March 11, 2008
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed
the proposed initiative regarding human cloning (A.G. File No. 08‑0005). This
measure would amend the State Constitution and state law to ban human cloning,
as defined, and certain related activities.
Background
Types of Cloning and Stem Cell Research Activities.
Scientific activities resulting in a form of cloning include both “reproductive
cloning” and research-oriented or “therapeutic cloning.” Human reproductive
cloning uses genetic procedures to attempt to create a human being that would be
genetically identical to another person. Therapeutic cloning uses genetic
procedures to create certain human cells, known as embryonic stem cells, for use
in various types of genetic research.
A stem cell is a type of cell found in both animals and
humans that has the potential to develop into many different types of
specialized cells in the body. Scientists have conducted research on stem cells
to better understand how animals and humans develop and how healthy cells
replace damaged cells. This research may lead to new medical treatments for
diseases.
Current State Laws Regarding Cloning. The
State Constitution and current state law include various provisions governing
cloning-related activities. Proposition 71, enacted by the voters in 2004,
amended the State Constitution to establish a right to conduct stem cell
research, which could be interpreted to include therapeutic cloning. Other state
laws ban human reproductive cloning and the purchase or sale of certain genetic
or biological material for that purpose. State law also establishes certain
civil penalties for those found to have violated the ban.
Funding for Stem Cell Research.
Proposition 71 authorized the sale of a total of $3 billion in state bonds over
a multiyear period to fund stem cell research, research facilities, and related
activities. The proposition included a constitutional provision banning the use
of these funds for human reproductive cloning. Proposition 71 also provided that
the state could benefit financially from any patents, royalties, or licenses
resulting from research activities funded by the bond proceeds. At the time this
analysis was prepared, grants totaling $260 million had been awarded, and the
state had sold $250 million in bonds to fund Proposition 71 activities.
The University of California (UC) is engaged in stem cell
research, but detailed information regarding the sources and amounts of funding
for this research was unavailable at the time this analysis was prepared.
However, available information from recent years suggests that total funds spent
by the UC on stem cell research from non-Proposition 71 sources ranges between a
few million dollars and tens of millions of dollars annually. To the extent that
the UC receives Proposition 71 research funding, it can also use these funds to
leverage matching funding from non-state sources for the same purposes, thereby
increasing the overall amount of funding for stem cell research.
Proposal
This measure would amend the State Constitution to make
it unlawful to perform or attempt to perform human cloning. This measure would
also make it unlawful to buy, sell, transfer or receive any product of
human cloning for any purpose. Furthermore, this measure would make it unlawful
to buy, sell, transfer, or receive any embryo, fetus, or specified types of
human cells for the purpose of human cloning. The measure would also
amend the State Constitution and state law to define human cloning and certain
other terms in a manner that would likely result in both reproductive
cloning and therapeutic cloning being banned.
In addition to amending the State Constitution, the
measure would also amend state law to:
-
Make human cloning a crime.
-
Establish or increase various criminal, civil, and
professional penalties for specified violations of the ban.
-
Provide that scientific research not specifically
prohibited, including fertility treatments and genetic techniques that
produce cells other than human embryos, would not be restricted.
Fiscal Effects
Reduced Bond Costs. This measure would
likely make illegal an unknown but potentially significant portion of the
research that would otherwise be funded by Proposition 71 bond proceeds. This is
because some research activities that are currently permitted under
Proposition 71 and other California law would likely be regarded as cloning and
banned under this measure. To the extent that such research were illegal in
California, the state may not sell some unknown portion of the bonds, resulting
in potential savings annually to the state of up to the low hundreds of millions
of dollars for principal and interest costs that would otherwise likely be
incurred over the next few decades.
Revenue Resulting From Research Bonds.
Reduced Proposition 71 funding for embryonic research could also lead to lower
levels of research funding for the UC and potentially reduced revenue to the
state and UC from possible patents, licenses, or royalties that may otherwise
have resulted from the research. The amount of such lower funding or revenue is
unknown.
Possible Effect on Certain Medical Treatments.
Depending on the interpretation of the measure’s language by the courts, this
measure could also prohibit medical treatments for certain types of cancer or
other diseases that make use of stem cell replication procedures. This could
result in unknown fiscal effects on the state and local governments.
Some Criminal Justice Costs Possible. This
measure would establish state prison terms for certain violations of the ban. If
such violations did occur and were prosecuted, some new costs related to court
proceedings and incarceration could result for the state and local governments.
We estimate that any such costs would be minor.
Additional Effects Possible. Reduced
Proposition 71 funding could result in lost state and local revenue gains and
cost savings, as follows. If research funded by Proposition 71 were to result in
economic and other benefits that would not otherwise have occurred, it could
produce unknown indirect state and local revenue gains and cost savings. Such
effects could result, for example, if the added research activity and associated
investments due to Proposition 71 funding generate net gains in jobs and taxable
income, or if funded projects reduce the costs of health care to government
employees and recipients of state services. The likelihood and magnitude of
these and other potential indirect fiscal effects are unknown.
Summary
The initiative would have the following major fiscal
effects:
-
Potential state savings up to the low hundreds of
millions of dollars annually over the next few decades resulting from
reduced principal and interest costs for bonds to fund embryonic research.
-
Unknown potential loss of state and local revenue gains
and cost savings due to reduced research funding for embryonic research.
Return to Propositions
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page