California has been a pioneer in several aspects of policy on new biotechnologies, most notably with the passage in 2004 of Proposition 71, which established the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and authorized to distribute and oversee $3 billion in public funds to support stem cell research and build research facilities over ten years.

Before that, the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning issued a report that led to a state ban on reproductive cloning. In 2003, a state agency blocked the sale of genetically modified fish as pets. In 2006, the state legislature passed a law providing protections for women who may provide eggs for cloning-based stem cell research.

Proposition 71 has been closely watched by other states and countries. It launched two experiments: the first an experiment in biomedical investigation; the second in its politics and policy. Never before has a state so generously funded an emerging scientific field. And never before has a state been faced with regulating and overseeing a field that combines promising medical research with significant social risks.

The Center for Genetics and Society believes that embryonic stem cell research should be supported, publicly funded, and closely regulated. But a close analysis of Proposition 71 raised significant concerns. Notably, rather than establishing broad oversight, the initiative granted control of a large public investment to a particular set of interested parties insulated from legislative and public accountability. Many of CIRM’s subsequent actions have deepened these concerns.