Stem Cell Funds At Root of Debate

As the Sept. 18 Democratic gubernatorial primary approaches, the three candidates are sparring over how to fund stem cell research.

Although all of the candidates support such research, they disagree about how to allocate state research money, specifically whether Harvard should receive a significant share of it.

While Chris F. O. Gabrieli ’81 supports a merit-based award system, Deval L. Patrick ’78 and Thomas F. Reilly favor giving large grants to the University of Massachusetts.

At the Sept. 7 debate, held at the Kennedy School of Government, State Attorney General Reilly said, “Harvard’s got plenty of money.”

“I’m going to put my money, $500 million investing in the University of Massachusetts,” he added.

During the debate, Patrick said, “I would take all or much of that money and invest it in centers of excellence in public higher ed, as a way, as I say, to lift the quality of their facilities and to attract faculty.”

It is not surprising that these candidates have adopted such a stance, said Martin M. Linsky, an adjunct lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School.

“Patrick and Reilly are trying to present themselves as populists, especially Reilly, so it fits well with his presenting values,” Linsky wrote in an e-mail.

In contrast, “Gabrieli is trying to present himself as the meritocracy candidate, the non-political candidate, the non-insider who will not pander to an active constituency (here, UMass alums),” Linsky wrote.

Gabrieli, who serves on the board of the School of Public Health, has proposed a merit-based award system which uses peer reviews to select the best researchers.

He said that California, New York, and New Jersey have similar systems to the one he is proposing.

Gabrieli accused his opponents of playing politics with the important issue.

“Do you want to get cures for the disease or do you want to score points by saying that you care about UMass?” he asked at the debate.

“It’s not about politics, it’s about good research and curing diseases,” he added.

With Harvard’s resources and its affiliated hospitals, Harvard has “depth and breadth of scale that hardly any other place in the country can match,” said Executive Director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute Brock Reeve.

“You can get some of that with UMass but you can’t rebuild Mass General or Children’s or Dana Farber out in Amherst,” he added.

Reilly argued that Harvard has sufficient funding without state money. Officials at Harvard’s Stem Cell Institute insist that is not the case.

“We do not currently have enough money,” said Reeve.

Although the Harvard Stem Cell Institute has raised about $50 million from private philanthropists and foundations, it still lacks sufficient funds given the tight regulations on federal funding for stem cell research, Reeve said.

“With the fallout of the NIH money, you can’t backfill that solely with private funds,” he said.

Distribution of funding does not seem to be a crucial electoral issue, said Jeanne Shaheen, IOP director and moderator of the Sept. 7 debate.

“My guess is that what will be important is their support for stem cell research but the details of how they would do that probably will get less note among voters,” she said.

—Staff writer Stephanie S. Garlow can be reached at sgarlow@fas.harvard.edu.