'No Job Too Big, No Job Too Small'

What does a stem cell watchdog do for fun?

In the case of John M. Simpson(pictured), stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., he takes two weeks vacation and goes to work in the Obama campaign in Missouri, one of the battleground states in this year's historic presidential election.

Simpson, who has been observing and participating in the affairs of the California stem cell agency for several years, is doing a bit of everything in Joplin, Mo., the fourth largest metro area in the "show me" state.

It is a far cry from expenses and lifestyle of California. The average home price is around $70,000-$80,000. Once the lead and zinc capital of the world, tourism now drives the Joplin economy, generating $220 million annually for the 400,000 persons who live in the metro area (49,024 for the city proper).

More than 70 years ago, Depression-era bank robbers Bonnie and Clyde pillaged several businesses in the community and were chased out of town in a gunfight, leaving their camera behind. The images in it were later developed and may be the most famous of those of the two thieves.

Simpson, however, is not interested in banks. He is looking for beds. Places where out-of-state volunteers can rest during the big push for Obama turnout next Tuesday.

We asked Simpson why he is taking his vacation time to work the long and arduous hours involved in the final stage of a presidential campaign.

He said the election is pivotal, a time to unite the country and move away from "Republican rule that is dominated by the interests of big business."

California seemed to be comfortably in the Obama camp. So Simpson volunteered for out-of-state work. He attended a two-day "Camp Obama" training session in October. They put him in touch with the folks in Missouri.

In addition to scrounging up bunks for volunteers, Simpson is setting up speaking engagements for Obama surrogates, lugging furniture and sweeping floors. "No job too big, no job too small" is Simpson's credo. He reported, however, that he can't keep up with the 20-something, paid staffers who put in 20 hour days. He said he can only do 12 hours.

Simpson is recording some of his experiences on his Facebook site. You can read them after registering as a friend of John.

More Adding Up on Private Funding for Stem Cell Research

Attorney Ken Taymor. executive director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy at UC Berkeley, sends the following re our earlier item about state and private funding for stem cell research.

Thanks for bringing James Fossett's excellent report to our attention. A very, very quick search online raises questions about the accuracy of the calculation of private support for stem cell research in California (really a nit, but worth clarifying; I don't think it goes to the heart of his insights). At least three other major gifts have been reported in the press - excerpted below with URLs. In addition, as the report does note, the Show Me state is showing the Stowers the door, so while the money is coming from Missouri, it appears that it will be spent everywhere but Missouri. The news reports on donations in California of which I am aware are as follows:

"Sound pioneer Ray Dolby and his wife gave $16 million to the University of California, San Francisco to start a stem cell center that will perform research without federal funds."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/10/financial/f224444D16.DTL

"USC announced it has received $25 million from the Broad Foundation to create the Broad Institute for Integrative Biology and Stem Cell Research at the Keck School of Medicine of USC."

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/12093.html

"Without seeing a dime of this [Prop 71] money, numerous California universities and research institutes already have committed to expanding their stem cell research programs, often with help from private donors. They are doing it with the help of philanthropists, who have given more than $250 million to California universities and research programs since 2005, Klein said. Those donations include a $20 million gift to the Stanford University Medical School from the New York-based Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund. The money from the fund, which is known for its support of cancer research, allows the school to establish a stem cell research center."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/20061219-9999-lz1n19stem.html

The "Show-Me" State and $985 Million in Stem Cell Funding

Jim Fossett of the Rockefeller Institute has pulled together a reasonably complete account of private donor support for stem cell research in the United States – something in the neighborhood of more than $1.7 billion.

Interestingly California is rather low on the list with a piddling $100 million. Missouri is No. 1 with $985 million from the Stowers.

The rundown is part of a policy brief called "Federalism by Necessity," which describes state and private efforts at human embryonic stem cell research. It supports Fossett's belief and mine that we are not likely to see an upsurge in federal stem cell spending after the next presidential election.

Stem Cell Research State by State

Stateline.org today carried a detailed overview of embryonic stem cell research efforts state by state, including the case of a woman who unsuccessfully tried to donate a leftover embryo from her IVF treatment in Michigan.

She was told she had to go to another state because Michigan law bans research on human embryos.

Writer Christine Vestal put together the piece, which goes into some detail on each state with links to the agencies that do the work.

Here is an excerpt:

"Seven states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin — are providing seed money for the fledgling science, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) in May called on lawmakers in his state to follow suit.

