Charles Halpern Letter to ICOC
By Charles Halpern
| 01. 03. 2005
Dear Members of the ICOC:
I reviewed the agenda for the January 6 meeting with concern and surprise. I find that the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act is still not being complied with and that the Committee is being invited to rush into the core of its work without having laid an appropriate foundation.
I write to encourage you to take charge of the mission of the Institute and to begin to function as a deliberative body, allowing due time for serious consideration of complex issues, with public involvement in the manner prescribed by California law.
I suggest that the ICOC take the following steps:
1. Clarify the scope of the program.
Though there is an unfortunate ambiguity in the intertwined provisions of Prop. 71, it is clear that the Institute for Regenerative Medicine is not limited to supporting embryonic stem cell research. It is authorized to support a broad range of medical research intended to cure or mitigate disease. How will the ICOC define the mandate? Will the construction grants that are likely to loom large in the first year's...
Related Articles
By Katherine Long, Ben Foldy, and Lingling Wei, The Wall Street Journal | 12.13.2025
Inside a closed Los Angeles courtroom, something wasn’t right.
Clerks working for family court Judge Amy Pellman were reviewing routine surrogacy petitions when they spotted an unusual pattern: the same name, again and again.
A Chinese billionaire was seeking parental...
By David Jensen, The California Stem Cell Report | 12.11.2025
California’s stem cell and gene therapy agency today approved spending $207 million more on training and education, sidestepping the possibility of using the cash to directly support revolutionary research that has been slashed and endangered by the Trump administration.
Directors...
By Sarah Kliff, The New York Times | 12.10.2025
Micah Nerio had known since his early 30s that he wanted to be a father, even if he did not have a partner. He spent a decade saving up to pursue surrogacy, an expensive process where he would create embryos...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...
