Experts: Policy puts U.S. stem-cell research at disadvantage

Experts: Policy puts U.S. stem-cell research at disadvantage

BY DAWN DORSEY and
B.J. ALMOND
Rice News staff

Texas State Rep. Beverly Woolley is worried about Houston and Texas losing out to other states and countries that have taken the initiative to allow and fund human embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research.

Photo by Jeff Fitlow

Neal Lane, right, the Malcolm Gillis University Professor, senior fellow in science and technology at the Baker Institute and professor of physics and astronomy, talks with geoscientist Yoram Shoham at the March 6 conference titled “Stem Cells: Saving Lives or Crossing Lines? — Part 2: Lessons Learned” at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

She shared her concerns with researchers, students, legislators, health-care professionals and others attending the March 6 conference titled “Stem Cells: Saving Lives or Crossing Lines? — Part 2: Lessons Learned” at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

“It disturbs me and it concerns me that we are losing researchers and we are losing medical professionals to these other states and other countries so that they can go forward in the research that is so necessary to find the cures,” Woolley said. “I’m really troubled by the stories of our graduate students who choose to study elsewhere.”

In the most recent legislative session, Woolley sponsored a bill that would have funded an adult stem-cell research center at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston and another to protect medical research and establish an advisory committee to guide research policy in Texas. Much to Woolley’s disappointment, neither bill passed, and throughout the session she was concerned about legislative maneuvers by groups who oppose all embryotic medical research on stem cells.

“This is a real threat,” she said. “These people are really sincere about the ethical and moral issues revolving around stem-cell research, and the only way we’re going to be able to change the climate is through education, education, education.”

The Baker Institute’s Science and Technology Policy Program invited Woolley and other experts from around the nation, Canada and the United Kingdom to share their experiences with stem-cell matters to help Texans learn from their successes and failures.

Lori Knowles, a bioethics policy consultant and research associate of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta, Canada, presented an overview of states’ policies on ESC research, noting that many states are trying to follow the example set by California, which provides state funding for stem-cell research and allows embryonic research and therapeutic cloning but not reproductive cloning.

“It’s not just about bringing new therapies to people in your home state, but it’s clearly about business developments and job creation as well,” Knowles said.

Knowles said California has a “mini National Institutes of Health model” that allows public money to be spent on research at many different centers. Other states may opt for other models, she said. For instance, some may create statewide oversight committees to guide stem-cell research while others may guide research with existing federal regulations. Another option would be choosing to restrict regulation to just government-funded ESC research, as opposed to including all ESC research, regardless of the funding source

In 2001, President Bush limited federal funding of ESC research to the few existing registered cell lines. Since then, domestic ESC research has stagnated because fewer cell lines are available than were originally announced, cell lines have been contaminated with mouse cells and genetic diversity within lines is lacking. The National Institutes of Health estimated 60-75 cell lines were available for research at the time of Bush’s decision, a figure it later revised downward. Currently, only 22 lines are available.

“Since Bush’s policy, the field has changed remarkably,” said Neal Lane, the Malcolm Gillis University Professor, senior fellow in science and technology at the Baker Institute and professor of physics and astronomy. “Researchers in other countries have moved forward while the U.S. has stalled. This issue is too promising to be stuck in a political quagmire.”

In a review of ESC research at his laboratory, Stephen Minger, senior lecturer and director of the Stem Cell Biology Laboratory at King’s College in London, said his lab has registered three ESC lines, two normal and one for cystic fibrosis. Research is aimed at therapeutic targets, such as central nervous system disorders, endocrine disorders, joint and bone destruction, tooth replacement and cardiac, retinal and hepatic regeneration.

“The United Kingdom is the best place in the world to do stem-cell research,” Minger said. “It has world-class academic research centers, tight regulations and government commitment, as well as government-funded stem-cell banks.”
Umbilical cord blood is another intriguing option.

“Cord blood is easily accessible and ethical, and more than 100 million babies are born each year, so it is plentiful,” said Colin McGuckin, professor of regenerative medicine at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. “The future is quite rich in a number of areas, and more funding needs to be put toward it for research.”

Closer to home, stem-cell research is moving ahead using cord blood and adult stem cells. Elizabeth Shpall, professor of blood and marrow transplantation at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, reported her lab is especially intrigued by possibilities for bone marrow transplantation, particularly for minorities and other hard-to-match populations. They started a cord-blood bank in April 2005 with the Woman’s Hospital of Texas, Ben Taub General Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine. So far, more than 1,300 cord-blood units have been collected at M.D. Anderson.

“Cord blood is becoming a mainstream source for bone marrow support for patients lacking a donor,” Shpall said. “The advantages are that it is derived from a noninvasive procedure, expands the donor pool and gives opportunities to minorities. The disadvantage is it is slower to engraft than bone marrow, but we are working on ways to improve that.”

In the conference’s closing address, Bill Brinkley, senior vice president for graduate sciences and dean of the graduate school of biomedical sciences at Baylor College of Medicine, reflected on the lessons learned since the Baker Institute’s first stem-cell conference in 2004.

“We’ve learned you can’t rush this research, and we can and should support it and become politically active,” he said. “Also, we must reach out to those opposed to it largely through lack of knowledge. We have to do more as scientists, parents and administrators to educate every chance we get to make it happen.

“All Americans who have ethical reservations about ESC will find those dissipate with one significant medical breakthrough,” Brinkley said.

Lane noted that the rapid rate at which scientific advances are occurring makes it critical to avoid the public perception that scientists are going ahead with their work regardless of what anyone else thinks. “We as scientists have a responsibility to get much better informed about ethical matters, public opinion, religious views — and everything else the public cares about — and then become more effective at articulating what the science is really all about and what these ethical trade-offs are all about,” he said.

Kirstin Matthews, science and technology postdoctoral research associate for the Baker Institute, organized the conference, which was the second in a series. In addition to the Baker Institute, conference sponsors included the U.K. Science and Technology Section of the British Consulate-General, the University of Texas Medical Branch–Galveston and M.D. Anderson.

An archive of the webcast can be found at <http://webcast.rice.edu/>.