Vantage Point: United States losing competitive edge in stem cell research
BY CHRISTOPHER THOMAS SCOTT AND JENNIFER MCCORMICK
Five years ago, President Bush announced that funding from the National Institutes of Health could not be used to develop stem cell lines made from newly donated embryos. His action spurred conservative members of Congress to introduce legislation that would criminalize research with human embryonic stem cells and their future therapeutic use. If passed, it will send scientists, patients and physicians to jail for up to 10 years and fine them $1 million. Competing legislation designed to overturn the ban was written a year later. Both measures passed the House and now lie before the Senate. Bush has promised to veto any law that would override his policy.
The consequences of the Bush policy are profound and unambiguous. The NIH's own officials admit the agency has ceded leadership in the field. Once brimming with experts, scientists no longer undertake hegiras to Washington to learn about important advances in stem cell biology. Instead, countries where the research is encouraged have stepped into the breach, making new lines at an astonishing rate. Their discoveries are increasingly showcased at scientific meetings.
And now, evidence confirms the nation is falling further behind its competitors. One of the best measures of scientific productivity is publishing peer-reviewed research in scientific journals. A recent article in Nature Biotechnology analyzed whether stem cell researchers in other countries are out-publishing U.S. scientists. When categorizing human embryonic stem cell research papers according to whether they were within or outside the United States, it was determined that research has accelerated at a faster pace internationally. In 2002, roughly one-third of the papers were from U.S. research groups. By 2004, U.S. groups accounted for only one-quarter of the publications. Government policy may be among the factors contributing to the gap between U.S. and international publications in the field. [ http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/april12/med-embryo-041206.html ]
Why worry about this trend? The answer lies with our biomedical "discovery machine." It operates on a seven-step assembly line: 1) A biologist, usually an academic scientist, designs an experiment to answer an important question. 2) S(he) applies to the government to fund the research. 3) The money pays for students and fellows who conduct the research. 4) The results are published in journals, which advance the field. 5) An invention may result. This may lead to a patent, which then is licensed to a start-up company. 6) With a monopoly granted by the patent, the company attracts venture capital. If successful, it grows into a bigger company. 7) Years later, the discovery becomes a therapy for patients.
It takes billions of dollars to prime this machine: $28.8 billion to be exact, the annual budget of the NIH. Every year, the money generates an astonishing amount of fundamental knowledge and thousands of biomedical discoveries. With no initial funding, this apparatus—the best in the world—stops at Step 1. The idea has nowhere to go. No publications, no new knowledge, no inventions, no companies and no new therapies.
With no money, what do the scientists do? They choose other careers. Worse, they leave. It began in 2002 when the University of California's Roger Petersen fled to Britain's Cambridge University. The exodus of senior researchers has continued. Late last year, two of the nation's top government stem cell biologists were so worried about money that they moved to Singapore instead of coming to Stanford. Last month Singapore struck again, taking two of California's best researchers.
When scientists abandon their laboratories, a field can vanish. A scientific discipline is designed to grow exponentially. A professor will train a handful of students, some of whom go on to become professors themselves who train more students. Some PhDs enter industry, where they lead projects and hire more trained workers. Funded properly, this collection of experts becomes a formidable force, building new research centers, driving innovation, and creating entire business sectors. Our government front-loads the process; ingenuity and free enterprise takes care of the rest.
Simply put, cutting off funding will stop science. And no scientist dares pin a career on a discipline that could be outlawed at any moment. Other countries like Singapore, China and the United Kingdom know this, and are raising money to lure American scientists. The pioneering model we use to benefit our own citizens is being hijacked, one laboratory at a time.
While these signs are troubling, American biomedical research is still strong. States like California and New Jersey show resilience, shoring up medicine's most promising frontier. Most embryonic stem cell biologists hold on mightily, waiting for Congress to vote. A vote that will send them back to their labs—not to jail—where they can get on with the business of keeping us at the farthest edge of medicine, where we belong.
A version of this piece ran April 18 in the Boston Globe. Christopher Thomas Scott is executive director of Stanford's Program on Stem Cells and Society. Jennifer McCormick is a postdoctoral fellow at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.