Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T14:32:59.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human embryonic stem cell research and Proposition 71: Reflections on California's response to federal policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Eileen Burgin
Eileen Burgin*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science University of Vermont The Old Mill Burlington, VT 05405 Eileen.Burgin@uvm.edu
Get access

Abstract

In response to former President George W. Bush's funding limitations on human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, California voters in 2004 passed Proposition 71, the most expansive state-funded medical research initiative in United States history. This study examines California's experiment in the life sciences, a particularly fitting analysis now as President Barack Obama has freed up additional federal funding for hESC research. In addition to exploring the general pitfalls of states, rather than the federal government, serving as principal players on hESC science and the perceived flaws in California's program, the analysis considers the strengths of state activism and of California's enterprise. On balance, given the Bush administration's policy on hESC research, the U.S. benefitted from state innovation. Moreover, even with the new federal regulatory policy on hESC research, California should be able to mesh its program with the federal initiative and remain a prime mover in this arena. The essay draws on informal interviews with key actors in California and on Capitol Hill in 2008 and 2009.

Keywords

Stem cell researchCaliforniafederalismProposition 71ballot initiativesCalifornia Institute for Regenerative Medicinebiomedical research
Type
Perspective
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 2010 , pp. 73 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Kennedy, Donald, “Back to the people,” Science 2006, 313: 733.Google Scholar
2.Brag, Alberta M., “Entrepreneurial cities, U.S. federalism, and economic development,” in O'Toole, Laurence J. Jr., ed., American Intergovernmental Relations, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000), pp. 217–228.Google Scholar
3.Mathews, Joe, “What Obama's support for stem cell research means for California,” Scientific American May 20, 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stem-cell-research-in-california&offset=2, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
4.Simpson, John, “State stem cell program to prosper,” Sacramento Bee March 12, 2009, p. A17.Google Scholar
5.Johnson, Judith A. and Williams, Erin D., “Stem cell research: State initiatives,” CRS Report, RL33524, May 19, 2006, www.cq.com/pdf/crsreports-3592633 (subscription to CRS Service through CQ required for access to online version).Google Scholar
6.Paarlberg, Robert, “The great stem cell race,” Foreign Policy May/June 2005, 148: 44–51.Google Scholar
7.Stabile, Bonnie, “What's the matter with Kansas? Legislative debates over stem cell research in Kansas and Massachusetts,” Politics and the Life Sciences, March 2009, 28(1): 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Nicholson-Crotty, Sean and Meier, Kenneth J., “Size doesn't matter: In defense of single-state studies,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2002, 2(4): 411–422.Google Scholar
9.Hall, Zach W., “Stem cell research in California: The intersection of science, politics, culture, and law,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 2008, E1–E18.Google Scholar
10.Noll, Roger G., “Designing an effective program of state-sponsored human embryonic stem cell research,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Summer 2006, 1143: 1–22.Google Scholar
11.Stabile, .Google Scholar
12.Mintrom, Michael, “Competitive federalism and the governance of controversial science,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 2009, 39(4): 606–631.Google Scholar
13.Mooney, Christopher Z., “The decline of federalism and the rise of morality-policy conflict in the United States,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 2000, 30(1–2): 171–188.Google Scholar
14.Salz, Martin and Clarke, Susan E., “Economic development and infrastructure policy,” in Gray, Virginia and Hanson, Russell L., eds., Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 9th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008), pp. 415–443.Google Scholar
15.Eshbaugh-Soha, Matthew and Meier, Kenneth J., “Economic and social regulation,” in Gray, Virginia and Hanson, Russell L., eds., Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 9th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008), pp. 381–414.Google Scholar
