SACRAMENTO – Last week, medical researchers announced that they had reprogrammed mature human cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. The rejuvenated cells, according to press reports, were able to grow into main tissue types and could thus be used to treat various diseases. That is good news, but the location of the discovery, Japan and Wisconsin, is also of interest. 

The breakthrough did not take place at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the $3-billion government stem-cell institute California voters established in 2004 through Proposition 71. That measure enjoyed celebrity support and promised, in effect, to transform California into a vast Lourdes, with miraculous treatments for diseases ranging from diabetes to cancer, all based on stem-cell research. But what, exactly, has the Institute produced in three years?     

"By many measures, the institute is a huge success," says David Jensen, publisher of the California Stem Cell Report. "California is now the world's largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research — pumping out money this year at an expected rate of about $29,000 an hour, $258 million in all," explains Jensen in a recent article in the Sacramento Bee. "Huge success," therefore, means lots of money, not results.

Jensen also says the Institute's impact "stretches well beyond state boundaries and has stimulated the growth of similar research efforts in six other states and excitement in even more." It has also, he says, established high research standards and "pioneered development of revenue sharing requirements that will come into play if successful medical therapies are created."

On the other hand, "by other standards, including its own strategic plan, the institute doesn't measure up," Jensen laments. "The money is not flowing as fast as called for. Rosy campaign promises of cures and an economic boom still await fulfillment. Built-in conflicts of interests pervade the institute's activities. A penchant for closed-door grant reviews and secrecy screens much of the institute's most important decisions from public view. And, more than once, calls have arisen for the resignation of its chairman, Robert Klein, a man who triggers both admiration and animosity."

Mr. Klein, by the way, also wrote Proposition 71. Among those calling for his resignation is the Sacramento Bee, citing his "divided loyalties, his disregard for public processes and his imperious nature," which have driven off staff and "created a bunker mentality at what should be a world-class scientific institute."  

The Bee, where Mr. Jensen used to work as an editor, has also chronicled recent conflicts at the CIRM, whose ballpark figure for successful medical therapies is zero, and likely to remain that way for some time, perhaps forever. But the Institute does provide a service as model of what happens when the government becomes involved in health care. 

Models for government monopoly health care are still on the table in Sacramento. Like Proposition 71, these are big on promises — universal coverage billed as "free," no tax hikes, full accountability, better health for all, everything but free hors d'oeuvres in every bar. Based on the actual record, the best one can say is that government monopoly health care promises a lot more than it can deliver, just like Proposition 71. World-class funding may have created "excitement" but it did not achieve the recent medical breakthrough.

Legislators should end secrecy and make CIRM accountable to taxpayers. More important they should craft market-based health-care policies that do not rely on utopian promises or increased spending. These include equal tax treatment for those who buy insurance on their own, portability, health savings accounts, and individual control. For their part, voters might recall proposition 71 and remain wary of false promises if a health-care measure should show up on the ballot