More things to look out for in the November Election in California

The Wall Street Journal (Subscription required so can't link to the page) has a story about a new proposition that is likely to be on the California November ballot.

It is a bond issue that will raise $3 billion for stem cell research over 10 years. It will give $295 million per year to researchers who are working on stem cell research out side the federal regulations.

Currently, any University, company or person who is receiving federal funds for stem cell research is limited to the 60 strains or so that existed at the time President Bush made the rule in Summer 2001 (I think this is when it was).

Universities and companies are free to use their own money to acquire additional stem cell strains but they cannot use any federal money for work on those non-approved strains.

Per the article:
"Robert Klein, the Palo Alto real-estate developer leading the ballot drive, says extensive polling indicates the initiative can win the simple majority needed to pass. A key factor: Nearly 85% of Californians have a family member or close acquaintance with one of five conditions -- Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's or spinal-cord injury -- that potentially could be treated with stem cells."

The backers of the bond measure are fairly confident the measure will pass if they market it as working to cure these diseases. Of course the fact that all are only in every early stages of research will not be mentioned.

I have two problems with this type of initiative, well ok three, but the last is not a major concern.
1. I do not like the idea of creating embryos just to harvest their stem cells and destroy them. That is wrong.
2. This will divert money away from other promising research such as using adult stem cells which from the few articles I've seen appear to be very promising.
3. Even if this bond initiative was a good idea (and I don't think it is), at this time, California can't afford it anyway.

Hopefully other papers will either reprint the story or do follow up stories and we will be able to link to them.

On a final note, this is an important story in California, it was the WSJ, a New York paper that reported it, why aren't the California papers at least looking at things going on in this state?