Policy

U.S. Laws
Table: State Cloning Laws (pdf file)
International Legislation on Cloning and Germline Intervention (pdf file)
Table: International Legislation on Cloning and Germline Intervention (pdf file)
U.S. Proposed Laws
International Legal Situation
United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning
Germany's Stem Cell Act (2002) (pdf file)
Germany's Embryo Protection Act (pdf file)
California Proposition 71

Proposition 71: The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act

The Background

In August 2001, President Bush announced that he would allow federal funding for a limited amount of research on embryonic stem cells. Previously, Congress has included riders in appropriation measures for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education that prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. President Bush responded to public and political debate over embryonic stem cell research funding by announcing that, for the first time, federal funds would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells. The Administration's policy allowed funding for research on more than 60 stem cell "lines" created from embryos that were destroyed in the process, but did not sanction the creation of new lines from existing or future embryos. In response, many policymakers, legislators, and states' rights groups spearheaded initiatives to undercut the restrictions by providing state funding for stem cell research. The most visible of these initiatives is Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act (the Act). Proposition 71 authorizes the State of California to sell a total of $3 billion in general obligation bonds to fund stem cell research, with a limit of $350 million per year.¹

Those in favor of the Act claim that stem cell research has enormous potential to prevent or cure a myriad of diseases. In addition, there have been claims that the potential cures promised by stem cell research would substantially reduce health care costs in California and across the nation. Some of the groups that openly supported the ballot initiative were the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the American Diabetes Foundation, the American Lung Association of California, the American Nurses Association of California, and the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research. Groups that opposed the Act found problems with the ethical component of stem cell and therapeutic cloning research, the laissez-fare regulatory scheme the Act proposed, the lavish funding of the Act, and the apparent conflict of interest between the state funding agency created by the Act and the biotechnology industry.

The Result

The initiative to publicly fund stem cell research was passed by a margin of 59% to 41%. The results of the general election in November of 2004 for the passage of Proposition 71 have been both criticized and hailed as the product of the biotechnology industry's investment into media and campaign organization. The financiers of the Proposition 71 Ballot Initiative spoke across party lines to get the initiative passed.

By calling up information from CalAccess, the California Secretary of State's website, it is easily documented that proponents of Proposition 71 contributed a total of $34.9 million, a number that dwarves the opposition's $624,000. The huge disparity in campaign financing can be seen in detail here. (Click for breakdown of ballot initiative contributions.)

The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act established the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine ("CIRM"), a new state agency to make grants and provide loans for stem cell research, research facilities, and other research opportunities. The CIRM is governed by a 29-member panel called the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee ("ICOC"), which has members from academia, research institutions, patient advocacy groups, and the biotechnology industry.

Current Status

Two lawsuits, People's Advocate, et al. v. Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, et al., and California Family Bioethics Council, LLC v. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, have challenged the constitutionality of CIRM, and have raised oversight and conflict of interest issues. In April 2006, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Lewman Sabraw found that the lawsuits failed to show that the law creating the agency was unconstitutional.

In addition to the state court litigation, there was a challenge to Proposition 71 in federal court on the grounds that human embryos should be defined as persons under the U.S. Constitution.² The federal action was dismissed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for lack of venue.

The California litigation has delayed the implementation of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act. The Attorney General of California stated in May of 2005 that the bonds to be offered by the State of California to fund stem cell research through CIRM could not be sold until the lawsuits questioning the legality of the Act have been resolved. However, CIRM made its first grants in April 2006 with funding from philanthropic organization loans.

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

Official website of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state agency that makes grants and provides loans for stem cell research, research facilities, and other research opportunities:
http://www.cirm.ca.gov

Proposition 71 Full Text and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst, prepared by the Attorney General of California (including arguments for and against Proposition 71):
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_71_entire.pdf

Introduction of Senate Constitutional Amendment 13 (Ortiz/Runner Analysis) as of March 17, 2005:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_13_bill_20050317_introduced.html

Senate Constitutional Amendment 13 (Ortiz/Runner Analysis) as of May 20, 2005:
http://www.cirm.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/2005/05/23/052305_item_8b.pdf

Senate Committee on Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_13_cfa_20050517_144500_sen_comm.html

ICOC Meeting Transcription on Senate Constitutional Amendment 13 (see Agenda Item #8):
http://www.cirm.ca.gov/minutes/pdf/2005/05-23-05%20.pdf

Senate Health Committee Analysis of Proposition 71:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_18_cfa_20050418_152332_sen_comm.html

Report on Stem Cell Research by the National Institutes of Health:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/

Petition of Philip R. Lee, M.D., and Charles Halpern, J.D., to the Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine:
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/policies/california/leehalpern20050216icoc.html
(See also the Appendix: Proposed Regulation #1 - Standards of Ethical Conduct, Lee-Halpern Memorandum in support, the Lee-Halpern press release, and the Center on Genetics and Society's Feb. 16 press release and Feb. 28 press release.)

