News

Cathy Tie slips on a white lab coat bearing her name and the logo of her startup: Origin Genomics. "Welcome!" she says as she leads an NPR reporter, photographer and videographer on an exclusive tour of Origin's labs located...

This is the 17th installment in the Legacies of Eugenics series, which features essays by leading thinkers devoted to exploring the history of eugenics and the ways it shapes our present. The series is organized by Osagie K. Obasogie in...

THE INSTAGRAM POST, precision-guided by sex and age, had zeroed in on its target. Yuchen Tu is a conser­vatory-trained viola...

This is the 16th installment in the Legacies of Eugenics series, which features essays by leading thinkers devoted to exploring...

By New York Times, New York Times | 08.28.2005

III. Genetic Screening and the Future of Personal Autonomy

Every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since the election of Ronald Reagan...

By Terri Somers, San Diego Union-Tribune | 08.25.2005
State's biggest benefit may be 20 years away

Expectations of huge financial and medical returns on California's $3 billion investment...
Press Statement

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


 

By Joel B. Finkelstein, American Medical News | 08.22.2005
Washington --The fate of federal legislation that ultimately would expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines qualifying for federally...
By Anjana Ahuja, The Times [UK] | 08.22.2005
HAVE YOU EVER gazed in pity at a couple with three sons? Do you shoot sympathetic glances at families with...
By YouGov, YouGov | 08.19.2005

Assuming the cloning of babies was proved safe for both the baby and the woman carrying it, which of the...

By The Guardian, The Guardian | 08.16.2005

The option for parents to select the sex of their next baby to balance their family is raised in a...

By Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Sun | 08.15.2005

B.C. Health Minister George Abbott says he plans to contact his federal counterpart, Ujjal Dosanjh, this week to express his...