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.
Print
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
This “article” is totally off base.
The NJ stem cell program was never solely about ESCR, as the language of the bill showed. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply cannot read.
Rob Katz
October 30th, 2007 at 6:58 pmRESPONSE TO “ Garden State Deception”
The writer is encouraging a NO vote on New Jersey’s Stem Cell Research Bond Act. This would result in a loss of half a billion dollars in stem cell research, and hand a major victory to opponents of research.
The article points out that the state has funded more adult stem cell research than embryonic. This is true. What the article does not mention, however, is that New Jersey did fund almost every one of the embryonic stem cell research projects which were proposed.
If my understanding is correct, the funding review board received a total of 96 stem cell projects—of which 90 were for adult stem cells—and only 6 were for embryonic.
The fact that there were not more requests for embryonic stem cell research funding is no reflection on New Jersey’s commitment to the science. For a variety of reasons, it did simply did not have enough trained scientists asking for funding for the lifesaving research.
The New Jersey Stem Cell Research Bond Act is open to all forms of ethical research. That is how it must be, if the best science is to prevail. Even the great state of California will soon fund adult stem cell research with the bond sales of Proposition 71.
I tend to agree with the author that embryonic stem cell research is the best way toward success. But only scientists can find out for sure—and only if they have funding.
It would be a tragic mistake to throw half a billion dollars in stem cell research funding.
On November 6th, New Jersey citizens should vote YES on the New Jersey Stem Cell Research Bond Act.
Don C. Reed
October 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pmhttp://www.stemcellbattles.com
Hold on everbody, somebody is posting in my name. I am against the deception in NJ and as you can see their tactics are rather in the sewer. I believe Dr. Young is up to this, or at least one of his colt followers have posted trying to represent me.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:14 pmFrom Don Reed’s post-however, is that New Jersey did fund almost every one of the embryonic stem cell research projects which were proposed.
Don, why are embryonic stem cell researchers not at all interested in NJ should be your comment!!!!!
What is NJ or Dr. Young the head researcher there doing to keep embryonic stem cell researchers away?
October 30th, 2007 at 8:41 pmHow can NJ fund the best science Don, when the embryonic stem cell researchers won’t even bother to put in an application there? Why do they see NJ as unfriendly to embryonic stem cell research, I am beginning to see that the researchers feel the same way I do, and that is NJ is all about adult stem cell research, yet they want to cash in on the popularity of embryonic stem cell research to help fund their adult stem cell projects. My quess is it is all a plan by Dr. Young an adult stem cell researcher who even de-linked from HR810 and tried to make friends with the right to life groups.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:57 pmDon,
If you are interested to find out the real # of applicants, you can do an open records request:
http://www.state.nj.us/opra/
The gist of the article is for truthfulness in the distinction between funding that is going to ASCR and that which is going to hESCR.
There is no denying that voters tend to think that a substantial amount of funding will be going to hESCR in NJ, when that in fact is questionable, given the poor showing of funding for hESCR in NJ during the past two rounds of funding.
I trust voters to make the right decision based on proper information. If they know that they are voting to fund a program with evidently a primary focus on ASCR, then so much the better.
It still leaves hESCR advocates the task to publicly ensure that hESCR gets a better share in a state such as NJ.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:30 pmFaye,
Many scientists interested in hESCs had already relocated to other states by the time the NJ Stem Cell Institute was created.
The NJ Stem Cell Institute will be training researchers in the state to do hESC research because there is an interest by NJ researchers to study hESCs. When they are trained, they will submit hESC grant applications and be funded.
The awarded grants were vetted by out-of-state researchers, including at least one involved in the California program. If you are frustrated by the lack of hESC grants and think somebody is to blame, blame them.
Don is correct. I wish you had taken your own advice and found out the number of grants submitted before writing this.
Steven
October 31st, 2007 at 6:49 amMr. Edwards
October 31st, 2007 at 5:57 pmA little backgroung info on where you stand would be helpful to readers here. You were always trying to push alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. Now lets not forget NJ was the first state to fund stem cell research, it is not like California was ahead of New Jersey. The difference is in the way the states presented it and for some reason embryonic stem cell researchers did not feel NJ was behind this effort. How could they be, they are spending more money on adult research and are even spending more on building adult stem cell facilities. What NJ is hoping for is a change in the federal administration and then they wtry to cash in on embryonic stem cell research grants from the NIH. That is a far cry from giving the people now the research that Bush is holding back.
