The organizations created to fund stem cell research in California announced
their first grants last week, despite the fact that the money is held up in
lawsuits. But are they rushing to further science or escape politics?
Last fall, voters approved a stem cell initiative, Proposition 71, by a
59-41 percent margin. Ten months later, the $3 billion in bonds voters
approved are tied up in lawsuits by Republican and anti-abortion groups who
oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Yet, in the long-run, the organizations created by Prop. 71--the Independent
Citizen_s Oversight Committee and the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine--may have more to worry about from their original allies. A
coalition of Democratic skeptics has put forth a message more likely to gain
traction: You can support stem cell research and still oppose the results of
Prop. 71.

"The debate was framed as being a referendum on stem cell research and
whether you support President Bush," said Jesse Reynolds of the Center for
Genetics and Society. "California voters didn_t approve this as a corporate
subsidy."

Reynolds_ message has gotten support in the Legislature. After pulling back
from a proposed constitutional amendment to place regulatory restrictions on
the fledgling stem cell agency, Sen. Deborah Ortiz D-Sacramento, joined with
Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley, a stem cell research opponent, to
push through SB 18. The bill calls for a state audit of stem cell grant
funds. It also demands doctor_s to gain consent from women before their eggs
can be used to generate embryonic stem cells.

Despite other failed efforts to place restrictions on the new institute,
most of which were blocked by Democratic leadership in the Senate, SB 18
sailed through the Senate 28-0 and Assembly 72-2.

Ortiz spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said that part of the goal is to make sure
that the state gains some benefit from the money it spends, either in the
form of financial payoff or low-cost treatments for citizens.

"Californians shouldn_t have to pay for this twice," Jordan said. "We_ve had
a generous investment in this research. We should be able to see some return
on that investment."

Despite the lawsuits and the Legislature_s actions, the ICOC announced its
first grants last Friday. Grants worth $12.5 million will go to 169
researchers, mainly at major research universities within California.

"We can stand waiting, or we can get in the starter blocks and let people
know we_re ready," said Dr. Zach Hall, speaking at a press conference with
ICOC Chairman Robert Klein on Friday. On Saturday, Hall was named president
of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the ICOC_s partner
organization.

Klein was the principal driver of Prop. 71, donating $2 million of his own
money to the campaign. He_s often crossed swords with Ortiz, but has
maintained support from Senate Democrats who have been reluctant to
challenge the new agency.

Prop. 71 could hardly have fallen into a friendlier environment than
California in late 2004. President Bush was still considered a pariah by
many for his 2001 edict that researchers must stick to "existing stem cell
lines." This decision had hamstrung stem cell research in the country and
given other countries a major advantage.

Two high profile deaths last year--former President Ronald Reagan of
Alzheimer_s in June and actor Christopher Reeve in October of complications
from paralysis--further fueled the fire. Reagan_s struggles had turned former
first lady Nancy Reagan into an advocate for stem cell research,
complicating efforts to portray opposition as the default conservative
position. Previously best known for playing Superman in movies, Reeves_
hulking-but-helpless image had become a virtual symbol for stem cell
research.

Reynolds said that opponents were outspent $35 million to $200,000 during
the election, making it difficult to communicate the complex arguments
against Prop. 71.

For instance, he said, one of the most important issues is whether projects
are funded with tax-exempt bonds. Funding projects with bonds that are
exempt from federal taxes could save the state millions of dollars in the
short term. But federal law, known as Bayh-Dole, bars states from gaining a
return on investment on project funded this way. The best system, Reynolds
said, would be to fund basic research with tax-exempt bonds and later
research with taxable bonds, which would allow the state to still hold a
stake in the resulting intellectual property.

CIRM and the ICOC have remained officially neutral about legislation and
intellectual property issues, according to CIRM spokeswoman Nicole Pagano.
She said the ICOC_s Intellectual Property Task Force is scheduled to have
its first official meeting next week.

Organizations that support CIRM and the ICOC, such as the Alliance for Stem
Cell Research and the California Council on Science and Technology, have
identified the Bayh-Dole model as something California should emulate. This
1980 law codified how the federal government deals with intellectual
property issues.

Bayh-Dole is exactly the model his group is trying to avoid, Reynolds
countered. He said the law has essentially become a codified system for
giving away taxpayer money with little or no return.

Susan DeLaurentis, CEO of the Alliance for Stem Cell Research, a group
founded by Klein but not officially connected to ICOC, said opponents are
defying voters who have clearly spoken in favor of stem cell research. She
said the she_s worried that opposition from Democrats over the intellectual
property issue will slow crucial developments.

"The intellectual property problem isn_t going to be an issue for 10 to 14
years," she said, referring to estimates for when stem cell treatments might
be commercially available. "There is time to figure this out."

Malcolm Maclachlan is a Capitol Weekly staff reporter.