Top Government Scientist Quits


 Human Stem-Cell Trials
Stem-Cell Patient Roasts Lawmaker
Rao: In a larger sense, it hasn't changed all that much. I have focused on
whether we can use stem cells for therapy and on the nervous system as the
model since I was trained as a neurologist, when I practiced medicine. We
fell back (in terms of development) because of what I call the source
problem: For any kind of cell therapy in humans, you need a certain number
of cells with a certain amount of expandability and certain sets of
characteristics, and so far the best choice -- and we evaluated all of
these -- has been embryonic stem cells. So, yes, we work on fetal tissue
cells. We work with adult cells. We work with cadaver cells. But none of
them have fulfilled the criteria that we needed for certain kinds of therapy
in the central nervous system.
WN: Are you getting closer to finding the type of cell that will fill that
criteria?
Rao: Yes, and that's been my big excitement in the embryonic stem cell
field. I think we are getting much closer. It was a big, big breakthrough in
my mind and it's only been six years, but already it's clearly shown that we
can make progress in this field.
WN: Sounds like a lot of exciting progress is going on and at the same time,
so many roadblocks keep going up. Proposition 71 is going through lawsuits
and there are President Bush's 2001 regulations -- are a lot of young
scientists shying away from the field because of the controversy?
Rao: Yes, actually two big problems for the field have slowed things
down.... Labs that explore technologies we would like to use in the stem
cell field, just like you would in the cancer field, for example, have shied
away because it's just not worth their while, everything's much more
difficult. Not just policy, but it's also the patent situation. The other
big problem is that when you're making career choices you want stability,
knowing the field will be around and it will be supported and it's not clear
how much support there is from the government.
In the United States, more than 70 percent of all funding for research comes
from the NIH and the NSF and other government funding agencies. So when
students look at this, they say five years from now after I get a degree,
I'm not going to have a career in this field. Lots of my students don't want
to work on embryonic stem cells, but will work on something related.
WN:: The Wisconsin patents have been called too restrictive and it sounds
like you think the patents surrounding stem cells may be restricting
research.
Rao: I won't blame Wisconsin or WiCell or WARF alone. Stem cell work is
going on worldwide, but the patent was issued only in the United States, and
it's pretty clear the patent won't issue in several other countries with a
policy on human tissue and human samples and what can be patented. So we
have extremely broad claims in one market and essentially no protection in
another market.... (When) WiCell and WARF first got the patent they weren't
clear on how to use it to help the field. So initially the licensing
requirement was too expensive for any of the companies that need to enter
the field first. In any field, you want the tools and reagent companies --
they're the ones that supply the pick and shovel for a gold rush, so to
speak, and if it's too expensive, then you don't have a pick and shovel to
be able to mine the gold, and that's been a big, big problem for the field.
WN: What do you see as the most promising research going on right now?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn