Our goal at the stem cell agency is simple: accelerate the development of successful therapies for patients with unmet medical needs. Along the way, we’re also expanding scientific understanding of stem cells and building a strong research community in California.
A new paper in Cell Stem Cell examined the impact of state-funded stem cell programs on scientific publications. The question was straightforward: have states that fund stem cell research increased their share of publications in the field? In California, the answer is a clear yes.
Why State Funding Mattered
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, stem cell research—especially work with human embryonic stem cells (hESCs)—was highly controversial. Restrictions on federal funding led several states to create their own research programs. This study focused on four of them: California, Connecticut, Maryland, and New York.
Researchers examined U.S. publications that: • included at least one author from those states
• focused on hESCs or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)
• and compared data from before and after state funding began
They then compared those patterns to publication trends in two noncontroversial fields: RNA interference and cancer research.
For California, the results stood out. Publications on RNAi and cancer involving California authors stayed steady at 15–18% from 1996 to 2013. But hESC and iPSC publications jumped from zero in 1998 and 2006 (the years each was discovered) to a peak of 45% in 2009, remaining consistently high since.
As the authors put it, “state funding programs appear to have contributed to over-performance in the field.”
Between 2010 and 2013, roughly 55% of hESC papers with a California author acknowledged state funding—strong evidence that the program helped California maintain and expand its leadership in stem cell science.
Connecticut also saw gains, though not as dramatic. Maryland and New York held steady—impressive in itself given California’s rapidly growing share.
What This Means Going Forward
The researchers note that publications are “only one measure of the impact of state science programs.” Other metrics—such as the number of clinical trials that emerge—are equally important. Still, they conclude:
“This analysis…provides a useful starting point for policymakers and, potentially, voters considering the future of state stem cell funding efforts as well as others interested in state science and technology policy more generally.”
Related Posts
A call to put the public back into publication