ICOC-Approved Set of Regulations for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine Regulations for Ethical, Medical and Scientific Accountability:
http://www.cirm.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/2006/02/021006_item_9.pdf

THOSE CRITICAL OF PROPOSTION 71

Pro-Choice Alliance Against Proposition 71:
http://www.allianceagainstprop71.org/

List of California Newspapers in Opposition to Proposition 71:
http://www.allianceagainstprop71.org/newspapers.html

Editorial: Stem Cell Research Ethics L.A. Times, May 9, 2005:
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/newsdisp.asp?id=769

Senate Panel OKs Changes to State's Stem Cell Program, Politicians Say They're Closing Prop. 71 Loopholes
San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2005
By Carl T. Hall:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/27/BAGQQCVIP91.DTL

Economics of Prop. 71 - Comment on Baker and Deal's Analysis of Proposition 71
by Dr. Stephen Shmanske:
http://www.allianceagainstprop71.org/articles.htm#StephenShmanske

The Impatient Proponents: What's Wrong with the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act?
By Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future Fellow Debra Greenfield
Prepared for the Hastings Center Report:
http://www.allianceagainstprop71.org/articles.htm#DebraGreenfield

Open Letter from Suzanne Parisian,
Former Chief Medical Officer for the FDA:
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/200502_letter_parisian.html

Assessment of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act
Center for Genetics and Society:
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/policies/california/assessment.html

League of Women Voters of California
In-depth Non-Partisan Analysis of Proposition 71:
http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2004nov/id/prop71.html

Strong Opposition to Proposition 71 by God and Science.org:
http://noon71.godandscience.org/
http://www.godandscience.org/

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO Makes No Recommendation on Proposition 71:
http://www.calaborfed.org/pdfs/Political/NewUnionVoterGuide.pdf

A Commentary by IBHF Affiliated Scholars Diane Beeson and M.L. Tina Stevens:
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=01-31-06&storyID;=23330

YES ON 71: PRO-71 INITIATIVES & GROUPS

Yes on 71:
http://www.yeson71.com/

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Endorses Proposition 71
Press Release
September 9, 2004:
http://www.yeson71.com/news_rel_0909.php

175 Elected Officials Statewide Endorse Prop. 71
Press Release
October 10, 2004:
http://www.yeson71.com/news_rel_1010.php

California NAACP Endorses Proposition 71
Press Release
October 4, 2004:
http://www.yeson71.com/news_rel_1004B.php

Voter Guide to Vote YES on Prop 71 by www.yeson71.com:
http://www.yeson71.com/documents/Prop_71_Voter_Guide.pdf

Politics of the Embryo
By Lois Uttley
July 19, 2005:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b;=895399

List of Womens' Groups for Proposition 71:
http://www.yeson71.com/news_rel_0827.php

California National Organization for Women Statement on Proposition 71:
http://canow.org/news/press/stemcelllte.pdf

GOVERNOR ENDORSES PROPOSITION 71

Schwarzenegger Endorses Measure to Fund Stem Cell Research
California Health Online
October 19, 2004:
http://www.californiahealthline.org/index.cfm?Action=dspItem&itemID;=106438&ClassCD;=CL526

California Governor Endorses $3 Billion Embryonic Stem Cell Research Ballot
Medical News Today
October 19, 2004:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=15202

NVCA Letter to Schwarzenneger for Endorsement
October 6, 2004:
http://www.nvca.org/pdf/stemcell.pdf

ASSESSMENTS OF THE STEM CELL RESEARCH PROGRAM

The Center on Genetics and Society has created a report on the California Stem Cell Research Program at one year:
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/policies/california/200601report.pdf

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights has released a report calling for state-controlled benefits for the therapies produced by stem-cell research:
http://www.mercedsearch.com/news/745.html

COURT DOCUMENTS

Alameda County Superior Court; DomainWeb: Access to Civil Cases:
http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fortecgi/fortecgi.exe?ServiceName=DomainWebService&TemplateName;=index.html
(First, the case number must be entered. All documents relating to litigation may then be viewed, including all pleadings, orders, and decisions.)
-People's Advocate, et al. v. Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, et al.
Case Number: HG05206766
-California Family Bioethics Council, LLC v. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Case Number: HG05235177
Amicus Brief Written in Support of CIRM:
http://www.cirm.ca.gov/pressreleases/pdf/2005/Prop71_amicus_brief_v2.pdf

Attorney General of California's Brief Written in Support of CIRM:
http://www.cirm.ca.gov/pressreleases/pdf/2005/MJOP_conformed.pdf

The complaint for Mary Scott Doe v. Robert Klein, et. al., may be viewed here:
http://www.naapc.org/downloads/complaint2.pdf

¹ In comparison, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a federally-funded nationwide research program in the burgeoning field of nanotechnology, is funded at a total of $3.7 billion over five years.
² Mary Scott Doe v. Robert Klein, et al., available at http://www.naapc.org/downloads/complaint2.pdf.

Total Campaign Contributions for Proposition 71

This project is funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA's funding should not be construed as an endorsement of any products, opinions, or services. All SBA-funded projects are extended to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis.