Don’t tell Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle about the fact that California has taken the lead in stem cell research with its new $3 billion bond program.
“Wisconsin cannot match California dollar for dollar, but California cannot match what Wisconsin already has — including the best scientists in the world and first class research institutions,” a bullish Doyle said recently.
Lest anyone thought Wisconsin was bluffing, Doyle backed up his words with a $750 million initiative to promote stem cell and biotechnology work in general — including $375 million for a new research institute on the Madison campus of the University of Wisconsin.
FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS
Stem cell initiatives hit a wall early in President George W. Bush’s administration. That happened when he decided to restrict future federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to then-existing cell lines. New stem cell lines would not qualify for research funds.
Religious conservatives heralded the announcement as a moral victory and a sign for Bush’s underlying support for pro-life activities, whose champions vehemently opposed using human embryos for research. Since then, the issue has percolated on the federal level, but with Bush’s re-election, legislative activity now is concentrated on the state level.
CALIFORNIA RESPONDS
California countered the federal freeze with an infusion of state funds: On Nov. 2, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 71, which authorizes borrowing and spending $300 million a year for a decade to encourage stem cell work.
Within days, there were reports of stem cell companies weighing relocation to the Golden State. And the vote stirred a hornet’s nest of legislative responses in other states — from both sides of the ideological divide.
Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell “believes in” stem-cell research and its potential. She has discussed the possibility of providing an additional $10 million to $20 million in public support.
AP
Carl Feldbaum, the outgoing chief of Biotechnology Industry Organization, the trade group, was clearly delighted by the California vote and its electrifying effect around the country. “Nationally, there will be a sense of keeping up with the Joneses, and California is Jones,” he told the New York Times.
It’s a pricey neighborhood.
“Wisconsin spent close to a billion dollars over the course of a decade in support of biology on the Madison campus,” says Terry Devitt, who is director of research communications at the university. “There seems to be a new building going up every time I turn around. This new initiative will help Wisconsin stay competitive.”
Even if the new institute is not in the same ballpark as a $3 billion bond program, he adds, “It will help the state leverage its traditional strengths and take advantage of a six-year head start.”
ACROSS THE NATION
Wisconsin isn’t the only state scrambling to buck up its stem-cell initiative after the vote in California. A host of other states have into to fray with big new incentive packages designed to compete with California.
New Jersey officials are looking to add substantially to the $6.5 million in funding that has already been approved for stem cell research; the Massachusetts Legislature is looking at new initiatives; and in Connecticut, the Office of Legislative Research was scheduled to release a report in January illustrating ways that the state can provide seed money for stem cell research.
Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell has talked about providing another $10 million to $20 million in public support.
“I believe very much in the possibilities of stem cell research,” Rell told reporters. “Connecticut offers great places to do this research. We can use seed money for matching funds. This is not California. We can’t use billions.”
Even in Texas, which is far off the beaten path of most new stem cell initiatives, the California measure has been generating a response.
Wisconsin cannot match California dollar for dollar, but California cannot match Wisconsin’s first-class scientists and research institutions, Gov. Jim Doyle said recently.
AP
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison told members of the University of Texas Board of Regents that the state needs to find a way to keep stem cell research underway or risk being “left in the dust” by California.
Gov. Rick Perry, who some political observers believe is likely to square off against Hutchison in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary, quickly fired back with a $600 million technology development proposal — which includes a big piece for biomedical research.
From the states’ perspective, there is enough at stake to be significantly raising the ante on stem-cell support.
“I think the California initiative is generally viewed as a good thing, because it means there is more support for this work — and it will move at a more rapid pace to trials,” says Devitt.
But when a state takes a big jump like that, it immediately makes it harder for places like the University of Wisconsin, the neighboring University of Minnesota, or Harvard to recruit top-quality post doctorate students, “and that’s one of the things that makes the wheels go ‘round,” adds Devitt.
AMBIGUITY AND OPPOSITION
In 2004, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, legislators took up 80 bills on stem cell research. “There is a growing realization that state legislatures have a critical stake in this technology’s future,” NCSL researcher Alissa Johnson noted in a recent memo. “However, developing policy for this area of science is not an easy task. The issue brings together unlikely partners, but it also creates substantial division. Ethical, moral and personal concerns collide with complex policy questions, creating a rigorous [sic] decision-making process for legislators involved with this issue.”
“There is a growing realization that state legislatures have a critical stake in this technology’s future. However, developing policy for this area of science is not an easy task.”
— Alissa Johnson, National Conference of State Legislatures
Much of the current activity is centered on using cloned embryos for research. “Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota prohibit the cloning of embryos for the purpose of research. Virginia’s human cloning law also may ban cloning for research, but it is unclear because of some ambiguity in the statute.
California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island also have human cloning laws, but these laws prohibit cloning only for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy, or reproductive cloning, and allow cloning for research. Missouri won’t fund cloning for reproduction but will for stem cell research. Human cloning as well as state and private-sector funding of embryonic stem cell research is unrestricted in all jurisdictions with no legislation in this area.
The Kentucky legislature, meanwhile, has just passed a law that confers human status on fertilized eggs at the moment of conception, raising the possibility that if researchers at the University of Kentucky ever switched their focus from adult stem cells to embryonic stem cells, they could be prosecuted for murder.
And so it goes, with lawmakers alternating between fiery denunciations and the kind of old-fashioned wining and dining that was once reserved for large manufacturing operations. For those states opting to stay in the competition, claiming a stake in biotech is just too important to pass up. And if single states can’t compete with California alone, some states may start to band together.
Devitt, for example, says it may be a good time for Wisconsin and Minnesota to join forces and see if two states can accomplish more together than apart. “There are no discussions I know of, but it’s logical that people would think about closer cooperation and initiatives,” says Devitt.