LOS ANGELES, Feb. 26 Californias stem cell research program is legal, a state appeals court ruled Monday in a decision that could hasten the day when the states $3 billion research effort can get fully under way.
The San Francisco-based court upheld a decision made by a lower court last spring that found that the program did not violate laws concerning state spending, the structure of ballot initiatives or rules regarding conflicts of interest.
The legal challenge had been brought by groups that oppose abortion, research with human embryonic stem cells or taxes.
Because of the uncertainty over the litigation, the state has not been able to issue any of the $3 billion in bonds to pay for research. Earlier this month, however, the program awarded its first research grants nearly $45 million to California-based universities and research institutes using money lent by the state government and philanthropists.
Robert N. Klein, chairman of the board overseeing the stem cell program, hailed the courts decision as one huge step for California.
Mr. Klein said the decision was so strong that he thought the California Supreme Court would decline to hear the case if the ruling were to be appealed. If the Supreme Court turned away the case, he said, the state could begin issuing bonds as soon as 120 days from now.
Dana Cody, one of the lawyers representing the opponents of the stem cell program, said: We probably will appeal but cant say for certain until weve seen the decision. She conceded that the Supreme Court did not take many cases.
Ms. Cody is executive director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, an anti-abortion group, but in this lawsuit is representing two anti-tax groups, the Peoples Advocate and the National Tax Limitation Foundation. The third plaintiff is the California Family Bioethics Council, which is affiliated with Focus on the Family, a ministry started by James C. Dobson.
Californias program, approved as Proposition 71 by 59 percent of the state voters in 2004, is expected to last about ten years and be the largest research program in the world directed primarily at human embryonic stem cells. Those cells have the potential to turn into any type of cell in the body and could theoretically be used to treat a host of diseases.
The state program is intended in part to circumvent limited spending on the area by the federal government. The Bush administration, as well as the opponents who sued to stop the California program, objects to the destruction of human embryos needed to create the stem cells.
In its 58-page decision yesterday, a three-judge panel said Proposition 71 suffers from no constitutional or other legal infirmity. The judges said that the idea of Proposition 71 was to find therapies as speedily as possible but that the litigation had interfered with implementation for more than two years.
One of the plaintiffs objections was that taxpayer money was being spent without what they said was sufficient state control. But the judges rejected those arguments, saying that most members of the stem cell programs board were appointed by elected officials and that the program was subject to state audits.
The plaintiffs had also argued that Proposition 71 violated a law requiring ballot initiatives to be about a single subject, in part because it allows for research on topics other than stem cells. The judges wrote that since embryonic stem cell research was in its infancy, the research was as specific as the circumstances permit and reasonably limited to a single subject.
The opponents also said the program violated rules prohibiting conflicts of interest because the stem cell board contains officials of universities and research institutes that can receive grants. The judges noted that board members are forbidden from voting for a grant to their own institution.
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/us/27stem.html?ref=us
Do you favor or oppose stem cell research?
Should California go ahead with stem cell research despite the Federal ban on funding stem cell research?
Is stem cell research important to the future of the economy? If so, why? If not, why not?
The San Francisco-based court upheld a decision made by a lower court last spring that found that the program did not violate laws concerning state spending, the structure of ballot initiatives or rules regarding conflicts of interest.
The legal challenge had been brought by groups that oppose abortion, research with human embryonic stem cells or taxes.
Because of the uncertainty over the litigation, the state has not been able to issue any of the $3 billion in bonds to pay for research. Earlier this month, however, the program awarded its first research grants nearly $45 million to California-based universities and research institutes using money lent by the state government and philanthropists.
Robert N. Klein, chairman of the board overseeing the stem cell program, hailed the courts decision as one huge step for California.
Mr. Klein said the decision was so strong that he thought the California Supreme Court would decline to hear the case if the ruling were to be appealed. If the Supreme Court turned away the case, he said, the state could begin issuing bonds as soon as 120 days from now.
Dana Cody, one of the lawyers representing the opponents of the stem cell program, said: We probably will appeal but cant say for certain until weve seen the decision. She conceded that the Supreme Court did not take many cases.
Ms. Cody is executive director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, an anti-abortion group, but in this lawsuit is representing two anti-tax groups, the Peoples Advocate and the National Tax Limitation Foundation. The third plaintiff is the California Family Bioethics Council, which is affiliated with Focus on the Family, a ministry started by James C. Dobson.
Californias program, approved as Proposition 71 by 59 percent of the state voters in 2004, is expected to last about ten years and be the largest research program in the world directed primarily at human embryonic stem cells. Those cells have the potential to turn into any type of cell in the body and could theoretically be used to treat a host of diseases.
The state program is intended in part to circumvent limited spending on the area by the federal government. The Bush administration, as well as the opponents who sued to stop the California program, objects to the destruction of human embryos needed to create the stem cells.
In its 58-page decision yesterday, a three-judge panel said Proposition 71 suffers from no constitutional or other legal infirmity. The judges said that the idea of Proposition 71 was to find therapies as speedily as possible but that the litigation had interfered with implementation for more than two years.
One of the plaintiffs objections was that taxpayer money was being spent without what they said was sufficient state control. But the judges rejected those arguments, saying that most members of the stem cell programs board were appointed by elected officials and that the program was subject to state audits.
The plaintiffs had also argued that Proposition 71 violated a law requiring ballot initiatives to be about a single subject, in part because it allows for research on topics other than stem cells. The judges wrote that since embryonic stem cell research was in its infancy, the research was as specific as the circumstances permit and reasonably limited to a single subject.
The opponents also said the program violated rules prohibiting conflicts of interest because the stem cell board contains officials of universities and research institutes that can receive grants. The judges noted that board members are forbidden from voting for a grant to their own institution.
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/us/27stem.html?ref=us
Do you favor or oppose stem cell research?
Should California go ahead with stem cell research despite the Federal ban on funding stem cell research?
Is stem cell research important to the future of the economy? If so, why? If not, why not?
