Restrictive funding will slow research

Sarah Houlton argues that the US President, George Bush, is wrong to limit stem cell research, and that it could lead to a brain drain while slowing research

The recent decision by US President George W Bush on stem cell research funding could lead to a drain of the finest brains in the area in the opposite direction to that which has been steadily taking place over the past couple of decades. Stem cell researchers in the US are unhappy at the constraints the decision places on them and the work they will be unable to do under the auspices of publicly funded research. And the climate in the UK and the rest of Europe is being seen as much more conducive to innovative research on stem cells.

In early August, Bush announced that federal funds would only be available for research using human embryonic stem cell lines that meet certain criteria. This amounts to research on existing stem cell lines that were derived from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes, with the informed consent of the donors and without any financial inducements being offered to the donors.

The following research will not be funded:

This means that research using existing embryonic stem cell lines only will receive government backing. Over 60 stem cell lines already exist, in varying degrees of development, and the US funding body the National Instituted of Health (NIH) has set up a registry of those lines that satisfy the criteria.

The decision is in stark contrast to that which had been proposed by the Clinton administration. Just before last year's election, an order was issued that would have meant US federal funding of stem cell research being allowed, as long as the stem cells were only harvested from embryos using private money. Sadly for freedom of research, this was never enacted, thus paving the way for Bush's research limiting decision.

Now, publicly funded research in the US is restricted to work based only on existing stem cell lines. Ten laboratories around the world — four in the US, two in Sweden, two in India, and one each in Australia and Israel — have submitted stem cell lines to the NIH that are listed in its registry. The 64 cells have been derived from 64 different, genetically-diverse, blastocysts (an early stage of embryonic development consisting of a hollow ball of cells with a localised thickening, the inner cell mass, which develops into the embryo itself, and which implants into the wall of the uterus). They can all be maintained frozen as well as in culture, and have undergone several population doublings.

Stem cells have vast potential in medical research. There are numerous potential sources for stem cells, including adult cells, the umbilical cord, blood cells and the placenta, but it is believed that those from embryos may hold the most potential. They are derived from the inner cell mass of an embryo, and have the potential to develop into most, if not all, of the different tissues present within the body. Embryonic stem cells can be reproduced, possibly indefinitely, and so it is likely that the cell lines already in existence could be used as the basis of much further research.

A recently reported example of the treatment of Huntington's disease highlights the huge potential that stem cells have for the creation of future therapies for human diseases. Embryonic stem cells were implanted into the brains of sufferers of the incurable degenerative condition, leading to an improvement in symptoms.

The first embryonic stem cells were isolated by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin in the US, and the university is still one of the biggest centres for stem cell research today. The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation owns five cell lines, and licenses them through the WiCell Research Institute.

It says it has enough cells available to supply every research team that receives a federal grant. Last month, University of Wisconsin researchers announced they have succeeded in turning human embryonic stem cells into blood cells, using these cell lines. Thomson says these could possibly be used in therapy within 4–6 years.

WiCell and the NIH have negotiated a memorandum of understanding that allows its 5 existing stem cell lines to be accessed by scientists for their own research and freely publish their results, as well as allowing the NIH to retain ownership of any intellectual property that may arise from work it funds. The NIH says it hopes this will serve as a model for making lines from other sources available for more widespread research.

The NIH maintains that there is sufficient genetic diversity in the 64 available cell lines to satisfy all demands, saying 'much basic research can and should be conducted using existing stem cells before any conclusions can be reached regarding the therapeutic potential of these unique cells'. But many scientists disagree, questioning the limits this will place on the scope of their research, and believing that being restricted to these existing cells will fail to meet future demands, particularly for clinical trials of potential cell-based therapies.

The situation is very different in the UK. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) oversees all work involving human embryos, whether in the public or private sector. This public body was set up as a control over all the research, and means a closer eye can be kept on the work, whether public or private. In the US, controls only exist in the public area. This means that not only is research increasingly being forced into the private sector, but once outside public funding, there is little government control over what can be done.

Bush's anti-abortion stance is well known. But this decision may prove damaging to future research in the US as scientists begin to head for the more liberal climate across the Atlantic. And it may well prove counterproductive.

Keeping all facets of stem cell research in the public arena while setting up stronger controls like those in place in the UK would have meant the authorities having more say over what research could be done. Now, with more of it heading to the less regulated private sector, the authorities will have little say over what work many of the researchers that do remain will be able to perform.

Despite the positive noises being made by both Bush and the NIH about the future of stem cell research in the US, it is difficult to see how, in the long term, basic research into stem cells can thrive in the climate.

State funded research has been the cornerstone of many fundamental scientific advances, and restricting the availability of research grants in this way is likely to deter scientists and slow down important scientific developments.