Voters say no to New Jersey’s bond measure to support stem cell research (see my comment in the New York Times).
In contrast to California’s 59 percent approval in 2004, the Garden State initiative went down convincingly, 46 to 54 percent. Will NJ scrap its ambitious plan for a new stem cell institute? You can’t do stem cell biology in a back lot, or even a garage. Using funds to recruit and retain the best basic scientists is the first link—the most important link—in a long chain of actions needed to bring discoveries to the clinic. Research seed money leads to capital campaigns to raise funds for expensive research facilities (though it appears NJ was prepared to take a risk on the reverse order). Having places to put people leads to new recruits, new students and technical support, which benefits the local economy. The aggregation of talent and money results in discoveries and intellectual property, which attracts capital investment. New companies and investors bankroll the astonishing cost of clinical trials. By denying basic funding, voters threw a wrench into the assembly line that gets bright ideas out of the brains of scientists and on the road to common use.
The good news for New Jersey is that despite disappointment of the ballot measure, the state stands behind embryonic stem cell research. (Though how far behind is debatable: see TSC’s The $450 Million Question and comments, along with What Color is Your State?).
David Jensen, publisher of The California Stem Cell Report and TSC contributor, writes today to remind how politics and science make uncomfortable bedfellows:
“Stem cell researchers, with some considerable justification, deplore the intrusion of politics into their field. Tuesday’s vote in New Jersey demonstrates the difficulties of combining research with electoral politics. Rejection of the $450 million ballot measure means that it will be some time before other political leaders attempt a similar effort – at least in that state. It will also give pause to others elsewhere in their similar efforts. Nobody in politics wants to be a loser.”
And the excellent point that California can’t afford to rest on its laurels:
“Some supporters of the California stem cell agency (CIRM) have found reassurance in the 59 percent vote that created their $3 billion program three years ago. Voters are fickle, however. Polls that show continued strong support can be excessively rosy.”
Finally, CIRM must be mindful of its relationship with the public:
“Leaders of the California program should look smartly at their effort and eliminate vulnerabilities that could lead to erosion of support. Currently the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is handing out hundreds of millions of dollars through closed door sessions dominated by scientists whose financial interests are not disclosed to the public. Then the directors of the agency approve the grants without knowing the identities of the applicants. And the public is not permitted to know enough to make an intelligent comment until after all the deeds are done. This penchant for closed doors and secrecy breeds suspicion and provides a recipe for scandal.”
On this last point: transparency is generally a good thing. But unfettered access to CIRM’s inner workings–especially the grants process, which uses confidentiality to ensure fair and candid reviews—would hobble, even cripple, a system designed to rank and reward the best science. CIRM is an audacious experiment in whether conflicts of interest can be effectively managed, and is setting new thresholds for how to engage the public in big science. But given the boisterous and divergent opinions of a 29 member board, adding more input to governance could decrease the signal to noise ratio even further. CIRM, for many reasons, has had a hard time staying focused. Now, it must get on with the grants business.
David Jensen’s full post can be found here.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
5 Comments
November 7, 2007 at 6:56 pm
The main reason the bond issue failed is because it was packaged by politicians and business minded researchers and then handed to the people to vote on. People in New Jersey don’t want more corruption. There was not one patient group that challenged the program nor any input from the public. Maybe if voters heard some advocates complain about the direction and lack of emphasis on embryonic stem cell research the public would have felt that at least the program is being monitored.
I would like to point out that 2 researchers recently left NJ because they were concerned that the program was more about business than the kind of stem cell research that could cure disease. One of the researchers was the lone recipient of an embryonic stem cell research grant 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.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53836/
Indeed, added Moore, the numerous large pharmaceutical companies in New Jersey seem to have taken the place of academic endeavors in stem cell science. “
November 8, 2007 at 8:37 am
Bob’s comment suggests that the discussion about the costs and benefits of the bond measure was lopsided, which is too bad because the stakeholders for stem cell research have to be clear about where they stand in the big picture. The support of business and economic incentives are critical to getting this done, but discovery engines like Princeton have to get fired up first. Without the corporate sector, we would have no drugs, no devices–no modern medicine, really. But if the bond measure was portrayed (by opponents) as a front for the pharmaceutical industry, then I can see where things went sideways. Big pharma (so far) has shown little interest because the technologies are so new. But years from now they may take new therapies to the market.
