphic

California has spent about $2.6 billion on stem cell research over the last 14 years. It has roughly $144 million left for new awards. Here is a quick overview of where cash has gone, based on the agency's records.

Keep in mind that an examination of the state stem cell agency's spending can be like the blind men and the elephant. A lot depends on what you grab.

And tomorrow directors of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known, will  be grabbing a piece of the program to determine what is going to be handed out in 2019.

Since 2004 when the agency was created with $3 billion in funding, CIRM reports that it has spent $898 million on various stages of basic research, which it generally calls "discovery," the largest single category.

It has plowed $632 million into clinically connected research dealing with afflictions ranging from cancer to blindness. The amount involves both more recent clinical research and CIRM's earlier disease team programs. Kevin McCormack, senior director for communications, said the money went for late stage research leading to a clinical trial as well as the trials themselves.

The agency's clinical trial dashboard shows that it has supported 49 clinical trials. The dashboard provides more detail on the status of each trial. (Here is a link to a June CIRM spreadsheet on the trials. Here is a link to a table on the trials released in connection with this week's directors' meeting.) 

CIRM has sunk $482 million into "infrastructure," a term that includes a $271 million building program for new facilities at institutions ranging from Stanford to UC Davis.  (See here and here for more on the infrastructure program.

The agency spent $219 million on education, which probably does not include a more than $40 million program to lure star scientists to the Golden State academic institutions. Those awards were specifically for research projects.

In terms of diseases, CIRM research covers 24 disease areas, ranging from Alzheimer's to strokes. A third of the clinical trial money has gone for cancer. Nineteen percent has targeted blood diseases and 12 percent neuro afflictions.

For a full list of institutions, see here.

Stanford, an already well-endowed institution in 2004, was the top institutional recipient with $360
million. UC Davis was the over-achiever in the top 10 recipient list with $138 million. In 2004, it had what could only be described as a tiny stem cell program.

ViaCyte, Inc., of San Diego, is the only business to make the top ten list, snagging $72 million. With the exception of ViaCyte, all of the institutions in the top ten had or have representatives on the CIRM governing board who are not permitted to vote on awards to their institutions.

As mentioned at the beginning of this item, this was the 10-cent tour of CIRM spending, which may tweak your interest. The high-priced excursion will come another day.