First test for stem-cell institute -- money
By Jesse Reynolds,
San Francisco Chronicle
| 05. 15. 2005
Funding mechanism must avoid conflict of interest
The authors of last November's successful Proposition 71, the stem- cell research initiative, asked California voters to trust them in two distinct ways.
First, they convinced voters -- in some cases with shamelessly exaggerated promises about the imminence and likelihood of cures -- to invest $3 billion in research that has potential but is still at an early stage.
The second request was written into the initiative in print so fine that few voters had a chance of understanding it. Using obscure legalese, the initiative exempted the state agency it created, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, from many of the hard-won legal protections meant to ensure effective and transparent state governance. The result is that the institute, an agency entirely funded by the California public, is being run according to the practices of private enterprise. It best resembles a publicly funded, privately managed venture capital firm.
Now this experiment is facing a major obstacle. Lawsuits are challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 71's exclusion of public and legislative oversight. The state attorney general has determined that the bonds to fund...
Related Articles
By Priyanka Runwal, Chemical and Engineering News | 08.05.2024
Saritee Sanodiya, 26, has spent countless days wondering if she’ll ever live a “normal” life. Growing up, Sanodiya often missed school, frequenting the hospital for sudden, life-threatening drops in her hemoglobin levels and excruciating pain in her joints. High fever...
It’s been a busy couple of months in biopolitics, with developments in the US, UK, China, Japan, and implicitly on Mars. Time for a brief roundup.
• • •
Bioethics needs an update
The National Research Act is now 50 years old. It was signed into law on July 12, 1974, as a direct response to publicity about the 1932 “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The Hastings Bioethics Forum celebrated its anniversary with an...
Image courtesy National Human Genome Research Institute
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to encourage effective medical advances while also ensuring that patients and research subjects are protected. This dual mandate demands tricky judgment calls that are made more difficult by outside pressures of several kinds, political, judicial, and especially commercial. This April story at Bloomberg examines one deeply troubling pattern of regulatory capture:
Americans Are Paying Billions to Take Drugs That Don’t Work
Companies are increasingly...
By Sarah Kliff and Azeen Ghorayshi, The New York Times | 07.15.2024