California Voters to Decide Future of Stem Cell Funding Agency
By Katarina Zimmer,
The Scientist
| 10. 24. 2020
Over the course of its 16-year existence, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine in Oakland has helped transform its state into an innovation hub of stem cell science. But CIRM announced last year that its first $3 billion of funding has dried up, and now it’s up to voters to decide on November 3 whether to give the agency a second life.
The Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative, Proposition 14, would issue $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the agency to continue funding stem cell studies, training scientists, and building new research facilities, with the aim of developing and testing treatments for a range of diseases.
The measure isn’t facing significant organized opposition, but it has drawn criticism from newspaper editorial boards and others for what they see as conflicts of interest between CIRM board members and institutions applying for funds. Critics also question the state’s ability to afford the new funding amid a record wildfire season and a pandemic, and the necessity of CIRM given federal funding of stem cell research.
“I have a company now...
Related Articles
Image courtesy National Human Genome Research Institute
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to encourage effective medical advances while also ensuring that patients and research subjects are protected. This dual mandate demands tricky judgment calls that are made more difficult by outside pressures of several kinds, political, judicial, and especially commercial. This April story at Bloomberg examines one deeply troubling pattern of regulatory capture:
Americans Are Paying Billions to Take Drugs That Don’t Work
Companies are increasingly...
By Sarah Kliff and Azeen Ghorayshi, The New York Times | 07.15.2024
By Katie LaGrone, WPTV | 06.28.2024
Image by National Cancer Institute from Unsplash
TAMPA, Fla. — A Tampa jury recently found the now-defunct Lung Institute in Tampa guilty of engaging in “deceptive or unfair practices” while it offered customers “valueless” stem cell therapy to treat incurable...
By Peter Aldhous, Scientific American | 07.02.2024
In June a notice posted on the website of the journal Nature set a new scientific record. It withdrew what is now the most highly cited research paper ever to be retracted.
The study, published in 2002 by Catherine Verfaillie...