In the last couple of weeks, two
well-respected Los Angeles Times columnists have visited what
might be called the "Son of CIRM" initiative on the
June ballot in California. It is aimed at fighting cancer by spending
$800 million or so annually on research with the money coming from a
$1-a-pack tax on cigarettes.

"Prop. 29 would increase cancer
research. Reduce smoking. Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco
companies. Good plan."

"Proposition 71, you may recall, was sold to a gullible
public via candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking
again and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's.
The implication was that these miracles would happen if voters
approved a $3-billion bond issue for stem cell research. Who could be
against that? 

 "As it turned out, the stem cell
measure created an unwieldy bureaucracy and etched conflicts of
interest into the state Constitution. By last count about 85% of the
$1.3 billion in grants handed out by the program, or some $1.1
billion, has gone to institutions with representatives on the stem
cell board. The program is virtually immune to oversight by the
Legislature or other elected officials. For these reasons and others,
it has grappled with only mixed success with changes in stem cell
science and politics that have called its original rationale into
question."

"Proposition
29, similarly, places most spending from the tobacco tax in the hands
of a nine-member board that must comprise one cardiovascular
physician affiliated with a California academic medical center; the
chancellors of UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco and UC
Santa Cruz; two representatives of lobbying groups devoted to
tobacco-related illness (including one who has been treated for such
a disease); and three representatives from National Cancer
Institute-designated cancer centers in the state. There are
10 of the latter, including five UC campuses and the City of Hope.
Plainly, every member of the board will represent an employer that
thinks it's in line for some of the money."

"The anti-29 side is hitting this
hard: that the research money generated in California could be spent
out of state. And the politest thing possible to say about that claim
is that it's disingenuous. It's stretching something that's
conceivable into a virtual certainty."

"The anti-29 camp charges that
(the structure of the board) would allow a conflict of interest in
awarding contracts. But there are state laws that protect against
such conflicts.

"Anyway, the tobacco crowd can't have it
both ways: complaining that the money could be spent outside
California and also griping when the system is set up to practically
guarantee that it will be spent in California."

"Gov. Brown's latest budget
proposal calls for cuts of $1.2 billion in Medi-Cal and
$900 million in CalWorks (a relief program for families with
children) and steep cuts in financial aid for college students and in
court budgets. The University of California and Cal State systems are
becoming crippled by 20 years of cutbacks in state funding,
leading to soaring tuition charges. Tobacco-related illnesses create
some of the burden on Medi-Cal and other public healthcare programs,
yet a minimal portion of Proposition 29 revenue, if any, would go to
helping taxpayers carry that burden. 

"With the overall state budget gap
approaching $16 billion, how can anyone make the case for diverting a
huge chunk of $800 million a year in new revenue to long-term
scientific research, whether in California or not? Even if you
believe that case can be made, the proper place to make it is in the
Legislature, where all these demands on the budget can be weighed and
balanced against one another — not at the ballot box, where the
only choice is to spend it the way the initiative's drafters choose
or not to raise it at all."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss