Brave New World? Part 2 of 2

George W. Bush's stem cell funding announcement last Thursday evening was considered to be the most controversial and challenging move of his presidency. Politically, Bush met it with aplomb--to appease both arguments, he approved funding, but only to the existing 60 stem cell lines where as Bush says, "the life and death decision has already been made." Yet some are still questioning how much the President's decision will determine the life and death of stem cell research.

Sixty's The Limit

One of the resurfacing questions that circulated in the media immediately after the Bush announcement was the number--60? Were there really 60, who had access to it and how much did it limit medical and research opportunity? Actor Michael J. Fox, one of the most visible stem cell research supporters (and Parkinson's disease victims) told The Today Show Friday morning that he had heard there were only 12 lines, and that, "we need the White House to disseminate information as to the source of those lines so that scientists know what they are working with." This sentiment was also echoed within the research community.

"I don't think any of us believes there are 60 available cell lines," Glenn McGee, a bioethicist at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania told Wired Online. Bush's statement about the existence of more than 60 stem cell lines was reportedly based on a survey of international laboratories and included proprietary information not generally available. It had also been reported that some of the Bush-approved embryonic stem-cell lines don't meet NIH standards and therefore can't be used for research; and that Geron (see Part 1 of 2) owns nearly half the stem cell lines researchers are using, which some fear will lead to a monopoly on research.

The other major concern with Bush's number cap is that it will restrict the extent to which future discoveries can be applied to patients. The limited number of lines translates into a lack of the diversity of cells available for treatment. If effective cures are ever developed from the research, this lack of cell diversity will increase the chances that patients will reject stem cell implants because systems perceive the cells as foreign invaders. "Dangerous compromise" and "bad investment" were some of the words used by dismayed critics of the decision. Although the reaction to Bush's decision was significantly positive amongst both sides of the debate as well as in public polls, several members of Congress announced plans to push forward proposals that broaden the definition of Bush's plan when it resumes activity this fall, and could potentially alter the amount--and dissemination--of the President's budget.

Alternative Support for Stem Cell Research

As the fate of stem cell discovery within the United States continues to be shadowed by political battles, the science community working in this area is already questioning what will be the best way to keep it insular from policy making decision.

Although the potential for stem cell research is widely agreed upon as being very rich, stem cell technology is still an early-stage science. Thus it encounters the same government-support dependency issue commonly faced by other areas of early stage R&D, a dependency that could leave researchers uneasy in the face of last week's decision. Before the announcement, scientists feared that a flat out ban would be enough to put a chokehold on research--shifting a heavy investment burden on to private financiers to carry stem cell research from thought to realized product would be too high-risk and too much of a burden, significantly curbing if not collapsing progress altogether.

Yet, the bone thrown to researchers last week by the President could possibly alter the fate of the relationship between private investors and stem cell research for the better or for the worse. Researchers have worries--investors have traditionally been wary of backing anything in such an early stage, and tangible progress for stem cell research has been given conservative estimates of anywhere between six and eight years, which translates into a lifetime for most VCs. The other major strike against stem cell research is of course the overall lack of health of the current economy and the hesitancy amongst private investors to stake in anything, let alone something with a such a significant risk factor.

The hopes for stem cell research within the US could arguably be perceived as slimmer than the dark cloud hanging over it, yet there are some sustainable arguments for a positive shift. Firstly, the limited research of the sixty lines may prove to eventually lead to significant enough progress that will attract the needed private capital to take it further. Second, in the more immediate future, investors may feel more confident in the science by the President's inability to dismiss the research entirely, and also see it as an opportunity to get a bigger piece of the rock, reaping larger portions of the potentially rich benefits. Yet if private investment towards early stage research becomes too rapid, and expectations are too high, the attraction for big returns could end up creating a bubble instead of an industry.

Offshore development is another viable alternative for advancing stem cell research,
with both US-based scientists relocating to countries such as the UK that offer stronger support to this kind of technology. Britain's positioning in the area of reproductive technology was already prominent in both policy and practice, and could become stronger with the policy and funding changes in the US. Stem cells were first derived in Cambridge from two lab mice and therapeutic cloning, illegal in the US, was protected by law in Britain last year. Shortly after the Bush announcement, Trevor Jones, chairman of Europe's first listed stem-cell company, ReNeuron Holdings, told Reuters that UK academia will probably build on its pioneering position in stem cell work, saying, "A U.S. ban on cloning for therapeutic purposes, together with the restriction placed by President Bush on federal funding of US research using new stem-cell lines, will benefit the UK's academic research base."

Despite its history of controversy and opposition, which is longer than the recent brouhaha of media and Presidential attention, researchers have prevailed in significantly advancing stem cell research amidst this, and have come to prove its indisputable potential. Even if the science manages to stay afloat with government and private funding, its success will not be based merely upon beating the enemy of opposition, but by proving its necessity through the fruit of a profitable, beneficial product. As Annemarie Moseley, CEO of Baltimore-based Osiris Therapeutics, told Red Herring,"the ultimate question of stem cell success will be dependent upon whether it produces a product that makes it to market."

click here for part 1 of 2

by Wendy Hall
larta Staff Writer