"Six other states — Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota — ban the research. Three states — Iowa, Massachusetts and Missouri — have affirmed its legality but do not offer funding.

"In Florida and Texas, lawmakers are deadlocked on the issue. Most states have steered clear of it altogether."

Reading the Economic Entrails of ESC Research

Is embryonic stem cell research a cash cow? Or just another public policy chimera?

The questions have surfaced again in news reports concerning two old studies by economists. One is the much-noted 2004 campaign study by Laurence Baker of Stanford and Bruce Deal, managing partner of the Analysis Group of Menlo Park. The other was prepared in the middle of last year by Richard Gilbert of UC Berkeley. Gilbert's study was relatively pessmistic compared to the Baker study.

Writer Malcolm Maclachlan of the Capitol Weekly in Sacramento tackled both of the studies in a recent piece called "Stem Reality Check." Maclachan wrote:

"Gilbert was careful to note that he is not accusing Baker and Deal of any dishonesty in their study. For instance, Gilbert writes in his report that they were clear with their assumptions and the fact that these numbers were estimates of money that could be made many years in the future. If anyone took these numbers as guarantees, he said, they probably did not do so via a careful reading of Baker and Deal's report.

"'As with anything, people believe what they want to believe,' Gilbert said.

"However, Gilbert does bring up two main issues he has with assumptions made in the report. First, he said they take a 'prospective approach' to their estimates--that is, they try to estimate the number of viable new therapies that will be created. Gilbert said that a 'retrospective' approach would be more appropriate, 'based on actual royalty generation by research funded by universities, hospitals and research institutions.' That approach takes note of the fact that big money makers--for instance, the cancer drug Taxol, which made $67 million for Florida State University in 2000 alone--are exceedingly rare.

"Second, Gilbert takes the authors to task for not fully factoring in a concept called 'the time value of money.' Not only does inflation rob money of its value over time, Gilbert said, but money tied up in stem cell research is also money not available to be invested elsewhere. Though Gilbert writes: 'In their defense, the authors report only projected revenue flows, not the value of those revenues.'

"By combining these two concepts, Gilbert estimated that a better real money value of the returns California could see would be reduced to between $31 million to $62 million.

"'I don't think this is terribly surprising to a lot of people,' Gilbert said. 'Basic research is rarely a cash cow.'

"Baker took the critique in stride. He noted that circumstances have changed greatly since he wrote the report, especially in terms of an improving political situation for stem cell research in Washington.

"'It's a complicated area that's evolving all the time,' Baker said. 'I don't know if there's a right way to do the estimates.'"

The Capitol Weekly also wrote:

"So why should people be paying attention to a 7-month-old critique of a 28-month-old report? Because other states are starting to propose big money for stem cell research--and at least one of the same players from Prop. 71 is involved in other states initiatives, said Jesse Reynolds, project director on biotechnology accountability with the Oakland-based Center for Genetics and Society.

"For instance, Deal wrote a report used to promote a stem cell initiative in Missouri which estimated that the state could save up to $3.8 billion in healthcare costs over 20 years from stem cell research. Amendment 2 merely protects stem cell research in the state; it did not put forth any money. It passed in November with a bare 51.2 percent of the vote. Deal did not return a call seeking comment for this story.

"This coming November, New York voters will decide on a $1 billion bond for stem cell research. In neighboring New Jersey, they'll vote on $500 million. Both of these dwarf the previous number 2 state stem cell effort, Reynolds said, the $100 million over 10 years approved by the Connecticut General Assembly in June, 2005."

Here's what really lies at the bottom of ESC petri dish: If there were sure money to be made in ESC research, venture capitalists would be pumping gazillions into it. And there would be no need for efforts like the California stem cell agency.

The $25 Million Bioethicists' Dog

The blog at the American Journal of Bioethics has addressed the issue of big money and "the butcher's avarice" in the stem cell wars being fought across the country in this fall's election.