Bob,
If you want to let readers know where I stand, why not start with the truth?
I was a major proponent of hESC/SCNT when Bush placed his restrictions in August 2001. I went along with everyone else under the assumption that Congress would quicky restore Clinton’s hESC rules and we, the advocates, could continue pushing for NIH funding.
Well, I was wrong. I never realized how difficult protracted this debate would be, or I would have pushed ahead with my initial thought.
Bone marrow cells had been shown to have the ability to transform into neural cells at the time, so I publicly asked why can’t we just focus on that to get the neural cells we need to cure spinal cord injury? That was a day or two after Bush’s announcement, but I caved to the “common wisdom”.
By the end of 2003, I realized I had wasted two years on a futile effort. While lying in bed one night, it hit me: if a cell’s abilities are granted by its expressed genes, why can’t a skin cell be reprogrammed to function as a hESC?
Kerry won the Democratic slot in 2004, so I knew we were in for four more years of Bush and four more years of his restrictions unless advocates changed their tactics. I called a Catholic Bioethicist to see if my reprogramming/dedifferentiation idea would be objected to and was informed that it wouldn’t be.
“Gold!” I thought. This is the perfect way forward.
Sadly, two advocates by the names of Bob K and Faye Armitage branded me a traitor and interrupted every thread I started when trying to persuade advocates to switch their methods. Every word I wrote was twisted by those two to say I was in league with the Catholic Church to undermine hESC research.
They worked together to undermine my credibility in the eyes of some other advocates, and were successful to some extent. In fact, I still feel the strain and hear the doubt in some of those advocates’ voices when I speak to them today.
Driven to the brink of insanity by the constant attacks, I opened a blog where I could express my thoughts and hopefully win converts without fear of persecution. The contents of said blog remain online at:
http://spinalconfusion.blogspot.com/
Thankfully, one researcher from the University of Kyoto had the same idea I did. He showed that he could transform mouse skin cells into mouse embryonic stem cells without creating, harming, or destroying an embryo.
This technique was translated to human cells this year, and the Gladstone Institute in California recently hired this awesome researcher — one Shinya Yamanaka — to perfect his technique. The technique will allow for the unlimited creation of hESCs, delivering on the promise of SCNT without any of the ethical controversies.
I feel vindicated by Yamanaka’s work, but frustrated by the amount of time it took to arrive. If we had pushed for it back in 2003, the work could have happened sooner and been done in America. Perhaps even in Florida or New Jersey.
So, my background is out there. Would you like to share yours?
It starts with the fact that your vendetta has nothing to do with the NJ Stem Cell Institute. If Rutgers University had a wheelchair basketball program for your son, you would be a strong proponent of the NJ Stem Cell Institute.
I have often hoped that your son would look you in the eye and say “Dad, get over it! I am happy, and you’re hurting the research that may one day help me.”
Based on your posts and actions, I fear that day has not yet arrived.
Steven
October 31st, 2007 at 7:39 pmSteven, at present there is nothing that replaces embryonic stem cells. Right now it is just speculation. Maybe in the future there will be and maybe in the future we could wipe out hatred and discrimination. BTW, there is nothing wrong with wheelchair sports. And, wheelchair sports and research are separate. NJ is wrong on both issues Steven! Just like Rutgers uses funding to remove barriers only to have those new funded bldgs used by only able bodied students they have also taken funding they promised to find cures with the cutting edge research Bush all but eliminated and directed those funds to adult stem cell research. They are even spending more money on building adult stem cell facilities in NJ than embryonic and they already have adult stem cell labs instate.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:38 pmBob,
The method I proposed that you attacked creates embryonic stem cells, not replacements for them. Instead of extracting them from blastocysts, they can be created as needed.
If you were truly interested in moving the science forward, you would realize that by now. Trying the same thing over and over, despite repeated failures, is not helpful.
Thankfully, this is a New Jersey issue and not a federal one, so Bush is not involved. Unfortunately, the advocates working to move the science forward are being attacked from people within their own ranks.
Opposing this bond measure is the same as opposing embryonic stem cell research. If you continue to oppose it, don’t forget that you are working on the same side as President Bush the next time you get frustrated by his embryonic stem cell policy.
