Why would ANYONE support Prop 71?

[Xithras]

It seems like all the Democrats I know are planning on voting for Prop 71 because it supports stem cell research. I just read the proposition and made three stunning realizations:

1) The proposition doesn't prohibit, and actually ENCOURAGES, companies from patenting their discoveries. A company like ImClone can come in, take millions of taxpayer dollars to fund their research, patent the results, and charge you out the a** to use the discoveries that YOU paid for! We pay for the research, and they get to keep all the profits. Where's the benefit of THAT? If my tax dollars are going to fund this research, I want the results to be PUBLIC and ROYALTY FREE. We're talking three billion dollars of corporate welfare here people!

2) There's no cancellation mechanism. If the money appears to be misspent, there's no way to cancel funds allocated to corporations.

3) It occurred to me that the discoveries funded by this bond measure will benefit people across the nation and around the world. So why are Californians expected to pay for the whole thing?

[bemildred]

1. I'm not votiing for it.

Another honey pot for corporations.

[cally]

2. I'm voting against it

I think California has too much debt and it's hindering the state from recovering from it's fiscal problems. This doesn't seem like the highest priority for the state. I'm for stem cell research just not having the state fund it.

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. clarification?

I, too, have just read the actual text of the proposition.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand some of your objections. Could you please clarify?

1) The proposition doesn't prohibit, and actually ENCOURAGES, companies from patenting their discoveries.

I don't seen any particular 'encouraging' of patents.
It may not 'prohibit' patenting of discoveries, but it does seem to require that the state be allowed to profit from any such patent.

text of prop:
The ICOC shall establish standards that require that all grant and loan awards be subject to intellectual property agreements that balance the opportunity of the State of California to benefit from the patents, royalties, and licenses that result from basic research, therapy development, and clinical trials with the need to assure that essential medical research is not unreasonably hindered by the intellectual property agreements.

Also, afaik, UC routinely patents discoveries; claiming ownership of any patents generated from research conducted at UC facilities.
( I'm guessing they would be one of larger recipients of these grants or loans )

2) There's no cancellation mechanism. If the money appears to be misspent, there's no way to cancel funds allocated to corporations.


hmmm... what mechanisms are currently in place for cancellation of scientific grants?
It is noted in the text of the prop that the ICC president is charged with monitoring compliance and performance of "all grant recipients".

I would like to believe that the text of individual grants normally contain some provision regarding termination of funds for cause, but I am not familiar enough with grants to be certain.
I will ask some people I know who actually write and get grants.

3) It occurred to me that the discoveries funded by this bond measure will benefit people across the nation and around the world. So why are Californians expected to pay for the whole thing?

Should stem cell research yield significant results, (which is a fairly safe bet) the state that is the leader in that research stands to gain the most.
All of the states benefited from the computer research in the Silicon Valley, but none as much as CA.

[slackmaster]

4. IMO it would be an inappropriate use of public financing (bonds)

We have enough of a debt load already. Let some other states, the federal government (eventually) and/or private industry pursue stem-cell research.

[davidinalameda]

5. I do believe that the state gets a share of the patent

I voted for it

even if the companies get full rights and make billions off of the procedures--people will still be helped if the research works

companies aren't going to do this research on their own--there is no immediate profit and/or results

research like this takes time to show results

[MaryBear]

6. Vote YES anyway!

For those among us with progressive degenerative conditions such as
Parkinson's Disease, Stem Cell Research offers the hope of healthy productive years.

Please choose life and vote YES for stem cell research now.

[bemildred]

7. Allright. I'll think about it.

Maybe it could jumpstart the California economy.
God knows the rest of the country will be no help.

[mitchtv]

8. having been through several liver transplants

and being required to take immunosupressives the rest of my life , I support 71. particularly since Gov.US will not. Calif again must lead the way.
Ps when you take Immunosupressors, there are all sorts of side effects that I must take drugs for also.

[Beaverhausen]

9. I'm definitely voting yes on this one

Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve's Foundations (among many others) support it.

[CAcyclist]

10. Your outrage is misplaced

"1) The proposition doesn't prohibit, and actually ENCOURAGES, companies from patenting their discoveries. A company like ImClone can come in, take millions of taxpayer dollars to fund their research, patent the results, and charge you out the a** to use the discoveries that YOU paid for! We pay for the research, and they get to keep all the profits. Where's the benefit of THAT? If my tax dollars are going to fund this research, I want the results to be PUBLIC and ROYALTY FREE. We're talking three billion dollars of corporate welfare here people!"

We will get royalties for these products - that's guaranteed - so they will *not* keep all the profits.

"2) There's no cancellation mechanism. If the money appears to be misspent, there's no way to cancel funds allocated to corporations."

Good point but not good enough for me to oppose it. There's always lawsuits.

"3) It occurred to me that the discoveries funded by this bond measure will benefit people across the nation and around the world. So why are Californians expected to pay for the whole thing?"

For one thing, it'll stop the brain drain - our scientists are moving to Great Britain and other countries so they can do this research.

For another, it'll create jobs, something California needs desperately.

Finally, this funding is like seed money - it will attract more funding in the future from other sources. And we will benefit from royalties.

[Xithras]

11. I voted against it

Sorry folks, but the refutations were futile.

1) Yes, I'm aware that the state gets a portion of the proceeds, but without a minumum percentage coded into the law, and a subsection defining how those funds can be used, that clause is futile. There's still nothing stopping an imClone from setting up a California research shop, using our dollars to fund their research, and then charging $10,000 per pill when they find a cure...all for a measly 1 or 2 percent kickback.

2) Sorry, read the proposition. Research funded by this bond will be exempt from public records laws so you'll never KNOW if they're wasting your money, and as a measure encoded into the state constitution, will be exempt from all lawsuits. If you REALLY think that this money will be doled out with your best interests in mind, you should do a little research. I work at a university in california and have experienced the trauma of going before a grant board in order to get funding for research. The guys with truly innovative or progressive ideas NEVER get funded by the mainstream academic board members, and this measure pretty much dictates that the oversight board will be populated by those mainstream academics. The only people who will ever see a dime of this money are the mainstream researchers who kiss butt and tow whatever the currently accepted line happens to be. The men and women with the truly innovative ideas, the ones who have historically driven research in all areas of science, will see little benefit from this bond.

3) I still disagree that the rest of the nation should get a free ride on $6 billion of California's dollars. This research promises big bucks for the major pharmas, but stem cell research is still an unproven science with relatively few players that will never support a widespread economy. This is a six billion dollar debt that will never employ more than a couple thousand Californians, and even they for no more than 10-20 years tops. To make it worse, once the discoveries are made there is no mechanism dictating that the actual cures have to be manufacured here, so the pharmas will simply outsource their production to whatever state or country can produce the drugs at the lowest cost, providing NO long term benefit to the California economy.

[MaryBear]

12. Healthy workers benefit the economy.

I'm sorry you voted against it, Xithras.

[umtalal]

13. I came to this section to say I am not in support of 71...read on:

I am all for stem research but this prop. is tricky. I think the Federal government should support this research. the fuckers in Washington are chipping our state rights away and beleive you I, they will make it their victory once the State sponsored research reaches something.

[mitchtv]

14. some of us can't wait for a perfect bill

I don't give a shit, If you guys are lucky people like me will just go away and die.