Specifically Jim Fossett, director of health and Medicaid studies at the Rockefeller Institute, wrote on Oct. 21 about the Missouri tussle and noted how California led the way. He also had this to say:

"There are huge amounts of money at stake in the embryonic stem cell research debate, and much of the political and financial support for such initiatives is coming from parties that expect to get something out of them—large research grants, potentially lucrative patents and commercial opportunities, scientific prestige, political credit and campaign contributions, tax revenue and jobs. Bioethicists also have a dog in this fight — CIRM’s draft strategic plan earmarks $25 million to examine the social, ethical, etc. implications of stem cell research, and there have been complaints from some quarters that this isn’t enough. By the rules that govern politics and the markets, this is absolutely ok. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is enshrined in the Constitution, and capitalism relies on rewards to those who provide society with useful things. The desire for money and status is perfectly compatible with, and is frequently accompanied by, a deeply felt desire to do good and heal the sick. Those who find the scramble for money distasteful might usefully contemplate Adam Smith—'It is not by the butcher’s altruism, but by his avarice, that we may expect to receive our dinner.'"

Stem Cell Snippets: Rentals to DNA

Here are links to some interesting items related to stem cell issues.

Sharing – One of the goals of the upcoming rounds of lab grants by the California stem cell agency is to increase the sharing of CIRM-funded facilities with other nearby scientists not so fortunate as to have access to the costly gear needed for research. The topic has not received much media attention but its importance was highlighted in an article by Bernadette Tansey of the San Francisco Chronicle. "Microscope for hire" was the headline. In this case, the article discusses UC San Francisco's plans to rent out their tools, six new microscope worth $2 million.

Diver Don – Ubiquitous stem cell advocate Don Reed popped up in the lead of a story by Jason Gertzen in the Kansas City Star looking at the Missouri stem cell measure, which is on the November ballot. The piece used Reed, a former professional scuba diver, as an example of the folks who hope for cures. Reed, meanwhile, is exhorting -- via his website, stemcellbattles.com – the millions of folks with disabilities throughout the country to vote for their best interests in the November election.

Tell-All –-J. Craig Venter is baring all, according to reporter Antonio Regalado of the Wall Street Journal. Venter is just about ready to release his DNA to the world. Venter, you may recall, was the gent best known for his efforts to be the first to decipher the full sequence of the human genome. An interesting piece about a controversial scientist. Here is a link to a free version of the story.

CIRM to California: Lower Your Expectations

It was a message that could have been delivered by former Gov. Jerry Brown in his heyday.

Don't look for cures right around the corner. Science is hard and results are not guaranteed. Lower your expectations, as the former governor told Californians shortly after he was first elected. And it was a message that came through clearly in the California stem cell agency's draft of its strategic plan.

In the words of the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, the proposal "appears to be a rare case of prudence by public servants."

The plan was even heralded – sort of – in religious fundamentalist circles. A piece written by reporter Michael Foust in the Baptist Press said,

"In an announcement that some ethicists say should lead to a greater focus on adult stem cells, a much-celebrated California stem cell institute says any cures using embryonic stem cells likely are years away."

The strategic plan's theme of patience, at least as it was portrayed in the media, was somewhat different than the overheated rhetoric of the campaign for Prop. 71 two years ago.

A recent paper by Tamra Lysaght of the University of Sydney, published in the Australian journal Bioethical Inquiry, examined 99 news stories from the Prop. 71 campaign. Among her conclusions:

"Concerns regarding the hype surrounding the potential medical benefits of stem cell research and its implications for public expecations were notably absent from the public discouse prior to the passage of Prop. 71, though they were later noted by a number of scientific and institutional actors. The reasons for this phenomenom are unclear, but perhaps point to the reluctance on the part of the scientific and medical communities to openly question the value of this line of research or to critcize each other; fears about aligning with religious or other actors opposed to hESC research; or the influence of commercial, academic and media interests in framing and limiting crucial debate."

But even before the strategic plan emerged, CIRM officials talked of managing expectations and avoiding hype although the message was less than visible in the media.

The Center for Genetics and Society of Oakland, Ca., recently conducted a briefing on the politics of stem cell research for reporters and focused on the exaggeration question. Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the center, said,

"Exaggeration is really one of the hallmarks of this issue. It’s pervasive on both sides of the debate, and each side’s hyperbole feeds the hyperbole of the other."

She continued:

"Just recently the Democratic Senate candidate from Missouri, who strongly supports the stem cell initiative (in that state), used the words "lifesaving," "cure," or "save [a life]" 22 times in a 732-word interview published by the Associated Press.

"Statements like these seriously degrade public understanding and distort political discourse. Perhaps more surprisingly, similar exaggerations have also become common in the world of science, in statements by scientists about stem cell research. It’s always been considered a matter of scientific integrity to refrain from making claims in the absence of clear evidence. But in the stem cell world, that principle is being regularly violated.

