Some contend that New Jersey’s skewed funding for adult stem cell research is due to a dearth of experienced embryonic stem cell researchers in the state’s universities. Others argue the lopsided ratio is driven by nothing more than politics. In a few days, New Jersey voters will decide whether a half-billion dollar bond measure will fund stem cell research. If passed, will the money be subterfuge for less controversial adult stem cell research, or will it fill the void left by lack of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Is a “no” vote a vote against embryonic stem cell research?
A former professor of economics, Faye Armitage writes about stem cell research, universal healthcare and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Her activism has earned her coverage in major national newspapers. She is the founder of Cure Paralysis Now, and is a full-time caregiver to her paralyzed eighteen-year-old son.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
by Faye Armitage
The recent revelation that in the last two years New Jersey dedicated only 5% of its state funding for human embryonic stem cell research has created a firestorm in the pro embryonic stem cell research community. The news comes ahead of a New Jersey vote on a $450 million dollar bond measure, slated to take place next Tuesday, Nov. 6th.
Science Progress published my article, “Garden State Deceptions: Behind the Scenes in the NJ Stem Cell Program” where I explain how New Jersey is very much focused on umbilical cord stem cell research:
“The first tell-tale sign that New Jersey’s current focus is primarily directed toward umbilical cord stem cell and other adult stem cell research came with the issuance in December 2005 of two grants (at $350,000 apiece) to the Ellie Katz Umbilical Cord Blood Program and the Coriell Institute for Medical Research to create the nation’s first public cord and placental blood bank for stem cell research.
This was followed in 2006 with the allocation of $270 million in state support to build and equip five stem cell centers, four of which are solely dedicated to adult stem cell research. One of the four stem cell centers is set to perform umbilical cord stem cell clinical trials. New Jersey also awarded two grants of $250,000 each to two researchers developing standard operating procedures for umbilical cord stem cell clinical trials.”
Meanwhile, Michael J. Fox lent his voice to passing the $450 million bond measure. His radio address says:
“New Jersey residents will be asked to do something that President Bush won’t do, fund stem cell research”
Fox refers to human embryonic stem cell research. One wonders if he understands that New Jersey has been funding primarily an umbilical cord stem cell program, with little foreknowledge of a new administration in 2009, when federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is expected to be widely available.
As a stem cell research activist whose mission it has been to make sure the promise of human embryonic stem cells is being pursued both on the federal and state levels, I am profoundly disappointed with the New Jersey Stem Cell Program. It seems patient groups have dropped the ball to ensure states like New Jersey come through on their promise for substantial funding for human embryonic stem cell research. It is the responsibility of patient groups to ensure that friendly embryonic stem cell policies exist. More importantly, they must see to it that states follow through on their stated commitments to this critical area of science.
Since March, I have alerted pro embryonic stem cell research groups that—unlike California and Connecticut—New Jersey chooses a path reflecting a commitment to cord stem cells. Favoring this research with the rationale that “eventually” cord blood stem cells will be shown to be as powerful as embryonic stem cells is speculative, according to most researchers.
Yet, this is the contention of the pro-life groups. Now, by supporting the New Jersey Stem Cell Program, patient advocates have shockingly departed from their usual position to embrace a position similar to the pro-life groups.
While red states turn their back on the sick and injured, we can’t afford to allow blue states like New Jersey to turn on us too. It is incomprehensible and rather shameful that we condone neglect of embryonic stem cell research in a blue state, which since 2002 has used the popular pro embryonic stem cell research rhetoric to falsely boost its reputation.
I am saddened that the positive message of human embryonic stem cell research, that activists like myself and Michael J. Fox have worked so hard to attain, is used to trick voters into funding adult stem cell research.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
12 Comments
November 2, 2007 at 10:06 am
Why can’t we have it all?
I hate how embryonic and adult stem cells are always pitted against each other. There are synergies that should be captured. Understanding how embryonic stem cells maintain their flexibility could be applied to make cord blood cells more powerful. There are reasonable arguments for cord blood research. Fetal stem cells are likely more flexible than stem cells collected from adult. (Much of the reporting on reprogramming mouse skin cells fails to mention that it uses neonatal or fetal skin cells. It’s very hard to make it work with cells from adult mice. Humans live longer than mice so the mechanisms that suppress cell versatility could be more powerful). Yes, embryonic stem cells are much more flexible than cord blood cells, that doesn’t mean New Jersey doesn’t have a good reason for funding cord blood research. And if it does, it should say so.
If New Jersey is particularly strong in cord blood researchers, why not play to its strengths? Why not collaborate with top embryonic stem-cell researchers elsewhere to make the cord blood more powerful? What is the evidence that cord blood is being favored because it is less controversial and not because it’s the best science New Jersey can offer?
