Less than a year after its passage, California's taxpayer-funded grand experiment on embryonic stem cells and human cloning is languishing in the petri dish.
Advertisement - story continues below
Belatedly under the microscope, its problems are increasing almost as rapidly as the cancer cells inadvertently cultivated when researchers try to replicate embryonic stem cells.
TRENDING: Take heart, patriots! These 3 House members are the future of the GOP
Three lawsuits have now been filed against the sloppily written $3 billion ($6 billion with interest) legislative initiative that spawned it – infighting and charges of deal-making have halted bond sales and grant distributions; and researchers buckling under the weight of their own hype are now downplaying the "promise" and "hope" of ESCR, the two words that until recently punctuated every utterance on the topic.
Advertisement - story continues below
The belated true confessions are most irksome. "I told you so" brings no consolation when ESCR gigolos confess their inability to perform only after they've consummated the deal.
Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik reported July 4 on a recent speech given by California Institute for Regenerative Research's president Zach Hall, titled, "Stem Cell Research: Hope or Hype?"
Advertisement - story continues below
Hall surprisingly focused on the latter, reminding his audience of the extravagant claims made by recombinant-DNA researchers of the 1960s, which to date have not panned out. In 1999, an 18-year-old patient was even killed during experimentation. Monoclonal antibodies were the "magic bullets" of the 1970s, said Hall, but 30 years later, they are still firing blanks.
Noted Hiltzik:
Advertisement - story continues below
Skepticism about the potential of stem-cell research was wholly absent from the campaign for Proposition 71. As a scientific undertaking, the stem-cell program is unique in that its sponsors, the state's voters, committed their money without receiving the slightest bit of professional scientific counsel ... receiv[ing], instead, a TV campaign promising cures tomorrow for a host of diseases, some of which may never respond to stem-cell therapy. The professional cautions are only appearing now, after the money is committed. The shock of discovery that "tomorrow" may be 20 or 30 years away (or may never come) could be severe.
Advertisement - story continues below
Likewise, the Associated Press reported on June 22:
... [S]tem-cell researchers ... are rowing hard against strong currents of financial, political and technical turmoil. There's even talk of trying to temper heightened public expectations that cures for diseases are imminent. "Many of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven't worked yet," Celgene Corp. president Alan Lewis said ... Even the most outspoken proponents of the technology concede they are years away from actual drugs based on stem cells.
Advertisement - story continues below
Other admissions are also tumbling out, such as that cloning is vital to ESCR, and ESCR may exploit women – the only possible manufacturers of human eggs. Continued the AP story:
Advertisement - story continues below
What's more, a growing number of liberal groups, such as women's rights organizations and biotechnology foes oppose the work as dehumanizing ... Advanced Cell Technology, a Worcester, Mass., firm has run into big financial problems. It also can't obtain a steady supply of women's eggs, a necessity and a giant ethical minefield.
The egg supply has become a crucial sticking point for cloning supporters, which include California's new $3 billion stem-cell agency ... Agency President Zach Hall and other scientists say that cloning human embryos to harvest stem cells will be an indispensable way to make tailor-made drugs and develop powerful research tools.
Advertisement - story continues below
Actually, the only "women's rights organizations" I've heard opposing ESCR as exploitive to women are conservative.
The AP article also indicated private investors aren't as foolish as California taxpayers:
[Lewis] also noted that venture capitalists "are very cautious" about investing in stem-cell companies because of uncertainty over the field's future.
On June 21, a MotleyFool.com investment adviser recommended letting Californians shoulder the risk:
... But when it comes to [private] investing, it's best to view the subject [of embryonic stem-cell research] with as much detachment as possible ... Sure, federal support may increase the chances that embryonic stem cells will yield novel treatments. But the path to success is still likely to be peppered with setbacks and failures over a period of years and at a cost of millions, if not billions, of dollars ...
Further, even if national legislation does fail, as seems likely, public investment in embryonic stem-cell research will increase substantially anyway. California voters approved a referendum that will allocate $3 billion in state funding over 10 years to the field, and New Jersey is considering spending hundreds of millions ... Despite the promise suggested by early studies, embryonic stem-cell research remains highly speculative. More concrete results, not the amount of cash being poured into research, are the best basis for investing decisions.
It's too bad state legislators draw on emotion and fear of one-upmanship as their basis for investing our money.