"One example: It’s common to hear that embryonic stem cell research will result in cures for Alzheimer’s disease, when in fact, unfortunately, the idea that stem cells have the potential to treat Alzheimer’s is far-fetched.

"Knowing this, Rick Weiss, the Washington Post’s science reporter, called a prominent stem cell and neurology researcher to ask why he and his colleagues weren’t correcting the misunderstanding. The scientist’s answer: 'To start with, people need a fairy tale... they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand.'"

CIRM has a difficult road. It must maintain the public's faith, which does require the delivery of easily understood messages with a vision of hope. But the controversy involving Advanced Cell Technology's report on stem cell extraction shows how nuances make a big difference. The $6 billion (including interest) that CIRM will cost taxpayers requires results. If something tangible and understandable is not forthcoming in a few years, it may erode public support for an endeavor that once gained 59 percent approval of the state's voters.

----------------------

Below you can find the verbatim statements made by Darnovsky and her colleague, Jesse Reynolds, at the Sept. 19 news briefing for editors and reporters. The statements are not currently available on the center's web site.

Text of Statements from CGS on Politics of Stem Cell Research

Here are the texts of remarks made by officials of the Center for Genetics and Society at a Sept. 19 briefing for reporters and editors on the politics of stem cell research. The statements are not currently available on the center's web site.

Remarks by Marcy Darnovsky , Associate Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society


I’m going to talk first about several kinds of over-promising and distortion that are common in the stem cell debate. Then I’ll say a few words about some shifting political alignments and developments.

[Exaggerating cures]

Exaggeration is really one of the hallmarks of this issue. It’s pervasive on both sides of the debate, and each side’s hyperbole feeds the hyperbole of the other.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research consistently overplay the current capabilities and the future potential of adult stem cells, and downplay what most scientists believe about the promise of embryonic stem cell research. Their major point is undeniable – that deriving stem cells from embryos necessarily destroys those embryos. But their objection is a minority position in the U.S., and one that’s being imposed on the majority.

The focus on embryos does another kind of disservice as well. The divide in our country over the moral status of human embryos, and over abortion rights, has overwhelmingly dominated the discussion of stem cell research, burying other important concerns. We need to look at this issue through a different lens.

Turning now to the situation among supporters of embryonic stem cell research: Far too many scientists, politicians, biotech entrepreneurs, and research advocates regularly exaggerate the likelihood and imminence of medical advances. The use of the word “cures” is routine – though as Jesse mentioned, the research is at an early stage, and right now there are no treatments or therapies based on embryonic stem cells, let alone cures.

Nonetheless, both the 2004 California ballot initiative and this year’s voter initiative in Missouri have the words “stem cell research and cures” in their titles, and the supporters of the Missouri initiative call themselves “The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures.”

And just recently the Democratic Senate candidate from Missouri, who strongly supports the stem cell initiative, used the words "lifesaving," "cure," or "save [a life]" 22 times in a 732-word interview published by the Associated Press.

Statements like these seriously degrade public understanding and distort political discourse. Perhaps more surprisingly, similar exaggerations have also become common in the world of science, in statements by scientists about stem cell research. It’s always been considered a matter of scientific integrity to refrain from making claims in the absence of clear evidence. But in the stem cell world, that principle is being regularly violated.

One example: It’s common to hear that embryonic stem cell research will result in cures for Alzheimer’s disease, when in fact, unfortunately, the idea that stem cells have the potential to treat Alzheimer’s is far-fetched.

Knowing this, Rick Weiss, the Washington Post’s science reporter, called a prominent stem cell and neurology researcher to ask why he and his colleagues weren’t correcting the misunderstanding. The scientist’s answer: "To start with, people need a fairy tale... they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."

[Other distortions]

Other sorts of exaggerations and distortions are also rampant in the stem cell debate.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research regularly blur the distinction between reproductive and research cloning. This can be seen as a logical extension of their position that an embryo is a full-fledged human being. But failing to acknowledge the difference between a cloned child and a cloned embryo certainly skews consideration of the issue.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research often misrepresent concerns voiced by women’s health advocates and groups like the Center for Genetics and Society about issues such as procuring eggs for research. In Missouri, an anti-abortion rights group that opposes the initiative used our words to support their position, neglecting to mention that we support embryonic stem cell research

On the pro-embryonic stem cell research side, we’ve seen a clear pattern of overstating the economic benefits of allowing or funding research.

