Proposition 71 and CIRM--assessing the return on investment

Michael T Longaker; Laurence C Baker; Henry T Greely

doi:10.1038/nbt0507-513

Proposition 71 and CIRM--assessing the return on investment

Nat Biotechnol. 2007 May;25(5):513-21. doi: 10.1038/nbt0507-513.

Authors

Michael T Longaker¹, Laurence C Baker, Henry T Greely

Affiliation

¹ Department of Surgery, Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford School of Medicine, 257 Campus Drive West, Stanford, California 94305, USA. longaker@stanford.edu

PMID: 17483831
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0507-513

Abstract

Given that Californian voters authorized state coffers to sell $3 billion in bonds to fund the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) with the expectation of health and financial benefits, what benchmarks should be used to measure the initiative's success?

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Academies and Institutes / economics*
Academies and Institutes / legislation & jurisprudence*
Benchmarking / methods
Biomedical Research / economics
Biomedical Research / legislation & jurisprudence
California
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Embryo Research / economics*
Embryo Research / legislation & jurisprudence*
Regenerative Medicine / economics*
Regenerative Medicine / legislation & jurisprudence*
State Government