Stem cell research in California: problems with Proposition 71: can lessons be learnt from the United Kingdom

Abstract

This article seeks to give a brief introduction to the history of Federal regulation of human embryonic stem cell research in the United States in a bid to put the Californian Proposition 71 into context, discuss the potential problems with Proposition 71 and to briefly draw comparisons with the United Kingdom. Among others, some of the potential problems to be discussed include the right to conduct stem cell research, adequate oversight and the permitted research purposes. The passing of Proposition 71 with 59 per cent of the public vote in November 2004 was a milestone in the United States. Prior to the passing of Proposition 71, no individual State had taken action to fund, and to a certain extent, regulate human embryonic stem cell research. The Federal Government of the United States will not provide Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research where the research will destroy the embryo and will only provide Federal funding for the few stem cell lines which were created prior to the announcement of this policy on 9 August 2001. It was in the light of this prohibitive stance that campaigners in California started the process to put onto the legislative books, Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research Cures and Bonds Act. Before discussing Proposition 71 in detail it is necessary to give a brief background to the Federal stance on human embryo research, to be able to put Proposition 71 in its correct historical standpoint.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for Natasha Hammond-Browning: orcid.org/0000-0002-2371-2479

Catalogue record

Export record