16.Rabe, Barry, “Environmental policy and the Bush era: The collision between the administrative presidency and state experimentation,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 2007, 37(3): 413–431.Google Scholar
17.Mintrom, .Google Scholar
18.Burgin, Eileen, “Deciding on human embryonic stem cell research: Evidence from Congress's first showdown with President George W. Bush,” Politics and the Life Sciences 2009, 28(1): 12–25.Google Scholar
19.Gottweiss, Herbert, “Stem cell policies in the United States and Germany: Between bioethics and regulation,” Policy Studies Journal 2002, 30(4): 444–469.Google Scholar
20.McClain, Colleen, “Debating restrictions on embryonic stem cell research: An experimental study of online deliberation and political emotion,” Politics and the Life Sciences 2009, 28(2): 48–68.Google Scholar
21.Sheingate, Adam D., “Promotion versus precaution: The evolution of biotechnology policy in the United States,” British Journal of Political Science 2006, 36: 243–268.Google Scholar
22.Burgin, Eileen, “Dollars, disease, and democracy: Has the Director's Council of Public Representatives improved the National Institutes of Health?” Politics and the Life Sciences 2006, 24(1–2): 43–63.Google Scholar
23.Woodhouse, Edward and Sarewitz, Daniel, “Science policies for reducing societal inequalities,” Science and Public Policy 2007, 34(3): 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Burgin, , 2009.Google Scholar
25.Mooney, Christopher Z. and Schuldt, Richard G., “Does morality policy exist? Testing a basic assumption,” Policy Studies Journal 2008, 36(2): 199–218.Google Scholar
26.Baker, Monya, “Stem cells: Fast and furious,” Nature April 2009, 458: 962–965.Google Scholar
27.National Institutes of Health, Stem cell FAQ, 2009, http://nih.gov, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
28.Johnson, Judith A. and Williams, Erin D., “Stem cell research: Federal research funding and oversight,” CRS Report, RL33540, August 20, 2009, www.cq.com/pdf/crsreports-3617472Google Scholar
29.Johnson, Judith A. and Williams, Erin D., “Stem cell research: Ethical issues,” CRS Report, RL33554, June 27, 2008, www.cq.com/pdf/crsreports-3609730Google Scholar
30.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry, http://grants.nih.gov/stem_cells/registry/summary_data.htm, accessed April 18, 2011.Google Scholar
31.Civin, Curt I. and Albert Reece, E., “Maryland poised to lead after ban on federal funding for embryonic research lifted, but that's just a start,” Baltimore Sun February 20, 2009, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-02-20/news/0902190074_1_embryonic-stem-cells-cell-research-adult-stem, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
32.Sbragia, , p. 227.Google Scholar
33.White House Press Release, White House Fact Sheet: Embryonic Stem Cell Research, August 9, 2001, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
34.Johnson, and Williams, , 2009.Google Scholar
35.American Association for the Advancement of Science, “AAAS policy brief: Stem cell research,” 2010, http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stemcells/#decision, accessed April 22,2011.Google Scholar
36.Burgin, , 2009.Google Scholar
37.Ibid.Google Scholar
38.Hudson, Kathy L., Scott, Joan, and Faden, Ruth, Values in Conflict: Public Attitudes on Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Washington, DC: Genetics and Public Policy Center, 2005).Google Scholar
39.Williams, Erin D. and Johnson, Judith A., “Stem cell research: Ethical issues,” CRS Report, RL33540, April 28, 2010, www.cq.com/pdf/crsreports-3657331Google Scholar
40.American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
41.Stein, Rob and Hsu, Spencer S., “Stem cell funding gets reprieve,” The Washington Post September 9, 2010, p. A6.Google Scholar
42.Stein, Rob, “U.S. set to fund more stem cell study,” The Washington Post December 3, 2009, p. A3.Google Scholar
43.United States, 74 Federal Register, National Institutes of Health Guidelines on Human Stem Cell Research, July 7, 2009, http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009guidelines.htm, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
44.“President Obama's remarks: Lifting the federal funding ban on embryonic stem cell research,” March 9, 2009, http://usliberals.about.com/od/stemcellresearch/a/ObamaEmbyBan.htm, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
45.Liu, Edward C., “Legal issues related to human embryonic stem cell research,” CRS Report, RS21044, July 7, 2009, www.cq.com/pdf/crsreports-3613967Google Scholar
46.Johnson, and Williams, , 2009.Google Scholar
