|
Home > Archive > Multiple sclerosis support > August 2005 > Stem Cells: Do We Really Need the Feds?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Stem Cells: Do We Really Need the Feds?
|
|
| Cowboy 2005-08-26, 10:52 pm |
| http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082405.shtml
Do We Really Need the Feds?
Funding stem-cell research without Uncle Sam
Ronald Bailey
In August 2001, President George Bush limited federal spending on human
embryonic stem-cell research to stem-cell lines derived before that
date. President Bush said that he was restricting federal support for
research to those lines because he did not want to "encourage further
destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for
life." So far only 22 stem-cell lines qualify for federal funding of
human embryonic stem-cell research, and the National Institutes of
Health provided only $24.3 million last year for such research. It's
impossible to tell what the level of federal funding for such research
would be now in the absence of the administration's restrictions,
because it is impossible to know how many good solid research proposals
those restrictions have deterred from even being submitted.
However, these federal funding restrictions have provoked an outpouring
of state initiatives for research funding for stem-cell research. So
far four states have put taxpayer dollars behind human embryonic
stem-cell research. The 800 pound gorilla in the stem cell funding
arena is California. Last November, California voters passed $3 billion
initiative that created the new California Institute of Regenerative
Medicine that aims to fund stem-cell research at $300 million annually
for the next ten years. That is more than 12 times higher than current
federal funding. California will not only be outspending the U.S.
Federal government; it will be trouncing whole countries on stem-cell
research funding. For example, the United Kingdom has plans to spend
$175 million per year on stem-cell research. In 2002, the Australian
government awarded the Australia Stem Cell Centre with $43.55 million
over four years. And the research of South Korean scientists who have
recently been making breakthroughs in cloning human embryonic stem
cells has been supported by about $11 million in government grants.
The other three states that have ponied up for stem-cell research are
New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois. New Jersey has allocated $150
million to construct a new stem-cell research center, and Governor
Richard Codey is proposing a November 2006 referendum to ask voters to
authorize $230 million to fund the research. Connecticut has passed
legislation authorizing $100 million in spending on both adult and
embryonic stem-cell research over the next 10 years. In Illinois,
Governor Rod Blagojevich moved $10 million of state public health
research funding to establish a new stem-cell research institute called
the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute. This was in lieu of a
much more ambitious plan by state Comptroller Dan Hynes, who proposed a
$1 billion referendum to create an Illinois Regenerative Medicine
Institute that would have dispensed $100 million a year in research
grants and loans over the next 10 years. The proposal would have been
funded by a 6 percent tax on face-lifts, Botox injections and other
cosmetic procedures.
Many other states are mulling over various proposals to fund stem-cell
research. In Massachusetts, legislators are expected to introduce a
bill proposing that the state spend $100 million on stem-cell research.
In North Carolina, a bill proposing to use $10 million from the state's
tobacco settlement proceeds to fund stem-cell research has been
introduced in the state legislature. Even in the president's home
state, the Texas House of Representatives approved selling $41.1
million in bonds to build a stem-cell research facility at the
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. (Gov. Rick Perry
says that he is against spending taxpayer money on research that ends
human life.) In March, legislation was introduced in the New York State
Assembly to create the New York State Institute for stem-cell research
and Regenerative Medicine with annual funding of $100 million. The
Maryland House of Representatives approved a bill allocating $23
million to a stem-cell research Fund-the bill died in the state
Senate. A bill creating the Pennsylvania stem-cell research Council
that would disburse the research funding created through a $500 million
bond initiative paid for by a 2 percent tax on medical devices and
diagnostic equipment has been introduced in the Pennsylvania State
House.
Setting aside commercial efforts like those of the Geron Corporation,
private funding for academic stem-cell research is also rising. For
example, the Starr Foundation is providing $50 million over three years
for human embryonic stem-cell research at three New York City medical
institutions, including the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center. The
Harvard university Stem Cell Institute is seeking $100 million in
private funding. The university of California, Los Angeles announced
the establishment of its Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine
with $20 million in funding over the next 5 years. Stanford University
announced the creation of $120 million Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell
Biology and Medicine in 2002. Former Intel CEO Andy Grove gave the
University of California in San Francisco a matching grant of $5
million to start its Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program. In
2001, an anonymous donor gave Johns Hopkins university in Baltimore a
$58.5 million gift to launch an Institute for Cell Engineering. The
University of Minnesota has set up a Stem Cell Institute with a $15
million capital grant. In 2004, an a grateful patient pledged $25
million over the next ten years to finance stem-cell research at the
University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.
Given all of these sources of funding for stem-cell research, it's a
real question whether or not researchers need the Feds at this point.
And one more deliciously ironic thought: It's just possible that, by
imposing his funding restrictions and spurring so many independent
initiatives, President Bush has actually caused the creation of more
embryonic stem cell lines than would have been produced with federal
funding.
| |
|
| On 26 Aug 2005 16:46:07 -0700, "Cowboy" <msbuckaroo@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082405.shtml
>
>Do We Really Need the Feds?
