Prop. 71: tax concerns spike, ethics take backseat

By Matt Sun
Online Forty-Niner
Contributing Writer

Ever since the Los Angeles area Chamber of Commerce became the first major business to endorse Proposition 71 this past June, supporters of the initiative have stepped up their campaign to support the passing of the measure, which would provide $3 billion from taxpayer money to pay for embryonic stem cell research. Opponents have led attacks against the measure arguing that the money provided can create a huge burden for taxpayers, such as college students, once the 30-year period of research ends.

Proposition 71 was first drawn up by Robert Klein II, a wealthy Fresno financier and developer of affordable housing. Klein, whose 84-year-old mother is afflicted by Alzheimer's disease, has donated more than $1.6 million to the campaign. So far, according to The Los Angeles Times, supporters of the proposition have raised at least $14.5 million from various wealthy donors such as Bill Gates and EBay founder, Pierre Omidyar. However, opposition groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and California Nurses Association have raised about $150,000 to campaign against the initiative.

The proposition has been highly contested due to its undeniable support for researching only embryonic stem cells. This factor has led many groups to denounce the measure as unethical and unfair for alternate research using other types of stem cells. As seen in the Financial and Ethical Arguments found on www.NoOn71.com, "all of the successes [from stem cell research] to date have come from adult stem cells or cord blood stem cells." Funding from Proposition 71 would deprive other forms of research in stem cell research field and may even diminish the success of other forms of stem cell research.

This spring, Research Corporation, a research funding foundation, gave CSULB assistant professor, Michael P. Myers, a $37,840 grant to be used for the next two years to research the potential of stem cells found in Wharton's Jelly, which is located in the umbilical cord. The main intent of this research is to test whether the stem cells in Wharton's Jelly are as effective as other types of stem cells in curing diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.

Currently, the cells that Myers is researching have the potential to repair neurons and heart tissues, but Myers is hoping that the same cells can also help repair pancreatic tissue to treat diabetes. Not only does Myers' research hold potential, it is one of the least controversial forms of stem cell research; all stem cells involved in this research only involve cells found in the umbilical cord and the cells have no possible way of becoming a fetus.

However, funding from the proposed measure will not fund Myers' research, but despite this fact, Myers believes that funding for embryonic research is necessary and promising.

"People want cures," Myers said. "[Californians] are philanthropists … we are willing to spend whatever it takes to cure diseases. We've already cured Parkinson's disease in animal models, however, only 2 percent of the population over 65 years of age still suffers from the disease…that may sound like a small percentage, but it is actually millions of people."

Even so, ethics have taken a backseat in the issues concerning Proposition 71; more opponents of the measure have decried the price tag that comes with the initiative. According to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office, about $300 million in grants would be dispersed in each 10-year-period and with principal and interest, the bonds would cost about $6 billion in bonds to pay back.

Doris Leung, a student at Cal State Long Beach, supports the concept of stem cell research, however her main concern is the vast amount of money involved.

"$3 billion on just researching embryonic stem cells is a lot of money," Leung said. Prop. 71 expects us to solely base our resources in one field of study rather than focus on other areas of research that need it most. $3 billion on just embryonic research doesn't seem worth it.

Myers said that the vast amount of money being funded is a reasonable amount.

"There was no evident opposition when the Common Management System spent about $900 million to unify and integrate Cal State University's administrative system. It's about what people believe is worth investing in that can make a plan controversial or not," Myers said.

Tim Rosales, a representative for JohnsonClark Associates, which is a public affair agency that has been helping campaign against Proposition 71, described the money proposed in the measure as unreasonable and can affect college students profoundly.

"[Prop 71] is a $6 billion drain on taxpayers. College students will definitely get hit pretty hard. Once it is time to pay back the loan, the money has to come from somewhere. Money funding education would have to be drawn out and fees may become even more expensive just to pay the loan," he said.

According to the Legislative Analysis Office, supporters of Proposition 71 argue that through patents and the imminent success of embryonic stem cell research, more money can be produced to alleviate the burden on taxpayers such as creating more jobs in the biotech industry and obtaining patents.

Rosales firmly disputes such facts.

"What they are proposing is flawed for two reasons: Most patents held on stem cell research are already held so it would be difficult to obtain one at this point. Secondly, no research program has provided significant monetary return to its research and Prop 71 does not promise the creation of new jobs and patents… paying back the loan is all based on the taxpayers, even current or future college students, to pay back the loan," he said.

When asked whether the campaign against Proposition 71 has been hindered due to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's support, Rosales said,'"Well, if we lose by one vote, we know who to blame."