Armitage implies that something other than pursuit of science is behind grants for cord blood research. A bit of poking around the web didn’t give me enough information to confirm or refute this. New Jerseyans should demand more clarity.
Who is applying for the grants? Who is deciding what gets funded? If the emphasis is on getting into human trials quickly, that will favor some sorts of nonembryonic research. Whether to emphasize medical applications over basic research is a political question on how resources should be invested. It is not a scientific one.
November 2, 2007 at 11:18 am
Human embryonic stem cell research is all about limited resources and politics. That is why there are ballot measures. Does anyone really thing that funding scientific research by statewide balloting is a good thing? It is a last resort for supporters of the hESC research. But it also makes the research political and subject to all the normal political vagaries.
The other reality is limited resources, even for adult stem cell research. So in New Jersey, adult stem cell research is grabbing a piece of what some hoped would be an exclusive embryonic pie. One wonders where the advocates of hESC were when the money was being handed out. Did they miss the boat? Are adult stem cell researchers and supporters in control of the grant process? Is it closed to public view?
Ballot initiatives are complex. But elections necessarily reduce them to elemental matters. Are you in favor of stem cell research? Vote yes. But the vast majority of voters do not know the difference between adult stem cell research and hESC research. Such is the nature of the political process.
If there is a problem with the New Jersey measure in the sense that it doesn’t give top priority to hESC research, it is too late to fix now. Activists on this issue needed to address that many months ago. That means they needed access early on to the entire political and government process that conjures up ballot measures. Yet often activists sign on with groups that support closed-door proceedings and secrecy in the awarding of grants and development of policy, legislation and ballot measures. They need to carefully consider what is their own best interests and not become co-opted by industry or seduced by fantasies of instant cures.
November 2, 2007 at 12:33 pm
HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in stem cell research should not be lightly thrown away.
First, lets pass the New Jersey Stem Cell Research Bond Act, and afterwards let the scientists argue about how to divide the money.
Personally, I am in favor of whatever works. It is my belief that embryonic stem cell research has more potential– but there is so much we do not know.
Let’s fund the research, and let the best science prevail.
November 2, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Patients have been used in New Jersey. I would like to remind people what we were promised:
http://www.corzineforgovernor.com/articles/view/?id=231
Corzine rallies those in need of stem cell miracle
Thursday, 9/15/2005
Candidate vows to foster controversial research
Thursday, September 15, 2005
BY KITTA MacPHERSON , Star-Ledger Staff
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1126765644235780.xml&coll=1
Taking grassroots political campaigning in a new direction, U.S. Sen. Jon Corzine yesterday enlisted the families of patients with incurable illnesses to support his run for governor, promising them he’ll push to expand embryonic stem cell research.
The Democratic candidate described members of his “New Cures Connection” as ground troops who will be hosting parties at their homes, inviting neighbors and building support voter by voter…….
Pretty sad thing how they used patient groups in New Jersey!
November 3, 2007 at 7:32 am
[...] Read The $450 Million Question [...]
November 3, 2007 at 8:20 am
Faye Armitage’s essay notes two large grants for cord and placental stem cell research. I’ve led fundraising efforts for biomedical research and when the money comes in, it can be bound by rules set by the donors. For example, if a philanthropist wants to give $25 million to prostate cancer research (and asks for annual reports on how the money is spent), then it’s not likely the recipient institution will use it for, say, Parkinson disease. In the New Jersey example, the Ellie Katz group may have said “cord blood research, period.” The upshot of this is that New Jersey’s skewed funding may be a function of donor preferences rather than politics (or even both), and past performance may not predict future spending on the bond measure.
I don’t find arguments that New Jersey has few embryonic stem cell scientists (and therefore few embryonic stem cell research grants) persuasive. A little known fact about Stanford is that a year or so ago, we had one (1) laboratory dedicated to embryonic stem cell research (now we have two and will add more). Yet, Stanford brought in the lion’s share of state money for new embryonic stem cell projects. Why? Because of the point Monya Baker and Don Reed make, that many cell and developmental biologists are agnostic to what kind of cells might work. What’s important are the scientific and clinical questions they pursue. World-class embryologists, cell biologists, transplant surgeons, even molecular biologists—conjure amazing research plans as naturally as they breathe. So it’s curious to see the money in NJ spent the way it is, unless it’s due to the reasons above or because of political shenanigans.
The danger for supporters and advocates of embryonic stem cell research is arguing too strenuously for one kind of research over another (and, at this stage of the game, one disease over another). This takes the focus off the tasks at hand: lifting restrictions, depoliticizing different kinds of stem cell research, and getting on with the science.
