You want breakthroughs on the frontiers of science? Provide long-term support for the people, experiments and infrastructure vital to the enterprise.
The latest news from the stem cell world is quite promising. Setting aside the hype and politics, normal science (where allowed by law) has been proceeding along a trajectory intended to develop cellular treatments for disease. The latest report in Science details remarkable progress in methods for developing cell therapies that treat disease without causing immune rejection. While some critics have already disparaged the report as "only a mouse study," this latest work represents another important step in the field.
If you haven't noticed, regular reports from the stem cell field describe advances on a regular basis. These reports are not part of some hype campaign conjured up by the biotechnology industry or Pharma to bump up share values. Rather many recent breakthrough studies are emerging from academic and non-profit research laboratories in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, coincidence? These states have invested in stem cell research and development, and they are beginning to realize the fruits of their labor.
The model is quite clear. You want breakthroughs on the frontiers of science? Then provide long-term support for the experiments, human capital (particularly young scientists) and facilities vital to any sustainable research enterprise. Public science works.
Critics may continue to split hairs over the significance of any particular report, but the collective rate of progress has been remarkable. Imagine if we had the same commitment to research on alternative sources of energy.
Oh, on the political front, Nebraska just passed a law to restrict stem cell research in the state. Science and politics are proceeding as normal!
What exactly is the payoff taxpayer are getting from state investment in stem cell research?
In November 2007, New Jersey voters rejected an initiative to borrow $450 million for stem cell research. The defeat should not have come as a surprise: Voters had the advantage of seeing how little California’s three-year old stem cell funding initiative has accomplished at an extremely high cost to the taxpayers in that state. New Jersey citizens also had the advantage of seeing that stem cell research was not doomed if government didn’t fund it; private efforts were flourishing and new ones were being initiated almost daily. Under such circumstances, it simply did not make sense for a state with the highest per-capita debt in the nation to spend money on stem cell research.
Yet some New Jersey legislators are still eager to increase taxes and spending to finance stem cell research, and they are not alone. By the end of 2008, the National Institutes of Health will have spent over $2.5 billion on stem cell research in just five years. Nine states, including California, New York, and Connecticut, have committed to combined spending of over $4.1 billion over the next 10 years. Funding advocates consistently ignore the significant financial risks involved in the research and the inefficiency of public programs in managing its progress, let alone the fact that the private sector is doing just fine conducting stem cell research without government help or interference.
An analysis of the California stem cell research funding initiative and its aftermath confirms that New Jersey voters were wise to reject a government-run stem cell research initiative. While other states might learn from California’s mistakes and avoid some of the pitfalls that have befallen its program, most of the problems that have arisen are endemic to government-run efforts. For example, time and money wasted on political squabbling over the fair distribution of funds. This is not to suggest that private initiatives can’t be wasteful, inefficient, or unsuccessful in their own right; the fact that many biotechnology firms fail indicates that they can be high-risk ventures. But in the private sector, individuals make their investments voluntarily. If people find that their money is being extorted under false pretenses, they have legal remedies available to them to address such injustices, including opportunities for reparations. There are no such remedies for mistakes made at the ballot box, and in California, almost half the state’s voters did not support the stem cell funding initiative. Whether or not stem cell research proves a worthy investment on the whole, citizens of other states would be wise to follow New Jersey’s example and reject any proposal for government funding of stem cell research.
Posted by: Sigrid Fry-Revere at March 27, 2008 4:20 PM