It's a question and contention indirectly raised very briefly in a news article earlier this week published in the Long Beach Business Journal.
While the Long Beach weekly does not have the reach of such other Southern California outlets as the Los Angeles Times, the question may well be at the heart of campaign to convince voters to approve an additional $5.5 billion for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known.
Robert Klein |
The Long Beach article by Alena Maschke provided a brief overview of the agency and its programs. Right at the top was a quote from Robert Klein, the Palo Alto real estate developer who is leading this year's ballot initiative campaign. He also led the effort in 2004 and was the first chairman of the agency.
Klein was also quoted as saying,
“The scientists and patient advocates in California have proven through the California stem cell initiative funding that they can change the future of medicine and human suffering. California funding has filled the gap of the federal government’s failure to fund this revolution in medicine.”Mascke's article said Klein's efforts for stem cell research were initially triggered years ago by his concern for his son, Jordan, who had Type 1 diabetes. The piece said,
"In 2016, 26-year-old Jordan Klein died of complications related to the disease, two years after scientists first made significant progress on finding a treatment developed with the help of human embryonic stem cells.
"Klein blames the federal government’s resistance to embracing stem cell research for the lack of adequate treatment options that lead to his son’s death. 'My youngest son died. If they hadn’t held it up in D.C., he would be alive,' he said. 'How many children, how many adults are going to die before they create enough stability to advance therapies that mitigate or cure these chronic diseases?'"
The Long Beach paper also tapped Aaron Levine, an associate professor at the
School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech. Levine was a member of the blue ribbon group that conducted a $700,000 study of the agency's work, an effort that was paid for by CIRM.
Aaron Levine, Georgia Tech photo |
"'CIRM stepped in to fill a gap when the National Institutes of Health was restricting its funding in this space,' Levine said. 'The research that CIRM has supported, as well as the training programs, has had quite a big impact on the field.'"
The article continued,
"Levine also noted that the program has yet to resolve one crucial question: Who will pay for patients’ treatment with costly stem cell therapies once they’re ready to hit the market? Per-patient costs for stem cell therapies can easily reach several hundred thousand dollars and as research advances, more patients are expected to qualify.
"'Suddenly, that’s just such a substantial sum of money that it becomes a fundamental challenge to how we pay for healthcare, how we pay for medicine in the United States,' Levine said. Subsidies for California residents, whose taxes helped pay for the research necessary to bring these cures and therapies to market, would be one option, Levine noted.
"Despite these concerns, Levine said he supports the measure to extend the program. 'Even though this is not the perfect measure, I think there’s a lot of value in CIRM and it makes sense to continue it,' he said. In the end, it will be up to California voters to decide.
"'It largely will rise and fall on whether there’s a motivated campaign for and against it and what people who’ve never really thought about stem cell research as a state ballot issue are going to think about this particular initiative when it comes in the fall,' Levine said."
As for whether CIRM has changed the future of medicine and human suffering, some might argue that it alone has not, that other stem cell researchers around the world have been as instrumental. Others would argue that if revolutionary change has occurred, CIRM has fulfilled its mission and the people of California no longer need to fund it.
As Levine points out, the voters of California will make the judgment in November. Their decision will come during an election that will focus intensely on presidential politics and much, much less so on the performance of the stem cell agency.