November 3, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Interestingly an October 31, 2007 Press Release shows that NJ is losing a leading stem cell researcher to CT:
http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/07-10-31-02.all.html
“At Princeton, Ivanona worked to dissect the molecular mechanisms by which mouse embryonic stem cells are able to renew themselves. These studies uncovered a novel signature of gene expression in stem cells (Science, 2002) and introduced a high-throughput method to identify the function of each gene (Nature, 2006), work that she will continue at Yale.”
I wonder if Ivanova will be translating her mouse ESC work to human ESCR at Yale…….
I will check into this.
November 4, 2007 at 8:35 am
Faye, the mouse-human transition is pretty interesting, and a good point. Last week our committee overseeing stem cell research looked at a project that aims to translate a discovery made in a mouse model of heart disease to a system using human embryonic cells. These are common (and exciting) kinds of questions.
I used to think that funding gradients (between states; between nations) would cause a lot of trouble as we tried to coalesce the field. I was pretty passionate about it, because the first big name to leave a lab for political reasons was UCSF’s Roger Pederson (he went to Cambridge, UK). I was at UCSF then, and it was a bombshell when he told us he was leaving.
Now I wonder about how big the impact really is. Pulling up stakes is a complicated business, with economic, institutional, career-based and political (local politics, that is) inputs. The data is just emerging about how federal and state stem cell policy affects career choices. One paper published by Levine, (Nature Biotechnology, 24, 2006) suggests some interstate transit. Our group is working on these questions, including Jennifer McCormick, who has written a few posts for The Stem Cell.
November 5, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Great blog, Faye and some awesome comments from leaders in the stem cell research community. I agree that all types of stem cell research should be funded. They are complimentary to one another, not in competition. I’m all for a cure for any illness or condition no matter where it comes from.
Yvonne Perry
Author of RIGHT TO RECOVER Winning the Political and Religious Wars over Stem Cell Research in America– An Award-Winning Finalist in the Current Events: Political/Social of the National Best Books 2007 Awards
November 5, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Proof of the pudding: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53836/
Read what this stem cell researcher say about the NJ research program, and her husband was even the lone receipient of an embryonic stem cell research grant from NJ during the first round of funding
“Kateri Moore, bone marrow stem cell researcher and associate professor at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, NY, told The Scientist. Moore and her husband, Ihor Lemischka, now director of the Black Family Stem Cell Institute at Mt. Sinai, recently left Princeton University after nearly two decades. “We were concerned with the direction that the New Jersey effort was headed, and the lack of prominent stem cell biologists in New Jersey.”
Indeed, added Moore, the numerous large pharmaceutical companies in New Jersey seem to have taken the place of academic endeavors in stem cell science. ”
It hurts when NJ has resorted to use children in wheelchairs to sell their stem cell program when it is more about big business!
November 5, 2007 at 5:27 pm
From that article I notice another interesting point:
“According to the Governor’s press release, this act “authorizes the sale of state general obligation funds in the amount of $450 million over 10 years” to be given to stem cell researchers…… The release does not say whether this money can be directed toward research on human embryonic stem cells or somatic cell nuclear transfer — both of which are permitted in New Jersey if supported by private funding. The governor’s office did not respond to several requests for comment.”
Also, Corzine also has yet to respond to a letter sent to him by NJ Senator Karcher:
September 20, 2007
Honorable Jon S. Corzine
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 001
Trenton, N.J. 08625
Dear Governor Corzine:
As a firm supporter of stem cell research, I commend you for your efforts in bringing the state of New Jersey to the forefront of stem cell research. I believe that it is imperative that the state of New Jersey funds the type of stem cell research that the federal government has chosen to ignore.
I am writing to encourage you to explore the promotion of embryonic stem cell research. If New Jersey wants to become a leader in stem cell research, it must also be a leader in promoting embryonic stem cell research. It was my understanding that New Jersey would primarily be promoting embryonic stem cell research. Yet, out of the seventeen award recipients of 2006, only two are truly focused on the promotion of embryonic stem cell research.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I would ask that you contact me at 732-462-8883 or at SenKarcher@njleg.org.
Sincerely,
Ellen Karcher
Senator, 12th Legislative District
November 6, 2007 at 9:06 am
So I’ve got an interesting data point…
I don’t know if the offer was sought after on our end, or if the Medical College of New Jersey initiated the offer, but there were fairly serious discussions about moving our lab(the PI is a big name in MSC(adult) research) to New Jersey.
We ended up not accepting the offer, mostly because no one wanted to move from New Orleans to New Jersey, but I can definitely confirm that there’s serious efforts being made to get well-qualified adult stem cell researchers to the state.