Stem Cell Research in a Judge's Hands

deman1985 wrote to mention a San Francisco Chronicle article discussing the future of stem cell research in California. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has had a suit filed against it for doling out money to stem cell research groups, and the future of the organization is now in the hands of the Judge on the case. From the article: "The taxpayers groups said that at least five members of the 29-member board have conflicts because they are University of California officials and the school's various campuses have already applied for stem cell grants. Others on the board are biotechnology executives and investors whose investments could benefit from stem cell grants."

Comments

Not Science? Yeah right

[Widowwolf]

TO all of those who say this should not be on slashdot..BS!..This is as scientific as nasa, nano technology or anythign else.

This did pass with a wide margin during the last elections, and they really need to shape this up. I think any college applying for grants should not have people on the board..Its called bias, and there are not enough people in the political system who do not have it.

I believe that the more schools help themselves without the grants, the more they should get because of the grants..Instead of putting all thier money into sports, cheerleading and Aestetic purposes, put it into something useful..

We have already proven that this is the next step in curing disabilities, regrowing missing parts(such as teeth..imagine never having to get dentures or an implant), possibly even giving hearing back to the deaf, sight back to the blindies, and possibly(they theorize) regrowing limbs..

If you dont call this science(which is one of the major categories on slashdot) then tell me what do you consider science? All robots and machines..If so i feel sorry for you!

This is not flamebait post, no is it trolling, for people who look at this and shun it, wait until the day they need this science for themselves...I have heard Christians who shun this, until the break thier back, then the whole argument is completely reversed and they are all for it.

The article leaves out some important facts.

[unicorn]

I'm a fairly well informed Californian, who voted against this measure. It was a boondoggle from the get go. And only gets worse with time.

I voted against the measure for one simple, obvious fact. The supporters sold this to the state as a moneymaker. That it was a "can't lose" "investment" and that any research that was commercialized would send money back to the state, more than sufficient to repay the bonds, etc. Of course if that was the case, and that there was tons of medical cash to be made. Then private companies would already be funding this research.

Basically, *ANY* sure fire, guaranteed investment, where there our outsized returns that are 100% guaranteed is going to have people lined up around the block to get in on it. And the State has no need to float a massive bond to fund it. The market will throw money at anything even remotely like that.

So the basic premise that the measure was sold to the voters on, was a blatant lie. There's never been any guarantee at all that the taxpayers of Calif wouldn't be on the hook for the whole 3 Billion.

And since the measure was passed, it's only gotten to be less of a deal for the residents of Calif.

The part that the article referenced neglected to mention. Is that there are now some questions about the legality of the measure as it was passed. Specifically, now that they have all the $$ they wanted, they have discovered a tax issue. In order for the bonds to be issued as tax-free issues, then the state can't use the monies in profit making enterprises. So the State can't compel the grant recipients to pay the state back, no matter how much the generate in revenue from the discoveries that the taxpayers are now funding for them. And apparently the legal/tax ramifications of all of that were made clear to the primary boosters of the measure *before* the election. And they just neglected to mention that to the voters at all. They just kept selling how it was a "sure thing" investment. And the bonds are FAR less appealing in the market, and FAR more expensive to issue, if they aren't tax free bonds.

Anytime anyone tells you they have a sure fire investment, guaranteed to make you rich beyond your wildest dreams, RUN the other way, tightly clutching your wallet. A lesson that the state will be learning the hard way, this time around.