That bad news is that their research
would have been illegal in California, and probably will be banned
for decades, if not longer – thanks to Proposition 71 of 2004.

The proposition was the ballot
initiative that created the $3 billion California stem cell agency,
which is hailed internationally as being one of the world leaders in
financing stem cell science. Unfortunately, the 10,000-word
initiative also contains language that was aimed at winning voter
approval of the measure -- not promoting good science.

The team writing the initiative, led by
Robert Klein, the former and first chairman of the stem cell agency,
put in a provision that made it illegal to pay women for their eggs.
The Oregon researchers paid women $3,000 to $7,000 each for their eggs, reflecting the current market rate based on prices paid in
connection with IVF. In some cases for IVF, the compensation is
dramatically higher. (See here and here.) Stem cell researchers in
recent years in the United States have found that they cannot secure
an adequate number of donors without matching IVF donor compensation.

While compensation for eggs is a matter
of some controversy, strong cases have been made that women
should make their own decisions about selling their eggs – not the what some call the nanny state. Of course, that should occur under well-regulated
situations. But Proposition 71 backers wanted to remove any possible
campaign objections by opponents of stem cell research, and so they
inserted the ban along with management minutia and other dubious
material.

Can't that be changed, one might ask?
Not without a herculean effort. That means another ballot measure or
a super, super majority vote in the California legislature plus the
signature of the governor. Imagine a measure on the ballot to
allow women to sell their eggs. The uproar would be heard
internationally. In 2004, when Proposition 71 was approved, it would
have been better to leave the compensation issue unaddressed. Then it
could have been dealt with through regulation or normal legislation,
both of which are far more flexible than ballot measures that alter
the state Constitution and state law.

Our quick and limited survey of the
news coverage indicated that many of the mainstream media stories
omitted the price of the eggs, which may suggest that the issue of
compensation is becoming moot.

In related news about the Oregon
accomplishment, UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler has
posted a good look at the some of the misinformation that is
surfacing on the Internet about the research, including its
implications.

He said,

Jessica Cussins over at the
Berkeley-based Biopolitical Times also has a solid roundup of the
coverage of the Oregon research and the analysis of its significance.

Here are links to two blog items from
the California stem cell agency on the Oregon research, including one
dealing with “cloning hysteria” and a more general look.