47.Stein, and Hsu, .Google Scholar
48.Freier, Maria, “Statement of National Institutes of Health before Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies,” The National Institutes of Health, August 1, 2001, http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/statements/080101freire.asp, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
49.Gallini, Nancy, “The economics of patents: Lessons from recent U.S. patent reform,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 2002, 16(2): 131–154.Google Scholar
50.Freier, .Google Scholar
51.Miller, Aaron, “Repairing the Bayh-Dole Act: A proposal for restoring non-profit access to university science,” Boston College Intellectual Property & Technology Forum September 30, 2005, http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/2005093001.html, accessed April 22,2011.Google Scholar
52.Gallini, .Google Scholar
53.Watchdog, Consumer, “Consumer group wants public to share profits from federally funded stem cell research,” RedOrbit March 9, 2009, http://www.redorbit.com/new/health/1651482/consumer_group_wants_public_to_share_profits_from_federally_funded/index.html, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
54.Liu, .Google Scholar
55.Gray, Virginia, “The socioeconomic and political context of states,” in Gray, Virginia and Hanson, Russell L., eds., Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 9th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008), pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
56.National Conference of State Legislatures, “Stem cell research,” January 2008, http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/EmbryonicandFetalResearchLaws/tabid/14413/Default.aspx, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
57.Gray, .Google Scholar
58.Mintrom, .Google Scholar
59.National Conference of State Legislatures.Google Scholar
60.Mintrom, .Google Scholar
61.Gray, .Google Scholar
62.National Conference of State Legislatures.Google Scholar
63.Ibid.Google Scholar
64.California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Text of Proposed Laws: Proposition 71, 2009, cirm.ca.gov/pdf/prop71.pdf, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
65.Salz, and Clarke, .Google Scholar
66.Bucy, Erik P. and Ensley, Michael J., “Issue benefactors or issue victims? Ballot initiative influence on the vote for California governor, 1982–1998,” California Journal of Politics & Policy 2009, 1(2): 1–31.Google Scholar
67.Hall, .Google Scholar
68.Little Hoover Commission, State of California, “Stem cell research: Strengthening governance to further the voters' mandate,” Little Hoover Commission Report, June 25, 2009.Google Scholar
69.California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, 2009.Google Scholar
70.Little Hoover Commission.Google Scholar
71.California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, 2009.Google Scholar
72.Ibid.Google Scholar
73.Ibid.Google Scholar
74.Billingsley, Melvin L. and Washko, Michele M., “The new federalism in life sciences policy: What states and the federal government should do to ensure progress in the life sciences,” The Scientist 2006, 20(11): 22–23.Google Scholar
75.Noll, .Google Scholar
76.Finkelstein, Joel B., “Researchers hope state stem cell efforts last,” JNCI November 2007, 99(22): 1666–1667.Google Scholar
77.Lomax, Geoff, Interview by the author, Berkeley, CA, May 21, 2008.Google Scholar
78.Hurlbut, William B., “Science, religion, and the politics of stem cells,” Social Research 2006, 73(3): 819–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79.Noll, .Google Scholar
80.Holden, Constance, “CIRM close-hauled, seeks bond to sustain headway,” Science March 27, 2009, 323: 160–161.Google Scholar
81.Holden, Constance, “Most state stem cell efforts staying afloat,” Science March 27, 2009, 323: 160–161.Google Scholar
82.National Conference of State Legislatures.Google Scholar
83.California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits, “Recommendations not fully implemented after one year,” California State Audit Report 2009–041, January 2010.Google Scholar
84.Wolinsky, Howard, “A decade of stem-cell research,” European Molecular Biology Organism 2009, 10(1): 12–16.Google Scholar
85.Mooney, , p. 171.Google Scholar
86.Noll, .Google Scholar
87.Cook, Gareth, “U.S. stem cell research lagging,” Boston Globe May 23, 2004, http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2004/05/23/us_stem_cell_research_lagging/, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
88.Paarlberg, .Google Scholar
89.Wolinsky, .Google Scholar
