October 20, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Prop. 71 has local ties

by Marc Burkhardt, Sue Dremann and Erin Pursell

For Dr. Irving Weissman, the issue of stem-cell research is simple.

"If you have knowledge that a line of research will likely lead to saving life, you have a responsibility," said Weissman, director of Stanford's Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine.

That conviction will be tested Nov. 2 when California voters decide the fate of Proposition 71, which aims to fund stem-cell research by raising $3 billion in state bonds over a 10-year period. It would also establish a research institute that would fund all aspects of stem-cell therapy, from research to the treatment of patients.

The proposition, which is supported by a wide array of physicians, scientists, business leaders and such political figures as George Schultz and Gavin Newsom, has special significance for Silicon Valley. Robert Klein, the state chairman of the campaign, resides in Portola Valley. Stanford is intimately involved with stem-cell research, through work conducted by Weissman and his team of 15 stem-cell and cancer experts. The university is one of the first to create an institution specifically geared toward such work.

Passage of the proposition could also create a financial windfall for the area, as private companies use research conducted by academic institutions such as Stanford to create marketable products. One such company, StemCells Inc. of Palo Alto, is poised to begin human trials for a stem-cell drug that would treat Batten disease, a debilitating condition that affects the central nervous system.

"It (Prop. 71) sends a clear, unequivocal signal to the world at large, and to the people of California and users of health care systems, that 'we think what you're doing has value, and we know it's difficult to attract private money and federal funds,'" Martin McGlynn, president and CEO of StemCells Inc., said.

The most controversial portion of stem cell research is the use of embryonic cells. Embryonic cells, taken from fertility clinics that have no further use for the organisms, have the potential to unlock new treatments -- and cures -- for such conditions as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

These stem cells are considered ideal candidates for such research because they have yet to develop into specific cells in the body. The challenge for scientists is to find ways to direct stem cells to play active roles in fighting diseases.

"The findings that are coming out are spectacular," Weissman said.

However, it has drawn the ire of pro-life activists, who question the ethics of taking what they consider unborn lives for experimentation. There are also concerns the technology could be used for human reproductive cloning.

In 2001, President George W. Bush severely limited the research by restricting the number of stem cells available. He also refused to fund studies utilizing embryonic cells beyond the 60 lines he deemed acceptable. It was a decision many say was motivated by religious, rather than scientific, concerns.

"It's extraordinarily frustrating to have completely non-scientific reasons for stopping this research," Klein, whose son suffers from juvenile diabetes, stated in an earlier interview with the Weekly.

"The basic fact is it is being banned for ideological reasons," Weissman said. "You can't get away from your responsibility if you ban it."

Yet opponents of Prop. 71 say their reservations extend beyond theological issues.

Dr. H. Rex Greene, a spokesman for the California Pro-Life Council, said his group isn't against stem-cell research per se, but contends the proposition fails due to financial and oversight consideration.

"The costs are staggering, especially in view of California's debt of $7 billion to $10 billion," said Greene, a Sutter Health oncologist and hospital administrator. "It's a bad trade-off. The money goes into a limited number of hands, with little accountability and no oversight."

Greene also contended the institute proposed by the proposition would have too much discretion determining the ethical issues connected with stem-cell research, turning away from federal standards of informed consent and human subject protections.

"This is a huge backwards step in the standards of human research," he said.

Green said stem cells are not the cure-all Prop. 71 proponents advertise.

"To deliver these as medical cures -- we think it is unbelievably out of proportion to the levels of risk," he said. "There are substantial risks with embryonic stem cells. They can turn cells into tumors in culture.

"We also don't know if the cells will become part of reproductive tissues," he said. "We know that clones are awash with genetic defects."

For their part, supporters of Prop. 71 emphatically deny the research will be used for human reproductive cloning. It's simply a matter, they say, of allowing scientists and researchers to do their jobs - find ways of curing people.

"The bottom line is scientists and researchers are so in favor of stem-cell research because of the things that can be revealed at a deep and complex level," said Judy Shizuru, an assistant professor of medicine in the bone marrow transplantation division at Stanford.

"You can look deeply into the pathways of how cells are controlled."
Senior Staff Writer Don Kazak contributed to this report.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.