Setback for Stem Cell Hype in NJ
Today's frontpage news focuses attention on the latest advance in embryonic stem cell research: the successful development of cloned embryonic stem cells from monkeys. But is the bloom off the rose on these breathless takes on a technology that is still years away from usefulness in humans?
From its base in San Francisco, Biopolitical Times, which I added to my blogroll this week, follows developments in the stem cell field closely. Here's their take on New Jersey's decision earlier this month to reject injecting $450 million in state funds into the field:
. . . Most analyses in the media assert that it was rejected for fiscal, not moral, reasons. Though the evidence remains inconclusive, if this is true, it is noteworthy.
Unlike those of California and Missouri, the New Jersey ballot question originated in the state Legislature and consequently mobilized less on-the-ground support. For example, the website of the state's Citizens Coalition for Cures barely mentions the ballot question.
Furthermore, the public debate - both pro and con - focused much more on the economics than in the previous debates. The state debt, which now stands at $33.5 billion, has been a top issue in recent years. Plus New Jersey is already in the stem cell business. The legislature has already allocated $150 million to construct stem cell research facilities, and allocated another $10 million for research grants.
What's more, New Jersey voters have been historically friendly to ballot initiatives. This one, and one other on the same ballot, became the first to fail in seventeen years. That other was an anti-tax measure, which also would have increased the public debt.
Finally, polls have indicated that state residents support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy by a 2 to 1 margin. Thus, factors other than the moral status of the embryo must have greatly contributed to the 53% vote against Public Question 2.
Three years ago, in California, the economic cost of the $3 billion Proposition 71 was merely a minor part of the public debate, overshadowed by the promises from the state's top researchers of treatments and the now-prerequisite images of hopeful children in wheelchairs. Missouri's ballot initiative of last year didn't set aside any public funds; it merely enshrined the legality of the work in the state constitution. Despite the efforts of the advocates there to shift debate to purported economic benefits, the issue remained a moral one to most voters, particularly opponents. Missouri's Amendment 2 barely succeeded only after an enormously expensive campaign by its supporters. Also that year, congressional candidates who were vocally supportive of embryonic stem cell research did not fare particularly better than Democrats as a whole. Perhaps the sheen and hype of imminent cures is beginning to wear off of embryonic stem cell research.
Posted by gooznews at November 15, 2007 07:03 AMWell, actually the NJ Program was barely about embryonic stem cell research anyway, despite all the hype.
NJ had commited primarily to umbilical cord stem cell research instead.
Just read: http://thestemcellblog.com/2007/11/02/the-450-million-question/
Posted by: fayeforcure at November 16, 2007 08:46 PM