90.McDonald, Jessica, “Connecticut's continuing role in advancing stem cell research,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 2009, 82: 97–99.Google Scholar
91.Paarlberg, .Google Scholar
92.Fossett, James W., Ouellette, Alicia R., Philpott, Sean, Magnus, David, and McGee, Glenn, “States and moral pluralism (federalism and bioethics),” The Hastings Center Report 2007, 37(6): 24.Google Scholar
93.Paarlberg, .Google Scholar
94.Ibid.Google Scholar
95.Wolinsky, .Google Scholar
96.Dizikes, Peter, “Stem cell division,” Salon.com May 11, 2009, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/11/stem_cell_politics/index.html, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
97.Hall, .Google Scholar
98.Paarlberg, .Google Scholar
99.Seneca, Joseph and Irving, Will, “Updated economic benefits of the New Jersey Stem Cell Capital Projects and Research Bond Acts,” Rutgers Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, October 2007.Google Scholar
100.Wadman, Meredith, “U.S. stem-cell chaos felt abroad,” NatureNews September 7, 2010, pp. 138–139.Google Scholar
101.The Economist staff, “The people's will,” The Economist, April 23, 2011, p. 8.Google Scholar
102.Bowler, Shaun and Donovan, Todd, “The initiative process,” in Gray, Virginia and Hanson, Russell L., eds., Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 9th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008), pp. 127–153.Google Scholar
103.Ortiz, Deborah, Interview by the author with former State Senator, Sacramento, May 19, 2008.Google Scholar
104.Pulmano, Roz, Interview by the author, Sacramento, CA, May 20, 2008.Google Scholar
105.Kaskla, Edgar, California Politics: The Fault Lines of Power, Wealth, and Diversity (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008).Google Scholar
106.Sarewitz, Daniel, “Stepping out of line in stem cell research,” Los Angeles Times October 24, 2004, http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/25/opinion/oe-sarewitz25, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
107.Noll, .Google Scholar
108.Woodhouse, and Sarewitz, .Google Scholar
109.Runner, George, Phone interview by the author, June 2, 2008.Google Scholar
110.Woodhouse, and Sarewitz, .Google Scholar
111.Lomax, .Google Scholar
112.Little Hoover Commission, p. i.Google Scholar
113.Little Hoover Commission.Google Scholar
114.Mathews, .Google Scholar
115.Sarewitz, .Google Scholar
116.Pulmano, .Google Scholar
117.Ortiz, .Google Scholar
118.Runner, .Google Scholar
119.Worth, Katie, “Stem cell agency chief sticking around,” The San Francisco Examiner December 4, 2010, http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2010/12/stem-cell-agency-chief-sticking-around, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
120.California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits, “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine: It has a strategic plan, but it needs to finish developing grant-related policies and continue strengthening management controls to ensure policy compliance and cost containment,” California State Audit Report 2006–108, Sacramento, CA, February 2007.Google Scholar
121.Noll, .Google Scholar
122.California State Auditor, 2007.Google Scholar
123.Runner, .Google Scholar
124.California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, “Briefing report for September 17–18 meeting of CIRM medical and ethical standards: Group of the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine,” San Francisco, CA September 1, 2009, http://www.cirm.ca.gov/ Agenda 9-17-09, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
125.California State Auditor, 2007.Google Scholar
126.California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, 2009.Google Scholar
127.Ibid.Google Scholar
128.Little Hoover Commission, p. 44.Google Scholar
129.Noll, .Google Scholar
130.Little Hoover Commission.Google Scholar
131.Ibid, , p. 9.Google Scholar
132.Little Hoover Commission, pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
133.Worth, .Google Scholar
134.Ibid.Google Scholar
135.Holden, , “CIRM close-hauled.”Google Scholar
136.Ibid.Google Scholar
137.Burgin, , 2006.Google Scholar
138.Woodhouse, and Sarewitz, .Google Scholar
139.Burgin, , 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
140.Ortiz, .Google Scholar
141.Ibid.Google Scholar
142.Popkin, Samuel L., The Reasoning Voter (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994).Google Scholar
143.Forgione, Mary, “First patient receives treatment in Geron Corp.'s embryonic stem-cell clinical trial,” Los Angeles Times October 11, 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/11/news/la-heb-geron-stem-cell-20101011, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