It’s a long chain of events, and the first step is getting money to scientists like Kateri Moore.
November 8, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Dr. Scott
I agree we should be funding scientists like Kateri Moore. And I say that knowing her work is with other than embryonic stem cells. The reason I feel this way is because she feels research needs to be done that would only be funded by philanthropists or by a state funding program.
Pharmaceuticals are not that interested in Curing conditions that they make a fortune off of by treating the symptoms. That is why we need funding for humanitarian efforts, for that, we know we can’t count on Big Pharma! I think New Jersey made it clear it was for economic reasons that they wanted to fund research(hold on to their pharmaceuticals) and that is why a caring researcher like Kateri Moore left with her husband.
So not only was New Jersey’s plan not to fund embryonic stem cell research in any appreciable or useful amount, but even the funding of their adult stem cell research would have been more geared to business interests and not for the people they counted on to vote yes for the program.
I also would like to clarify my position. Often I may be seen as an embryonic stem cell activist, and I am because at present it is under funded. But I do support other forms of research also as I have great respect for the work of Kateri Moore. Maybe the best way to describe what my focus is would be to fund the science that people would benefit from and that Big Pharma is not willing to indulge in.
November 8, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Bob, thanks for the clarifications, and for your views on the bond measure. I’m glad you’ve weighed in and given us a glimpse of the New Jersey vote.
PS: i’m not a doctor, i’m a mister
November 16, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Here is an excellent article explaining why the New Jersey Bond issue on stem cell research failed. http://blog.nj.com/njv_carl_golden/2007/11/a_defeat_for_arrogance.html
The title is: “A Defeat for Arrogance” and the author points out how trying to stretch and milk the program was it’s downfall. Here are a few tell tale excerpts:
“What began as an idea to establish New Jersey as a stem cell research center with one facility in New Brunswick (focusing on embryonic stem cell research)grew into a bloated and politically-drenched scheme to build four additional centers in Newark, Camden, Belleville and Allendale(the additional centers would have only done adult stem cell research).”
“Their own arrogance convinced them that a few photo-ops with wheelchair bound individuals coupled with the consistent expressions of public support for medical research which held such enormous promise and hope would be sufficient to carry the day.”
Corzine should remember that his campaign was helped by a teenager in a wheelchair who supported his race for governor because he supported embryonic stem cell research, how they turned that into funding adult stem cell research in 4 additional centers certainly validates Golden’s remark about how the effort grew into a bloated and politically-drenched scheme to build four additional centers in Newark, Camden, Belleville and Allendale.
It was also distasteful to use children in wheelchairs to support an effort far away from curing spinal cord injury, but more geared to the welfare of large pharmaceuticals.
But lets not just blame the politicians of New Jersey. A key figure in the NJ Stem Cell Institute was Dr. Wise Young and it may have been his input that gave the politicians the feeling they could pull off their Gravy Train. Here is a so called scientist that has come to expect blind support from people in wheelchairs that visit his website. This is not to me a caring scientist as he likes to be known as. He has manipulated his groupies into even un-linking from embryonic stem cell research in order to get funding for cord blood work. Yet, most advocates are fooled by his occasional lectures on embryonic stem cell research. The big lie was that science not politics would decide what gets funded in New Jersey.
It is not enough to say NJ went the wrong track without finding out how and why they did that. I would like to know why New Jersey chose to fund more adult stem cell research than embryonic from taxpayer money. New Jersey already has labs working on adult stem cell research but very little on embryonic stem cell research. So why and/or how did a program designed to fund the science that the federal government is not funding(embryonic stem cell research) get turned into an adult stem cell effort by building 4 more centers for already sufficient adult stem cell centers?
Before we close the door on the NJ Stem Cell effort we should ask to see emails between Corzine and Dr. Wise Young. The program was adulterated and yes that was meant to be a pun!!!!!!!!!!!