Stem Cell Research in California

Stem cell research is a growing field of research in the scientific community. It gained popularity when James Thomson and John Gearhart were able to extract human stem cells successfully in 1998. Stem cells are also known as pluripotent cells because they can be differentiated into any type of cell. Due to this, stem cells have the potential to replace diseased cells. However, there is a lot of controversy around stem cell research. This is due to the origin of stem cells which come from the embryo. The extraction of stem cells from the embryo raises the question of whether that is ethical of not. In 2004, California voters passed Proposition 71 in support of funding for stem cell research amidst its controversy. Nonetheless, there were many oppositions after its passage. In order to ensure that stem cell research in California continues, there should be more regulations, additional funding, and increased education programs to promote stem cell research in order to gain federal approval for stem cell therapies.

In 2004, California passed Proposition 71 which provided funding for stem cell research. One of the controversies surrounding the passage of this proposition was the regulations of facilities that would be conducting human embryonic stem cell research also known as hESC research. In August 2000, the National Institute of Health and Department of Health and Human Services provided the first guidelines regarding human embryonic stem cell research. This was crucial because it provided the first federal guidelines for stem cell research, and allowed scientists to use existing stem cell lines for research. Scientists; however, argued that stem cells degrade over time thus using existing cell lines would not be beneficial for research and can, in fact, show abnormalities. As a result, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement act was passed by the Senate but was vetoed by President Bush the next day. In California, stem cell research regulations come from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine or CIRM. However, the CIRM attempted to reduce regulatory checks for researchers. Another area of concern is whether state regulations and national regulations will be consistent with one another. In order to improve and reduce the controversy surrounding stem cell research in California, regulatory checks should be implemented more frequently for researchers as well as institutions that conduct stem cell research. California should also ensure that their own regulations will correspond with national regulations by having regulations that will not hinder research but still ensures ethically legal processes. In addition, training in ethics should be provided to people who will be working with stem cells. Conducting the training each year can serve as both a reminder and refresher to how delicate working with stem cells can be, and prevent the misuse of hESC. Educating people involved can help reduce the controversies that surround stem cell research.

One of the reasons as to why stem cell research is so controversial can be due to the lack of education of the topic. Due to many violations of regulations, gene transfers have always been a sensitive topic for the general public. Controversies such as Martin Cline’s gene transfer without approval and Woo Suk Hwang obtaining human eggs illegally have set back stem cell research and posed a concern about its ethics of it. The publications of stories like these have caused the public to question the ethical and moral reasons for stem cell research. Furthermore, embryonic stem cells are a major concern for the public because it must be derived from the embryo after fertilization has occurred. However, there is less concern for using adult stem cells for research. Despite this, California voters still provided funding for stem cell research. However, there have been a lot of setbacks once Proposition 71 passed. To combat this, there should be more education programs in California educating the public on stem cells in order to understand its benefits. Education programs can be offered through schools or even in public places to help people understand why stem cell research is important. Exposure to the benefits of stem cells such as cures for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancers, and diabetes can provide support for stem cell research. Allowing people to see how stem cell research can be help with diseases, and providing educational programs to help teach what stem cell research consists of can garner support for stem cell research to continue in California.

The United States and China are currently the leaders in stem cell research. California, specifically, is the leader in promoting the funding by states for stem cell research. Since Proposition 71, only four other states have promised to provide funding for stem cell research. The lack of funding for other states can be due to controversies surrounding human embryonic stem cell research. When California’s Proposition 71 was passed, it approved 3 billion dollars in funding for stem cell research. However, stem cell research projects were delayed due to litigations that followed the proposition’s passage. It was predicted that the passage would not only provide funding but also increase California’s appeal to recruit other scientists into the state to conduct their research. Although it may be true that scientists will come to California for stem cell research, the general public is not very supportive of it. In order to promote stem cell research in California for the public, providing information of success stories can generate a positive perspective on the subject. In addition, providing information on how stem cell research in California can help or has helped its economy can be beneficial. Promoting stem cell research can be key to its continued funding in California.

Since Proposition 71 passed fifteen years ago, the 3 billion dollars for stem cell research in California has run out. Funding is necessary for stem cell research to advance in California. In order to gain more funding for stem cell research, both California and the National Institute of Health should be more apparent in the research being done. If voters were to approve additional funding for stem cell research, transparency on what research is being done, and how it is benefitting the public is necessary. In the past, the National Institute of Health has not been disclosing much information about gene transfers. This can cause tension with the public because they are being kept in the dark. In addition, private sponsorships may also want to know if their investment is worthwhile, so the transparency of research is, once again, very important. Another way for California to gain funding for stem cell research is to showcase success stories. As the nation’s leader in stem cell research, California has success stories that can be shown to the public. Providing information of successes from stem cell research that the public can relate to can show them that stem cell research is important. However, stem cell therapies have still not been federally approved in the United States regardless of the successes in California.

When President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, California passed Proposition 71 in order to provide additional funding for hESC research. This started a movement in which states decided to come up with their own policies regarding stem cell research since the federal government put restrictions. However, when President Obama allowed for more funding and new guidelines for stem cell research, states were able to advance their research. This allowed California to continue with its research. However, most stem-cell therapies that can help patients are not approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Due to this, many people seek stem cell therapies illegally in other places. In order to combat this, California researchers should provide information on how certain stem cell therapies have helped patients. In addition, California should gain federally approved stem cell therapies in order to help those who need it. In order to do this, California should focus on stem cell products, and manufacture it to get FDA approval. According to Burgin, state-based programs can hinder the advancement of stem cell research and national peer review. As a result, California should work with other states that have to participate in stem cell research in order to come up with ways to gain federal approval for stem cell therapies. Overall, getting FDA approval for stem cell therapies can save lives, and reduce the risks of people getting illegal stem cell therapies.

California remains the nation’s leader in stem cell research. The process of getting there; however, has not been easy. The passage of Proposition 71 in 2004 provided the state with 3 billion dollars for stem cell research funding. It has been 15 years since then, and funding has run out. For California to continue its advancement in stem cell research, additional funding is needed. To do this, there must be more regulations concerning hESC research, more promotion of stem cell research, and, most importantly, what stem cell research is. The last step would be for California to gain federal approval for stem cell therapies. Stem cell research in California has had many promising results, but without additional funding and support, many patients will continue to suffer without stem cell therapies.

Bibliography

1. Bhan, A., Deng, H., Loring, J., Moreno, J., Yin, M., Zhai, X., & Lavery, J. (2008). Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Structuring Oversight in International Collaborations. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 15(1), 145-153. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.csulb.idm.oclc.org/stable/24590956.
2. Burgin, E. (2010). Human embryonic stem cell research and Proposition 71: Reflections on California's response to federal policy. Politics and the Life Sciences, 29(2), 73-95. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.csulb.idm.oclc.org/stable/41417932.
3. Kimmelman, J., Baylis, F., & Glass, K. (2006). Stem Cell Trials: Lessons from Gene Transfer Research. The Hastings Center Report, 36(1), 23-26. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.csulb.idm.oclc.org/stable/3528592.
4. Levine, A. (2008). Policy Considerations for States Supporting Stem Cell Research. Evidence from a Survey of Stem Cell Scientists. Public Administration Review, 68(4), 681-694. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.csulb.idm.oclc.org/stable/25145651.
5. Magnus, D. (2006). Stem Cell Research: The California Experience. The Hastings Center Report, 36(1), 26-28. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.csulb.idm.oclc.org/stable/3528593.