Garden State Deceptions
Behind the Scenes in the NJ Stem Cell Program
SOURCE: AP
New Jersey has not come through on its promise to fund embryonic stem cell research. It instead channels funding to adult stem cell research. Above, a student looks at nerve cells at the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey in Piscataway, N.J.
After President Bush in 2001 placed severe restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, states such as California, New Jersey, and Connecticut scrambled to accelerate the science with state funding. New Jersey led the pack, touting the need for state funding for embryonic stem cell research back in 2002, earlier than even California.
So how well has New Jersey come through on its promise to fund embryonic stem cell research? Sadly, the state has done an exceedingly poor job, instead apparently angling to become the Adult Stem Cell hub of America. Two rounds of funding, in 2006 and 2007, produced 33 grants totaling $10 million that funded 28 adult stem cell research projects—and just 2 human embryonic stem cell projects.
In New Jersey adult stem cell research has received the lion’s share of state stem cell funds, at a ratio of more than 9 to 1 versus human embryonic stem cell research.
The first tell-tale sign that New Jersey’s current focus is primarily directed toward umbilical cord stem cell and other adult stem cell research came with the issuance in December 2005 of two grants (at $350,000 apiece) to the Ellie Katz Umbilical Cord Blood Program and the Coriell Institute for Medical Research to create the nation’s first public cord and placental blood bank for stem cell research. This was followed in 2006 with the allocation of $270 million in state support to build and equip five stem cell centers, four of which are solely dedicated to adult stem cell research. One of the four stem cell centers is set to perform umbilical cord stem cell clinical trials. New Jersey also awarded two grants of $250,000 each to two researchers developing standard operating procedures for umbilical cord stem cell clinical trials.
Human embryonic stem cell research rhetoric, however, plays well in a blue state, which may explain why New Jersey has done some embryonic stem cell grandstanding by allocating an additional $5 million for core facilities, which allegedly will be used for future human embryonic stem cell research. Or it could be that New Jersey is merely preparing itself for the federal floodgates to open allowing for human embryonic stem cell research funding. That is expected to happen in 2009, should national poll numbers strongly in support of embryonic stem cell research translate into victories for supporters of this research at voting booths in next year’s elections.
Though there is some potential that adult stem cell research will lead to scientific breakthroughs akin to those expected from embryonic stem cell research, the general consensus among researchers is that embryonic stem cells are the most versatile and therefore hold the greatest promise to derive treatments that can alleviate the suffering from spinal cord injury and a host of other debilitating and deadly medical conditions. Next month, New Jersey is asking voters to support an additional $450 million in new bonds for state stem cell research. Before patient groups decide to support this bond issue, they ought to insist on knowing how much will be earmarked for each type of stem cell research.
Apparently “going where the best science leads us” means different things in different states. In California and Connecticut, for example, it meant 100 percent of the state stem cell funds went to human embryonic stem cell research. In New Jersey, however, adult stem cell research has received the lion’s share of state stem cell funds, at a ratio of more than 9 to 1 versus human embryonic stem cell research.
New Jersey already has disappointed patient groups that were anxiously looking to state funding for human embryonic stem cell research to develop the therapies that could alleviate their suffering. How can these patient groups be sure that New Jersey, in the future, will live up to its initial promise, given its abysmal performance on funding human embryonic stem cell research thus far?
Will patient groups step up to the plate and not just fight for the symbolism of embryonic stem cell research-friendly policies, but more importantly, work to ensure the funds that were promised for embryonic stem cell research will be spent as intended? These are some of the serious questions raised, as we evaluate the effectiveness of state funding to bridge the gap left by the federal neglect of embryonic stem cell research.
At a minimum, state voters ought to know what they are voting for. And it certainly doesn’t seem to be embryonic stem cell research in New Jersey.
It’s good to see that prominent people, such as former New Jersey Gov. Christine Whitman (R), are catching on to the deceptive practices used to promote the New Jersey Stem Cell Program. And John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, is pushing for more transparency as various states proceed to implement their stem cell research policies.
Only with proper oversight can we ensure that the promise of human embryonic stem cell research will indeed materialize in the long-awaited curative treatments for many of the debilitating and deadly conditions that cause suffering for more than 100 million Americans.
A former Economics Professor in Florida, Faye Armitage worked in the healthcare industry in California for about ten years. Growing up on four different continents due to her father’s employment for a major multi-national corporation, Armitage received her BA and Masters degree from the University of Amsterdam, in The Netherlands. Her son’s paralysis from a soccer injury ignited her passion for the issues of Medical Mal-practice, Stem Cell Research, Universal Healthcare and the ADA. Her activism in these areas has earned her coverage in major national newspapers, and she is the founder of Cure Paralysis Now. Armitage is also a full-time caregiver to her now eighteen year old son.
Comments on this article
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the Science Progress Privacy Policy and agree to the Science Progress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
