An Indecent Proposition
From the October 18, 2004 issue: Do Californians really want to subsidize stem cell research?
Oct 18, 2004, Vol. 10, No. 06 • By WESLEY J. SMITH
* Prop. 71 uses obfuscating language to mask its true intent: Although the measure is clearly created to fund experiments into cloning human embryos and research into embryonic stem cells, the word "embryo" does not appear anywhere in the text. Instead, the measure tellingly refers to embryos as mere "products." Nor is the term "embryonic stem cell research" used. Instead, Prop. 71 authorizes research into "pluripotent stem cells," which are defined as cells that "are capable of self-renewal, and have broad potential to differentiate into multiple adult cell types. Pluripotent stem cells may be derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer [e.g., cloning] or from surplus products of in vitro fertilization treatments when such products are donated under appropriate informed consent procedures."
Meanwhile, knowing that the majority of people oppose human cloning for any reason, the authors pretend that the measure does not permit it, using the scientific term "somatic cell nuclear transfer" as if that were not a cloning technique. The "yes on 71" campaign even sued to prevent opponents from making the ballot argument that the measure concerned human cloning, even though the text of the measure actually uses the C-word to identify the identical biotechnological activity (somatic cell nuclear transfer) required for reproduction. The judge saw through the ruse, however, ruling correctly that somatic cell nuclear transfer is, indeed, cloning, and pointed out that this "is really the heart of the debate" over Prop. 71.
Prop. 71's supporters make much of the fact that the measure would not fund reproductive cloning and that it would "initially" require that all embryo products (whether natural or cloned) used in the research be destroyed after 12 days (the modifier "initially" telegraphing that a broader license may be contemplated). But these restrictions actually mean little since the measure would pay billions for researchers to conduct the very experiments into somatic-cell nuclear transfer needed for human reproductive cloning to become a reality.
Prop. 71 would also pay researchers to learn how to reliably create and maintain cloned embryos to the "blastocyst" stage when they can be harvested for stem cells. But the blastocyst stage is also when the cloned embryos could be implanted into a woman's womb. Thus, the information gained from spending California's borrowed money could be used by others to arrange for the birth of cloned babies. Indeed, Woo-suk Hwang, the South Korean researcher who created the first, and so far only, cloned blastocysts for use in stem cell research, admitted earlier this year, to the Korea Times, that his cloned embryos could also have been used for reproductive cloning.
* There are few checks and balances in Prop. 71: Funds for Prop. 71, the measure says, "shall be continuously appropriated without regard to fiscal year . . . and not subject to appropriation or transfer by the Legislature or Governor for any other purpose." This means elected officials would have no power to alter or reduce spending on stem cell research undertaken through Prop. 71. Even if the much-feared "Big One" earthquake were to hit San Francisco, knocking the Golden Gate Bridge into the bay, biotechnologists would still be entitled to their $295 million of borrowed money each year!
The absurdity does not end there. Under Prop. 71, the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, which would govern the institute that would make grant-funding decisions, would be exempt from certain aspects of California's Open Meeting laws. And the committee's relative privacy would not be easily disturbed by legislative action. Any change to Prop. 71's spending and oversight scheme could not be made until the third full year after the measure became law, and changes would require a hyper-majority 70 percent vote of both houses of the legislature and the governor's signature. Also, the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee is sure to be packed with representatives of research institutions and disease advocacy groups, who are unlikely to be objective overseers.
There is no doubt that the supporters of Prop. 71 desire to help ill and disabled people live better lives. But passing a corporate pork-barrel constitutional amendment to pay fat-cat companies and rich universities to engage in highly speculative and morally controversial research is not the way to achieve such an end. Not only would Prop. 71 divert money needed to fund basic services and to pay off existing debt, but it would also almost certainly hasten the birth of the first cloned baby. Meanwhile, it would delay research into adult stem cells and those found in umbilical-cord blood--research that, unlike cloning and embryonic approaches, has advanced in animal studies to the point where human trials are beginning.