California’s stem cell institute moving forward despite snags

The state’s newly created stem cell institute is moving forward with its voter-approved mandate to finance stem-cell research in California, though a final conclusion to its legal battles isn’t expected until 2007, according to the institute’s annual report, released Monday.

Established through a ballot initiative that passed in November 2004, the San Francisco-based California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has spent it first full year of existence formalizing its regulatory and administrative infrastructure, defending itself in court, creating a scientific strategic plan to guide its funding decisions, establishing intellectual property terms and getting the ball rolling on funding the fledgling fields of stem cell science and research.

Financing this forward movement has been tricky, since the $300 million a year in bond funding the stem cell institute is slated to receive has been held back due to ongoing litigation.

In April, a state judge rejected lawsuits challenging the stem cell act’s constitutionality, but the subsequent legal appeal keeps the funding entangled.

CIRM spokesman Dale Carlson said the legal limbo is not stalling the work of the agency.

“In 2007, we’ll be awarding the first research grants, which is very important, and the first facilities grants, and with a little luck, we’ll do our first public bond offering,” Carlson said.

Interim funding was provided in the last year, however, from private philanthropic foundations — which purchased $45 million in bond anticipation notes — and from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who authorized a $150 million state loan to the stem cell agency.

Up to $110 million could be awarded next year under two separate grant programs, with some of the money awarded as early as February.

The agency is also to be commended for creating a strategic plan in 2006 that will guide spending decisions for the next 10 years, said John Simpson, the stem cell project director for The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a watchdog organization.

The agency fell short, however, according to Simpson, by not establishing more rules that would have guaranteed Californians affordable access to any cures or therapies developed by entities — including for-profit organizations — that receive the state funding.

beslinger@examiner.com

CaliforniaCalifornia NewsLocalScience and Technology

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Uber, Lyft and DoorDash bring their battle against AB5 to November ballot

Measure would classify app-based drivers as independent contractors, offer some additional benefits

Small, impassioned crowd celebrates the Fourth of July with protest for affirmative action

Lawmakers and marchers urge voters to pass Proposition 16 in the November ballot

Union threatens legal action after Police Commission expands use-of-force policy

San Francisco’s police union is pursuing legal action after the Police Commission… Continue reading

Giants announce health guidelines for Oracle Park

The San Francisco Giants announced Friday that the organization’s maintenance team will… Continue reading

Restorative art on the inside and out

Curator Ericka Scott organizes exhibition of works by prisoners

Most Read