The coalition backing Missouri’s Amendment 2 is promoting a study that claims the initiative will "reduce state health care costs by billions." To the extent that it’s supported at all, this conclusion is based on savings that would be realized by curing a list of diseases that includes very unlikely candidates for stem cell research, such as stroke and Alzheimer's.

We saw similar hand-waving in the campaign for the California initiative – in fact, the economic studies were done by the same hired group.

[Why it matters]

Why do the exaggerations and over-promising matter?

First, they do real damage to public understanding, and to the possibility of a meaningful debate on a set of complicated issues.
Second, overblown claims can be very hurtful to those who suffer from debilitating diseases, cruelly raising hopes that are likely to be dashed.
Third, hype about stem cells has played a role in overheating the environment to the extent that we’re seeing fraud and embezzlement – as in the case of South Korean cloning researcher Hwang Woo Suk – and questionable claims like the announcement a few weeks ago by Advanced Cell Technology that seemed based more on their need to raise money through a stock spike than on any real advance.
And finally, hype is bad for science. It sets the stage for backlash or bad policy or both.


[Political alignments and developments]

I want to say just a few words about the political alignments on stem cell research. We’ve talked a fair amount on this call about the distortions caused by the political polarization on this issue. But in fact, there’s growing bipartisan support for stem cell research using embryos produced but not used for assisted reproduction. We’re seeing a growing realization that Americans can be religious and support embryonic stem cell research; that they can be liberal and support responsible regulation of stem cell and cloning research.

We’ve looked at opinion polling on this question. Stem cell research is even more subject to wording effects than many other issues. But our analysis of polls that provide balanced background statements shows clearly that

support for embryonic stem cell research has been growing,
significant uneasiness about the use of cloning techniques for stem cell research has persisted

Though some Democrats continue to use embryonic stem cell research as a wedge issue, the recent Congressional vote on extending federal funding showed that more and more conservatives are supporting it. There will eventually be a less restrictive federal funding policy, and it’s past time to shift the conversation to the question of how stem cell research will be conducted – what oversight and what rules of the road do we want to put in place.

This is particularly important when it comes to research cloning. An important piece of that story rests on the issue of women’s eggs for research. Here in California, the Center for Genetics and Society and several women’s health groups worked with a Democratic state senator on an eggs-for-research bill. It passed both the California Senate and House with near-unanimous votes, and is now sitting on the Governor’s desk awaiting his signature.

Let me wrap up with 3 points that we think are key:

First, the stem cell debate until now has focused so much on the status of embryos that some really important issues have been eclipsed
Second, the political polarization on embryonic stem cell research has created an atmosphere of hype, distortion, and as a result, public misunderstanding
Third, responsible oversight and enforceable regulation of stem cell research – the kind that are in place in many other countries with research efforts – are a high priority for the U.S. Putting a comprehensive policy in place will be a plus for everyone.

Remarks by Jesse Reynolds, Project Director- Biotechnology in the Public Interest, Center for Genetics and Society


These basics of science and policy can be complex, and key distinctions are easy to overlook. I’m sure you are familiar with much of this, but I want to try and get everyone on the same page.

The distinction between stem cells from adult body tissue and those from embryos has nearly monopolized the debate about stem cell research. But many people are not clear about a second distinction between two sources of embryonic stem cells. And its in describing these techniques where perhaps the most frequent mistakes in the coverage of stem cell research occur.

The first, which has been used to produce all currently existing embryonic stem cell lines, is to use embryos created but not used in fertility treatments.

The other is to use embryos created by the cloning process, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, to derive new stem cell lines with specific genetic compositions. This process of cloning for stem cells is sometimes called research cloning, therapeutic cloning, or just SCNT.

Cloning in stem cell research remains at an early, speculative stage. Although it has been receiving much attention, it is a tiny portion of stem cell research. Only a handful of labs in the world are working on such research cloning.

Research cloning brings up issues of concern beyond the moral status of the embryo.
First, is how to treat the women who may provide the eggs has been an issue of debate, particularly whether to pay them. Unlike “normal” stem cell research, many human eggs are needed for it. Egg extraction is a procedure with significant medical risk.
Second, treatments from cloning-based stem cell research are likely to be extremely expensive – and that they might therefore increase health inequities.
Third, the technique opens the door to unacceptable applications such as reproductive cloning.

