As a first year graduate student in Biological Sciences at the University of California at San Diego in 2004, I was enthusiastic to vote for the California Proposition 71 which established the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). Voters in California extended this support in November by passing Proposition 14, which authorizes $5.5 billion over the next 10 years to continue CIRM's work.
To date CIRM has awarded 1071 grants, resulting in ground-breaking research enabling 68 clinical trials and three FDA-approved therapeutics, including a cure for the fatal severe combined immunodeficiency disease also known as “bubble baby syndrome.” CIRM-funded research continues to develop therapies for unmet clinical needs including dozens of cancers, strokes, diabetes, bone disease, autism, heart failure, kidney failure, pulmonary hypertension, Parkinson’s disease, spina bifida, and spinal cord injuries.
Additionally as of 2018, CIRM has added nearly 57,000 high paying jobs, contributing to $641.3 million of additional state/local tax revenues and $726.6 million of additional federal tax revenues.
The research has used “acceptably derived embryonic stem cell lines” defined by Title 17 California code used by permission from families undergoing IVF and having surplus IVF-embryos.
The full editorial published in the journal Science today is available here.
EDITORIAL:
Stem cells on the ballot
AUTHORS:
Lawrence S. B. Goldstein*,1, Robert N. Klein II*,2
Lawrence S. B. Goldstein is a distinguished professor in the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine and in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Robert N. Klein II is chairman of the Yes on Proposition 14 Campaign: Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments, and Cures Initiative.
EDITORIAL:
California's ballot measures often reveal much about the broader U.S. policy environment. This is particularly true of the approval by the state's voters in November of Proposition 14, The California Stem Cell Research, Treatments, and Cures Initiative of 2020. Proposition 14 extends the 2004 ballot Proposition 71, which established the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and authorized $3 billion in state-issued bonds for CIRM to fund stem cell and regenerative research and medicine (restricted to California). Proposition 14, which authorizes $5.5 billion over the next 10 years to continue CIRM's work, succeeded in part by informing voters of CIRM's successes and that its conflict-of-interest provisions are extremely strong. This state-level action is critical because, contrary to opponents' opinions, the overall policy environment for human stem cell research in the United States is in some ways worse now than when Proposition 71 passed.
Since 2004, CIRM has funded groundbreaking work on immune disorders, cancer, spinal cord injury, diabetes, and more. The result has been more than 90 stem cell–related clinical trials (directly or indirectly supported by CIRM), almost 3000 scientific papers, and contributions to two cancer therapies approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The lives of many patients have improved because of CIRM. Notably, many CIRM-funded clinical trials rely on human embryonic or fetal stem cells, whereas the federal government currently does not fund any clinical trials using these types of cells.
Proposition 71 was motivated largely in response to restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research in the United States in 2004. However, although research was limited to a small number of human embryonic stem cell lines, there was no formal ban on federal funding of research on such stem cells. In addition, in 2004 there were no restrictions on federal funding of human fetal stem cell and tissue research; however, there is now near-complete blockage of federal funding for such research. And federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research is again at risk. On 4 September 2020, 22 Republican senators and 72 Republican House members wrote to President Trump requesting an end to all federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Could President Trump impose a ban that would be difficult to revoke? Or, could Republican senators manufacture a ban by legislative maneuvering on a budget reconciliation vote, which requires 60% support? Such maneuvering created the effectively permanent 1995 Dickey-Wicker amendment, which prohibits federal funding of any research in which human embryos are created or destroyed. Dickey-Wicker has limited research on in vitro fertilization methods and stalled progress on understanding early human development. It has not solved the problem of the many, perhaps 1 million frozen embryos in the United States that will not be used for in vitro fertilization and will be destroyed without benefit if not used for research. Vital long-term research is greatly harmed by the U.S. policy environment, with the likely outcome that many young scientists will avoid research using human embryonic stem cells and human fetal tissue.
Restrictions on valuable, ethical research appear particularly fool-hardy during a deadly pandemic. Research on viruses such as HIV and SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) can benefit greatly from work using mice that utilize human fetal stem cells and tissues to generate a human-like immune system. These mice allow evaluation of a human immune system in the contexts of infection mechanisms, generation of immunity, and drug response. These studies can be supported with Proposition 14 funds in California, but not with federal funds. It is crucial for the incoming Biden administration to evaluate the need for federal funding in these important areas with high-quality scientific input and evidence.
California's vote on Proposition 14 should also help the rest of the country appreciate the need to increase investments in biomedical research at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies. Current biomedical research expenditures amount to only a tiny fraction of the costs of disease, so an objective evaluation of appropriately increased research funding relative to disease costs is warranted. Once again, California is showing the way.
* More author information is in the supplementary materials (science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/215/suppl/DC1).