#99 Thursday, March 2, 2006  -  MINI-ISSUES, IMPORTANT AND NOT


Remember the old saying about the importance of details?

"For want of a nail, a horseshoe was lost; for want of the shoe, the horse
was lost; for want of the horse, the message was lost; for want of the
message, the battle was lost; for want of the battle, the kingdom was
lost-for want of a nail, a kingdom was lost."

The problem is, there are far too many nails in this life!

We are surrounded by details, millions of them, veritable mountains of
minutiae; and which one is really important: that vital key we must not
overlook?

That's where we are in the California stem cell research trial right now, as
both sides argue their way through boxes of information, binders and binders
and binders, thousands of pages, and maybe  a blob of ink somewhere that is
important-because some of this may influence the next trial.

There definitely will be a next trial, regardless who wins here. The Appeals
court has to hear it; and after that the California Supreme Court will
decide whether or not to take up the case.

The question is: what goes along with the case?

The opposition wants as much as they can get, a mountain of material,
through which they can sort with a fine-tooth comb, hoping to find one
damning detail-an "Aha!" moment, when they can say, "See? The stem cell
research is unconstitutional because _________ sneezed during the Pledge of
Allegiance when he was eight years old, oh, we got you guys now!"

Their ultimate dream, of course, would be the Ken Starr success. Remember?
When President Clinton's enemies accused him of real estate illegalities,
and the Starr investigation went through every corner of the President's
life, they found no truth in the original charges-but they did find out he
had been unfaithful to his wife.

The opposition then impeached the President, which tied up the White House
for years, and probably prevented passage of an improved health care system
for America.

Fortunately, there isn't much sex in stem cells. (SCNT, as a matter of fact,
has none at all, involving neither sperm nor womb!)

But the opposition to the California stem cell research program is
desperately seeking new grounds to sue us on.

If I understand correctly, they requested every email sent to or from the
Prop 71 campaign: it would have been a wall of boxes.

They were denied that, but did receive more than 18,000 pages of information
(I said 18,000 documents yesterday, but that was a mistake on my part, it is
18,000 pages), and they still want more.

Here is a sample of what you might have heard in the courtroom yesterday.

Each side has about four lawyers, and they argue back and forth, hour after
hour, about the hidden meanings of words .

It goes something like this: ("Them" is the plaintiffs, the religious right
and anti-tax organizations suing the CIRM; "Us" is the lawyers defending the
research program.)


Them: Your Honor, document 1002-24, transcript of an email, ______ says,
"politics as usual"-that clearly implies an understanding that the
individual sees himself/herself as a representative of a university, rather
than a public employee, which of course adds to our argument that the
program is unconstitutional.

Us: Your Honor, this is a three-word comment at the top of an emailed page
sent to several dozen people, referring to a statement made by two
non-parties to the issue.

Judge: And your objection would be?

Us: Irrelevant, lack of foundation, hearsay.

Judge: (to opposition) And your response is?

Them: We are asking not on the basis of establishment of truth, but rather
to reveal a state of mind.

Judge: The individual's state of mind?

Them: A collective pattern, a state of mind which makes the Independent
Citizens Oversight Committee a private board, rather than a public board,
thereby proving our point that Proposition 71 is unconstitutional.

Judge: And on that basis you are asking for a witness to be called?

Them: It may be necessary, your honor.

Judge: The witness could establish whether the email was written, but if you
are thinking she could clarify the mindset of an institution--?

Them: Your Honor, having never spoken to the witness, I do not know what
might be revealed.

And so it went, hour after hour.


The incident that summed up the day for me was when Zach Hall was called to
testify.

Now Dr. Hall is not just the President of the CIRM.

He is a respected neuroscientist in his own right, whose research, according
to San Francisco Chronicle science writer Carl T. Hall, "produced important
discoveries about the molecular interplay of the nervous system and the
muscles." ("Hall expected to guide stem cell institute"-- February 11,
005  ).

At the University of California San Francisco, Zach was head of neurobiology
and chair of the physiology department; He was a leader in the National
Institutes of Health, directing the National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke;  He "helped direct the gargantuan planning effort that
went into UCSF's Mission Bay Campus, a 43-acre project along San Francisco's
southern bay shore."

Now he was called as an expert witness.

A genuinely sociable man, you could tell he was delighted to have the
opportunity to explain the inner workings of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine.

But the other side's lawyers kept objecting, again and again and again.
Every chance they got, they interrupted, shutting him off like a faucet.

"Objection, irrelevant, not responsive," they would say, and sometimes the
Judge would agree with them, and sometimes not.

Once Dr. Hall almost argued with the lawyers, which is basically not
allowed.

"But-" he said, and stopped himself.

On his face was genuine puzzlement.

The man's whole adult life has been dedicated to finding out the truth and
sharing it.

Did not these people want to understand what was really going on?

No, they did not, and do not.

All the opposition wants is something-anything!-that will shut the research
down.

Don Reed  -  www.stemcellbattles.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn