• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Putting stem cell research in California in jeopardy, the Institute of Regenerative Medicine went on trial Monday, as taxpayer groups questioned the constitutionality of Proposition 71 in state law.

Approved in November 2004, the proposition, also known as the Stem Cell and Research Cures Act, created the state-run institute to regulate stem cell research and provide funding through grants and loans for research and research facilities.

The two lawsuits, filed separately but being tried together, are led by the People’s Advocate and National Tax Limitation Foundation and the California Family Bioethics Council, respectively. These two groups argue that the institution lacks proper state supervision, therefore violating the use of the taxpayer funds according to the state constitution.

As a result of Proposition 71, the UCLA Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine, launched in March 2005, received $3.75 million in grants, the largest amount the state gave to any stem cell research institution.

But in light of the lawsuits against the Institute of Regenerative Medicine, the funding has not yet been allocated and distributed.

The chancellor and dean have earmarked funds for the university’s stem cell research department to recruit faculty, providing $20 million last year to start up the institute, said Steven Peckman, the department’s associate director for Administration and Planning.

“I think all researchers in the state as well as 60 percent of the people that voted for the proposition are all very much interested in the resolution of the suit and the release of the money,” Peckman said.

Stem cell researchers hope to use human embryonic stem cells, found in the beginning stages after conception, to replace tissues harmed by diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. But due to concern about the ethics of the dissection and therefore elimination of human embryos, President Bush has limited funding for stem cell research, capping the funding at approximately $25 million annually and banning all federal funding for research that involves the destruction of an embryo.

Taxpayers will provide $3 billion overall to keep the San-Francisco-based California Institute of Regenerative Medicine running and is authorized to distribute an average of $300 million in research grants annually to statewide stem cell research institutions.

Both socially conservative groups, People’s Advocate is represented by Life Legal Defense, an abortion opponent group that played a major role with Terri Schiavo in the right-to-die case. One of the California Family Bioethics Council’s “foundational pillars” is the protection of unborn individuals.

One of the main points the taxpayer groups emphasized was the lack of state supervision over the operations of the committee.

“There is one major big wrong with this thing. ... There is absolutely no oversight from the legislature,” Ted Costa, CEO of the People’s Advocate, told the Los Angeles Times on Monday.

In his opening statement, Robert Taylor, a representative of the People’s Advocate, said none of the 29-member committee who oversees the institute were elected or public officials. Rather, they were appointees of advocacy groups or people with connections to the public officers of those groups.

“The delegates who were selected from time to time were acting as free agents,” Taylor told Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Lewman Sabraw, who is hearing the trial without a jury.

Of the 29 members, five are University of California officials, a move that could partially benefit the university’s various campuses to receive millions in research funds, said David Llewellyn, a lawyer representing the California Family Bioethics Council.

Bob Klein, chairman of the institute’s oversight committee, defended the appointment of the UC officials, saying the oath they take proves their honesty.

“They do not come to represent those institutions,” Klein said.

Deputy attorney general Tamar Pachter argued for the institute during the hearing as well, saying Proposition 71 “bypassed state and federal legislation and it expresses the will of the voters.”

A ruling on the case is expected later this spring, according to a CIRM press release.

With reports from Bruin wire services.

Comments

Post a comment