Election Section

We live in an era of privatization of essential social services. The most recent to come under attack is social security, a reform enacted during the New Deal which the Bush administration now wants to roll back. 

Proposition 71, the stem cell research initiative recently passed here in California, goes against this trend. It provides government funding for life-saving biomedical research and places the administration and conduct of this effort squarely in the public realm. This measure, which aims to heal terrible illnesses to which human beings of every nation, ethnic origin, and religion are vulnerable, deserves our support. 

Yet here in the Bay Area, some progressive media are misinforming us about this proposition. The San Francisco Bay Guardian, for example, proclaims that the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, established by Prop. 71 to administer and oversee implementation of the measure, is “composed entirely of representatives of groups who want a spot at the $3 billion trough.” An editorial in the Berkeley Daily Planet says that “Many of us voted for the big stem-cell ballot measure in November because we sincerely believed that it would aid scientific progress, and it probably will. But we didn’t understand what an immense cash cow for drug companies it would turn out to be ...” 

There is no evidence for these allegations of corruption. The entire 29-person Oversight Committee consists of individuals who have clear and consistent records of public service, including scientists from universities and nonprofit research institutes, ten patient-group representatives, and only four members from private industry. 

Prop. 71 is a “cash cow for drug companies”? On the contrary, Prop. 71 takes control of health care away from them. Currently, decisions regarding the direction of medical research are largely made by corporations such as Merck and Pfizer. Their research aims to develop drugs that will maximize profits, and they take little interest in finding treatments that are less profitable but of greater benefit to society. In marked contrast, the Oversight Committee established by Prop. 71 is mandated to serve the public interest, not a corporate bottom line. 

The provisions of Proposition 71 spell out in considerable detail appropriate ethical standards and ensure accountability. Chair Robert Klein and other Committee members have stated clearly and unequivocally their commitment to adhere to these standards, including those regulations that prohibit conflicts of interest. In implementing this measure, the Oversight Committee is consulting and cooperating with NIH authorities and California state committees to establish ethical working practices, and will continue to do so. 

Openness and transparency in implementing Prop. 71 are of course essential. And it’s true that at its first meeting in December, the newly constituted Oversight Committee stumbled in not providing the public with adequate advance notification and documentation about the agenda. But let’s not allow this mistake to obscure the Committee’s diligence as it begins to fulfill its responsibilities. Any California citizen can provide testimony at Oversight Committee meetings, whose agendas are posted at: www.cirm.ca.gov. 

Much of the criticism of the Oversight Committee has focused on its choice of Robert Klein, the financier who initiated and led the Prop. 71 campaign, to be its Chairperson. Being wealthy, he exemplifies to some progressives a ruling-class mogul clearly on the other side of the class divide. Yet Mr. Klein, whose son has juvenile diabetes and mother has Alzheimer’s, is a dedicated advocate of patient interests, and he has worked on behalf of good causes for decades, including affordable-housing legislation and global disarmament. Although categories of economic class are valuable analytic tools, they may mislead us if they’re not thoughtfully applied. 

By law, the California Assembly and Senate do not have direct responsibility for managing the implementation of Proposition 71. The reason for this is the desirability of a certain distance or “buffer” between scientific inquiry and legislative control. Public guidance and oversight of scientific research is necessary, as is a measure of freedom of inquiry on the part of scientists. (That freedom is precarious today -- the religious right aims to halt embryonic stem cell research.) Given the inherent tension between these two values, the provisions of Prop. 71 strike a careful, reasonable balance. 

Progressives’ suspicion of scientific research is often well-founded. For centuries, scientific discoveries have abetted militarism and oppression. That gives us all the more reason to applaud a scientific initiative that is humane in its aim and conscientious in its implementation. 

Barglow, Lowe and Shiffenbauer are Berkeley residents.