Steven
November 1st, 2007 at 10:39 amSteven,
November 1st, 2007 at 5:47 pmI don’t oppose the bond issue, what I oppose is those in NJ taking advantage of the wording and diverting the money mostly toward adult stem cell research,which most people think will still be going to embryonic stem cell research. Why didn’t they call it the mostly adult stem cell bill of New Jersey? In New Jersey we don’t need a NON-CONTROVERSIAL form of research, take your long shot alternative to a state that would only do non-controversial research please. Not only that, I have lost respect for the researchers in New Jersey that helped author the stem cell program, they have been so misleading and show such an ability to manipulate. So I wouldn’t trust their science either! The New Jersey stem cell program is a disaster. And a big shame that a Blue State goes adult stem cell research with taxpayer money!
Bob,
Let me try to approach this another way. I know you won’t believe anything I say, so this is aimed more at any objective readers.
The NIH awarded 510 embryonic stem cell grants this year. Only 4 of those were awarded to researchers based in New Jersey.
What does this tell us? Not many researchers in New Jersey are currently trained to use embryonic stem cells for research. They may not know how to properly culture and grow them, or any other number of things.
One of the grants awarded by the New Jersey Stem Cell Institute was to create a course to train researchers how to use embryonic stem cells. Researchers will be trained over he course of the year, enabling them to submit embryonic stem cell-based grant applications next year.
These newly trained researchers will also be able to submit more competetive grant applications to the NIH and other funding sources, bringing additional money into the state that would not be there otherwise.
Embryonic stem cells will play a vital role in the bond referendum, but only if it passes and the researchers can be trained. If the future of funding in New Jersey is not guaranteed because the referendum fails, researchers will move to other states to be trained and have their research funded.
Passage of the referendum is essential to guarantee the future embryonic stem cell research in New Jersey. Without it, your battle will be much more difficult.
I believe these are the critical points in favor of the referendum. Your claims and fears are not based in fact, so I hope you will go out and vote YES on Nov. 6th.
Steven
November 1st, 2007 at 7:48 pmHmmm Steven, I wonder why NJ never applied for the NIH training grants to train more scientists in NJ in embryonic stem cell research.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/training/
It sure seems they could have qualified for an NIH grant sometime since 2002, when they first stated their intended commitment to hESCR.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:38 pmFaye,
In this piece, you say that only two embryonic stem cell projects were funded by New Jersey.
However, last month you wrote that New Jersey funded five embryonic stem cell projects:
http://stemblog.net/?p=133
In June, you wrote on Daily Kos that New Jersey funded four embryonic stem cell projects:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/25/85448/3793
Which of these statements is true? Did New Jersey fund 2, 4, or 5 embryonic stem cell projects?
You told Don that you trust voters to make the “right decision based on proper information,” but how can they when your message has been inconsistent? Which of your messages can they trust?
Steven
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 amFaye,
My recent comments are awaiting moderation because they contain links, so I will add this.
The state of New Jersey has awarded approximately $6.4 million to human embryonic stem cell research.
The grants from FY 2006 totaled $5.1 million total, with $1.2 million going to embryonic stem cell research; $900,000 of which went to human embryonic stem cell research.
John Corzine’s June announcement of $10 million in grants did award only two human embryonic stem cell grants, but they totaled $5.5 million.
Taken together, $6.4 million out of almost $15.1 million is dedicated to human embryonic stem cell research. That is a far cry from the 9:1 ratio favoring non-embryonic stem cell research that you claim here.
Steven
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 pmWe appreciate the lively commentary on this article, but some of the comments have veered towards personal attacks and feature criticism of individuals outside the scope of the original article. We do request that commentors respect our community rules.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pmSteven it came to my attention that some of the embryonic stem cell projects were NOT human embryonic but rather animal embryonic.
Just so you know the first round of funding gave $ 300,000 for hESCR to a researcher by the name of Ivor Lemishka.
The second round of funding gave $300,000 for hESCR to Rick Cohen.
I finally figured it all out here:
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 pmhttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/16/175354/86
Do you feel victorious, Faye, with this defeat of a $450 million stem cell research bond in NJ? I’m sure the stem cell research opponents are celebrating. $450 million dollars vanished, going to no type of stem cell research at all. I’m a cure activist too, paralyzed, wheelchair user. I wish the bond had been approved.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pm