Because “cloning” has a strong negative connotation, advocates and opponents for research cloning manipulate the language. The advocates just call it SCNT, imply that no embryo is created, and also imply that it is currently a critical part of stem cell research. The opponents will call it “human cloning,” in an effort to blur the distinction between cloning for stem cell research, and cloning for reproduction.

The distinction between research cloning and embryonic stem cell research in general is key to understanding and describing the scientific and political landscape. But this blurring between them has led to many outright inaccuracies in reporting. As an example, just last week, a columnist in a major Missouri newspaper wrote about a person whose cancer had been put into remission by a cloning-based stem cell treatment– when in fact stem cell lines have never been successfully derived from clonal embryos.

Moving on to policy, I’d like make a second key distinction – this one among what is allowed, what is regulated, and what is funded. I’ll start with federal policy.

There are no bans on stem cell research at the federal level, despite the rhetoric of some research advocates. Of course, laws that apply to medical research in general apply. Congress has supported a ban on research cloning, but the bill lacks votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

There are also no regulations specific to stem cell research at the federal level. This is unlike other countries that have stem cell research programs, and despite widespread recognition among scientists that this work raises new oversight and regulatory concerns

The only national guidance is the area comes from the National Academies, a nongovernmental organization. It’s issued recommended guidelines for the conduct of stem cell research. These, for example, oppose paying women who provide eggs for research cloning. But these are not enforceable regulations, and some researchers have indicated that they will not necessarily follow them.

As you know, federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research has been restricted to the funding of work with lines created before August 2001. The recent bill that resulted in President Bush’s first veto, would have undone these restrictions. The passage and signing of this bill would have provided the opportunity to have discussions about federal oversight of this important research.

Moving on to the states: The lack of federal funding, and the accompanying lack of federal oversight, has resulted in an emerging patchwork of state laws and regulations. One state – South Dakota – bans the human embryonic stem cell research entirely. At least five other states ban research cloning. Research cloning is explicitly permitted in six states. Of course, when not cited in law, these practices are implicitly allowed.

Only two states are developing regulations for human embryonic stem cell research, California and Massachusetts. California will have two sets of regulations – one for state funded research, and another for any other source of funding.

Five states publicly fund stem cell research: California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois. At $300 million per year for ten years, California’s program dwarfs the others. All these state funding programs except Maryland’s intend to fund research cloning.

Finally, I’d like to provide some details on Missouri, which is currently the site of the most prominent stem cell research debate. The Constitutional amendment before the voters would ensure that all stem cell research that’s legal at the federal level remains legal in the state. Because there are currently no laws specific to stem cell research in Missouri, the amendment would simply preserve the status quo.

It’s true that each year some conservative legislators introduce a ban on all cloning, including research cloning. But this ban is very unlikely to become law – it’s never even gotten out of committee in either house, and the governor has promised a veto. Moreover, research cloning is not even being done in Missouri. It is strange that the proponents of the proposed Amendment raised sixteen million dollars, as of the end of June, just to preserve the status quo. That is already more than has ever been spent on any race in the state.

The powerful emerging technologies of stem cell research are being developed largely without oversight. Some politicians talk of bans, and others advocate for protective constitutional amendments. But what’s missing is effective regulation to ensure that it is done right.

Prop. 71 Inspiring "Awe" Elsewhere

"If you look at Prop. 71, it's like the income tax code. You
read our initiative, it's like a haiku."

So says Bernie Siegel, who is leading a $200 million embryonic stem cell research effort in Florida.

His comments came in an article in Capitol Weekly in Sacramento that examined efforts to fund stem cell research in other states. The piece by Malcolm Maclachlan demonstrated that there is some truth to the old saw that pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their backs.

"'A key lesson so far has been that low profile efforts seem more effective,' said Aaron Levine, a PhD. candidate at Princeton University who has been studying stem cell campaigns in different states. 'Because Proposition 71 dealt with such large sums of money, it became a national, if not international, issue and attracted significant opposition,'" Maclachlan wrote.

.
Also quoted in the article was Fiona Hutton, former spokeswoman for CIRM and the Prop. 71 campaign. She is president of Red Gate Communications, which is helping with stem cell efforts in Missouri and Kansas. Those campaigns are aimed at protecting stem cell research rather than providing funding. She noted that many of the efforts in other states did not gain footing until Prop. 71 passed.

While Siegel pointed to the complexties of Prop. 71, he also said it validated the concept of state-funded stem cell research.

"I'm not a critic of Prop. 71. I'm in awe of Prop. 71," Siegel said.