|
American Perspectives |
NUMBER 48, SUMMER 2007 |
|
|||
|
Stem Cells, Science Policy, and Religion in the United States
John Aubrey Douglass
Controversies over stem cell research provide a window into the politics of science policymaking in the United States. The country may boast having some of the best research universities in the world, and a mighty academic R&D engine, but significant strains exist in the funding of science—influenced in part by the nation's peculiar religiosity. The result is that many states, most notably California, are becoming increasingly entrepreneurial in their drive to promote science and innovation, activity that the federal government will not fund—at least as long as neoconservatives control the White House.
A Federal Ban By limiting federal funding of stem cell research, the Bush administration created a "wedge" issue useful for solidifying the president's political base—a political strategy that would help reelect him as president in November 2004. It also created a great symbol of America's waning science and technology superiority. No previous presidential administration set such specific restrictions on scientific research. The president sanctioned the use of some 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already existing, created from "embryos that have already been destroyed... [with] the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research." While the president's edict did not halt most private-sector research, it promised a significant impact on university research and important nonprofit research centers. Thus far, the federal government in Washington funds the vast majority of basic research at American research universities.
California's New Stem Cell Fund In this movement among states, California quickly became an influential leader. With the largest concentration of biotech research and businesses in the United States, a coalition of the state's corporate high-tech sector sought a high-profile route to assure California's place in the vanguard of the biotech movement. In early 2004 this group promoted the "California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative"—a proposition giving California voters a chance to vote on a statewide initiative, bypassing the normal process of legislation. Proposition 71 was placed on a ballot and proposed a $3 billion bond, which in turn would generate $350 million a year over a decade for stem cell research in California. California voters approved the proposition, generating national press coverage. Almost immediately after the passage, a series of controversies erupted. As an indication of America's litigious society, not until May 2007 were all the legal issues and the policies on intellectual property fully resolved. The courts threw out the legal roadblocks, handing conservatives a big loss. A consensus was also reached that institutions and researchers should retain patent and licensing control of their inventions—essentially mimicking federal policy established in 1981 under the Bayh Dole Act. California was the first state to attempt essentially an end run around the federal government's odd restrictions on stem cell research; but the full $3 billion is just now available for dispersal to researchers
A National Movement More recently, the state of Massachusetts, home of a large contingent of biotech companies supported by a cadre of elite universities, unveiled a $1.25 billion proposal that reflects California's initiative. These funds will provide grants allocated competitively to scientists at universities and hospitals, possibly to jump-start new research centers and to train biotech workers. With the declining political strength of a Bush White House mired in military conflicts in the Middle East and the defeat of its major policy initiatives in areas such as social security, some relaxation of the federal ban on stem cell research funding seems inevitable. It may in fact be completely reversed by the next presidential administration. State initiatives in this area will likely remain, and the benefits of state investments may prove beneficial in unexpected ways. States are increasingly becoming entrepreneurial and proactive in their promotion of basic research universities—more than simply providing general support for universities. One reason for this legacy is the general lack of enlightened leadership in Washington; another is a broad public sense that stem cell research will generate important health benefits. But the emergence of the "entrepreneurial state" is even more widely driven by the sense of science and technology as the key to current and future economic competitiveness. In the United States, and globally, science policy is becoming a key component of economic policy. In California and most other states, the locus of science policy and, specifically, the funding of academic research is no longer dependent on money and initiatives in Washington but on politics and policy with a state. This trend will likely mean that more progressive states often already with strong research universities will gain a further edge in their pursuit of science and innovation. [Online] Available: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number48/p13_Douglass.htm
|
