News
Justin Schleede reaches onto a black lab bench to pick up a tray of small plastic tubes.
"These are saliva...
"If proven to be safe, we believe preventive gene editing could be one of the most important health technologies of...
The leading fertility scientist Lord Winston has hit out at senior scientists, including two Nobel laureates, for making exaggerated claims...
Last year's predictions of the benefits California would derive from approving Proposition 71 and funding stem cell research were overly...
Who will profit from stem cell investment?
Cast your mind back to September 2004. Hollywood actors, Nobel laureates and patient...
III. Genetic Screening and the Future of Personal Autonomy
Every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since the election of Ronald Reagan...
Expectations of huge financial and medical returns on California's $3 billion investment...
Committee does not include state or public interest, says the Center for Genetics and Society
OAKLAND, CA – The Center for Genetics and Society today criticized a report on intellectual property and the California stem cell research program. The report, the Center contends, fails to fulfill promises made by Proposition 71 backers about fiscal returns to the state and health benefits to the public. The report was issued by a special committee of the California Council on Science and Technology that is dominated by private industry and lacks representation of the state or the public interest.
“Californians did not vote for Proposition 71 in order to favor corporate interests at the expense of the state and its taxpayers,” asserted Marcy Darnovsky, the Center’s associate executive director. “Voters were promised during the Proposition 71 campaign that the state would get a share of any profits, and that any successfully developed treatments would benefit all Californians. This report by a stacked committee doesn’t seem to take those promises seriously.”
Intellectual property (IP) agreements will determine who receives profits from any therapies developed using money from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the $3 billion program established by last year’s Proposition 71. An economic study commissioned by Proposition 71’s authors and used to promote the measure estimated at least $537 million in revenue for the state. Also at stake is whether Californians, particularly those with low incomes, will have access to any such therapies at lower prices.
“The committee is stacked with industry figures, but it lacks representation of the public interest or even the state,” said Jesse Reynolds, director of the project on biotechnology accountability at the Center. “The leadership of the CIRM shouldn’t accept this report’s recommendations. At a minimum, it must listen to more diverse voices.”
The CCST committee was formed in response to legislative resolutions last year and this year that urged the Council to advise the state on IP agreements from research using state funds. This year’s resolution (ACR 24) says that the report should be reviewed by public interest and consumer groups.
“These IP agreements are critical. They will determine who benefits from our tax dollars,” added Darnovsky. “Will pharmaceutical corporations receive big profits, as Californians pay twice – once for the research, and again for the profit margin? Or will the taxpayers and voters have reasonable access to the products that they subsidized?”
The Center for Genetics and Society is a public interest group that advocates for the responsible development of human genetic and reproductive technologies. For more information, see www.genetics-and-society.org
Contact:
Marcy Darnovsky
1-510-625-0819 x305
mdarnovsky[AT]geneticsandsociety[DOT]org
Jesse Reynolds
1-510-625-0819 x308
jreynolds[AT]geneticsandsociety[DOT]org