In the last ten days before the election the recently deceased Christopher Reeve was shown in an advertisement supporting California Proposition 71, a three billion dollar funding proposal for stem cell research. “Stem cells are the future of medicine,” Reeve said: “Please support Proposition 71 and stand up for those who can’t.”

Perhaps in response to his eloquent words, California voters stood up and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 71, the largest stem cell funding bill in the country. This is especially noteworthy because federal funding of stem cell research was limited in 2001 to $25 million a year on certain pre-approved stem cell lines. California voters have made a statement by endorsing an amount more than a hundred times as large. This courageous and insightful decision will greatly benefit medical research and outweigh narrow monetary considerations.

Although federal funding is traditionally a boon to scientific research, it is especially restrictive about stem cells. The federal government’s guidelines effectively leave most new research to private institutions such as Harvard. Our government has been unique in its restrictiveness; in contrast the European Union (EU) has formally backed embryonic stem cell research. The EU has already allowed part of their $20 billion research budget to be granted to stem cell researchers. While the rest of the world is embracing this potentially revolutionary scientific research, our government is forcing it to adopt a second-rate status.

While there are reasons that many oppose stem cell research, their considerations are not strong enough to warrant limiting the research. Some oppose embryonic stem cell research because of the belief that it kills a human being: the embryo from which the stem cells are derived. Others note that stem cell research will not produce any tangible results for at least a decade. Still others, especially in debt-ridden California, note the significant monetary expenditures associated with such research. California voters, however, have correctly responded to these concerns.

While moral opposition to stem cell research is a valid opinion, California voters have shown that the great majority of the state’s residents support the research. Although stem cell research may not produce treatments for many years, the knowledge that we will undoubtedly learn from such a field would make the wait worthwhile. Scientific research is rarely a discipline where new developments occur quickly or easily. Stem cells are no exception, and we should expect many painstaking years of research. The ultimate results of this research, possible cures for diseases ranging from Parkinson’s to diabetes, are well worth the wait.

The cost may be an issue in the short term, but the California proposition has checks in place. Proposition 71 is funded with self-financing state bonds that do not cost the state government anything for the first five years. This has won the support of deficit-conscious Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Once funding of research has begun, California retains the right to share in royalties. Additionally, if stem cell research reaches its potential California could easily recoup its losses by cutting its $110 billion annual health care spending.

The country as a whole is headed in the wrong direction for scientific progress. Stem cell research holds promise for the future treatment of chronic diseases; it would be foolish to ignore it. California, historically a trend-setter, has shown us a path which other states would be wise to follow.

Ashish Agrawal ’08, an editorial comper, lives in Stoughton Hall.