Somers' take on NJ stem cell bond failure
Terri Somers, California stem cell cheerleader, had text on the defeat of the NJ bond issue:
“I think the New Jersey vote demonstrates how difficult it is for individual states to make a substantial financial commitment to stem cell research,” Werner said.
“It's just difficult for a state to dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to research generally. And I think it is particularly true because stem cells are so controversial. And that underscores why it is crucial why support from the leadership of the federal government and full investment by the National Institutes of Health is so important.”
At the end of the article was the suggestion that, in any event, NJ was too small an effort:
At about one-tenth the size of California's financial commitment to stem cell research over the next decade, observers of the stem cell issue said the New Jersey initiative was unlikely to pose much competition to California. More than 50 scientists have already moved to California since the passage of Proposition 71.
While states are competing for the best scientists and the business benefits that could eventually flow from their work, the scientific community sees all research as beneficial.
“We want every state to be able to put their best minds to this field,” Murphy said. “Unfortunately New Jersey, which has some great scientists, is not going to have the ability to participate in the stem cell revolution as robustly as they might have if this money was provided. And that hurts everybody.”
But, as noted elsehwere, one VC fellow said of the stem cell bond failure in New Jersey:
...it became a gravy train so that three regions of New Jersey were all being treated to fantastic new buildings and labs. (...)
...politics running up to the level of overly-ambitious predictions that we're told and sold about NJ "investing" in Stem
Cell Research, but we were actually buying was more Class A buildings - perhaps an abundance.
“I think the New Jersey vote demonstrates how difficult it is for individual states to make a substantial financial commitment to stem cell research,” Werner said.
“It's just difficult for a state to dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to research generally. And I think it is particularly true because stem cells are so controversial. And that underscores why it is crucial why support from the leadership of the federal government and full investment by the National Institutes of Health is so important.”
At the end of the article was the suggestion that, in any event, NJ was too small an effort:
At about one-tenth the size of California's financial commitment to stem cell research over the next decade, observers of the stem cell issue said the New Jersey initiative was unlikely to pose much competition to California. More than 50 scientists have already moved to California since the passage of Proposition 71.
While states are competing for the best scientists and the business benefits that could eventually flow from their work, the scientific community sees all research as beneficial.
“We want every state to be able to put their best minds to this field,” Murphy said. “Unfortunately New Jersey, which has some great scientists, is not going to have the ability to participate in the stem cell revolution as robustly as they might have if this money was provided. And that hurts everybody.”
But, as noted elsehwere, one VC fellow said of the stem cell bond failure in New Jersey:
...it became a gravy train so that three regions of New Jersey were all being treated to fantastic new buildings and labs. (...)
...politics running up to the level of overly-ambitious predictions that we're told and sold about NJ "investing" in Stem
Cell Research, but we were actually buying was more Class A buildings - perhaps an abundance.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 7:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home