144.California State Auditor, 2010.Google Scholar
145.Burgin, , 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
146.Little Hoover Commission.Google Scholar
147.Ibid.Google Scholar
148.Little Hoover Commission, p. ii.Google Scholar
149.Little Hoover Commission, pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
150.Burgin, , 2006.Google Scholar
151.Ibid.Google Scholar
152.Lomax, .Google Scholar
153.Runner, .Google Scholar
154.Broder, David, Democracy Derailed: The Initiative Movement and the Power of Money (New York: Harcourt Press, 2000).Google Scholar
155.California State Auditor, 2010.Google Scholar
156.Consumer Watchdog.Google Scholar
157.California State Auditor, 2010.Google Scholar
158.Simpson, John, “IP key as state cell agencies meet,” Consumer Watchdog Blog September 9, 2008, http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/blog/ip-key-state-cell-agencies-meet, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
159.Mintrom, , p. 617.Google Scholar
160.Lowe, Nicholas J., “Job creation and the knowledge economy: Lessons from North Carolina's life science manufacturing initiative,” Economic Development Quarterly 2007, 21(4): 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
161.Smilor, Raymond, O'Donnell, Niall, Stein, Gregory, and Welborn, Robert S. III, “The research university and the development of high-technology centers in the United States,” Economic Development Quarterly, 2007, 21(3): 203–222.Google Scholar
162.Adams, Amy, “Stanford experts outline possible criteria for assessing economic benefits of state stem cell funding,” Stanford School of Medicine Press Release May 14, 2007, http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2007/may/stem-funds.html, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
163.California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, “CIRM creates a unique environment for stem cell research in California,” 2010, http://www.cirm.ca.gov/StemCellBasics_California, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
164.Little Hoover Commission.Google Scholar
165.Ibid.Google Scholar
166.Finkelstein, .Google Scholar
167.Little Hoover Commission.Google Scholar
168.Paarlberg, , p. 50.Google Scholar
169.Dizikes, .Google Scholar
170.California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, 2010.Google Scholar
171.Dolan, Jack, “State's stem cell agency seeks more time, money,” Los Angeles Times November 22, 2010, A1.Google Scholar
172.American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
173.Little Hoover Commission, p. 4.Google Scholar
174.Lomax, .Google Scholar
175.Holden, , “CIRM close-hauled.”Google Scholar
176.National Institutes of Health, “The NIH Common Fund and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act,” 2010, http://commonfund.nih.gov/arra/fundedresearch.asp, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
177.Kaiser, Jocelyn, “CIRM awards seek to move cell therapies to the clinic,” Science November 6, 2009, 326:780–781.Google Scholar
178.Krieger, Lisa M., “California would remain on cutting edge under new U.S. stem cell policy,” San Jose Mercury News April 22, 2009, http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=4645, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
179.California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, “NIH human embryonic stem cell guidelines responsive to comments from the research community,” July 6, 2009, http://www.cirm.ca.gov/node/2299, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
180.Ibid.Google Scholar
181.California State Auditor, 2010, p. 30.Google Scholar
182.Krieger, .Google Scholar
183.Holden, , “Most state stem cell efforts.”Google Scholar
184.Dizikes, .Google Scholar
185.Winerman, Lea, “States move to restrict stem cell research after Obama lifts federal restriction,” PBS Online NewsHour, April 3, 2009, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/jan-june09/stemcells_04-03.html, accessed May 15, 2011.Google Scholar
186.Altucker, Ken, “Stem-cell move has little impact on state,” The Arizona Republic March 10, 2009, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/03/10/20090310biz-stemcells0310.html, accessed April 23, 2011.Google Scholar
187.Weinstein, Bernard L. and Clower, Terry L., “The economic development potential of stem cell research in Texas,” Prepared for the Alliance for Medical Research, March 2007, http://tamr-ed.org, accessed April 22, 2011.Google Scholar
188.Dizikes, .Google Scholar
189.Ibid.Google Scholar
190.Ibid.Google Scholar
191.Paarlberg, .Google Scholar
192.Fossett, , Ouellette, , Philpott, , Magnus, , and McGee, .Google Scholar