>Funding stem-cell research without Uncle Sam
>
>Ronald Bailey
>
>
>In August 2001, President George Bush limited federal spending on human
>embryonic stem-cell research to stem-cell lines derived before that
>date. President Bush said that he was restricting federal support for
>research to those lines because he did not want to "encourage further
>destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for
>life." So far only 22 stem-cell lines qualify for federal funding of
>human embryonic stem-cell research, and the National Institutes of
>Health provided only $24.3 million last year for such research. It's
>impossible to tell what the level of federal funding for such research
>would be now in the absence of the administration's restrictions,
>because it is impossible to know how many good solid research proposals
>those restrictions have deterred from even being submitted.
Trimmed
Just a thought/question: when the feds develop a patentable discovery,
the use of it by private sources need not worry about patent rights
since it the discovery is under the general laws area. Would denying
the use of federal monies turn the potential for discovery(s), say, in
stem cell research, for example, make it a potential profitable
research if funded totally by private sources of investors' money? Is
there a rub here somewhere?
Donn
| |
|
| DCI wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2005 16:46:07 -0700, "Cowboy" <msbuckaroo@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Trimmed
>
> Just a thought/question: when the feds develop a patentable discovery,
> the use of it by private sources need not worry about patent rights
> since it the discovery is under the general laws area. Would denying
> the use of federal monies turn the potential for discovery(s), say, in
> stem cell research, for example, make it a potential profitable
> research if funded totally by private sources of investors' money? Is
> there a rub here somewhere?
Donn, since CA was the leader of the pack with non-federal funding, and
the San Francisco Chronicle published an article this past week that
addresses some of those questions. Although the joint created to handle
all the details is STILL tied up in lawsuits of various kinds -- at the
moment, it's all theoretical, even the reserach itself!
here's the article if you (or anyone) want a look:
--------------
San Francisco Chronicle
Panel wants state to waive stem cell product royalties
Experts say profit interest may discourage private investment
Bernadette Tansey, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
A panel of university and business experts said Tuesday that California
should waive its right to a share of royalties on the stem cell
research the state will fund under a $3 billion program passed by voter
initiative last year.
Although Proposition 71 allows the state to gain a partial interest in
the intellectual property that results from the state-funded research,
a committee of the California Council on Science and Technology said
the state's financial stake could hinder progress toward stem
cell-based therapies. Cutting into potential profits might discourage
private investors from putting up the additional funds needed to
develop lab discoveries into marketable products, the committee
concluded.
The panel's report, though not binding on the institute controlling the
stem cell research money, raised protests from taxpayer advocates and
state Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, one of the Legislature's
strongest advocates for a flow of research benefits back to the state.
Ortiz said the proposed policy would violate both the language of Prop.
71 and the promises made to voters who passed it in November.
Proponents of the initiative maintained that the $6 billion needed to
issue bonds to support the research would generate more than that
amount from a combination of royalties, increased biomedical business
activity, and disease therapies that would lower state health care
costs.
Ortiz, who chairs the subcommittee overseeing the stem cell project,
said her fellow legislators are unlikely to support wholesale adoption
of the proposed policy. "They take very seriously their obligation to
make sure California gets a return on its investment,'' she said.
The Legislature has no direct control over the research funds, which
are entrusted under Prop. 71 to an independent body called the
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Critics of the
initiative say the governing board is dominated by representatives of
research institutions that could benefit from the grants, patient
advocacy groups and members of the biomedical industry, with no one to
speak directly on behalf of the state's interests.
Although the institute is authorized to negotiate with stem cell grant
recipients for a share of patent rights on their inventions, it can
forgo those rights. Ortiz has been working on a state constitutional
amendment that would require the stem cell institute to guarantee
California some payback, like a promise that therapies resulting from
the research would be available to low-income state residents at
discounted prices.
Her proposals have met with resistance from researchers as well as some
stem cell institute members. As the debate raged, both the institute
and legislators including Ortiz asked the California Council on Science
and Technology to recommend an intellectual property policy for the $3
billion program. The council is a nonprofit organization of
state-funded post- secondary institutions, private universities and
private sector firms. Their report was financed by the university of
California, the university of Southern California, and the California
Healthcare Institute, a biomedical trade association.
The panel concluded that the state should follow the lead of the
federal government, which for 25 years has handed out research grants
from agencies like the National Institutes of Health without retaining
a patent stake. Instead, grant recipients such as universities fully
control the intellectual property rights, which they can license for
fees or a royalty share to private companies. The policy, enacted in
part under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, was intended to create financial
incentives for speedier commercialization of medical advances.
The same rationale should guide the state, said Stephen Rockwood, the
council committee co-chair and executive vice president of Science
Applications International Corp. His panel concluded that Prop. 71
campaigners overstated the potential for state revenue from stem cell
research royalties. And adding state patent rights to the stack of
royalty obligations that might be needed to develop a therapy could
deter investors, Rockwood said.
"Let's not be impatient, let's not expect to fill the state's coffers
tomorrow,'' he said. "Let's get the drugs out as fast as we can.''
Leaders at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine declined
to comment.
But another legislator who invited the council's input said the stem
cell institute should not adopt its full recommendations.
"I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on, 'What does the state
get out of this deal?' '' said Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San
Francisco. "You and I are paying $3 billion.''
Jerry Flanagan of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights said
that under the council's policy, returns from the cash-strapped state's
money would eventually end up in private hands.
"Allowing private companies that receive public grants to own the
intellectual property is a violation of the public trust,'' he said.
"Voters were told they would benefit from stem cell research, but if
the drug companies own the treatments, it will be the top executives
and shareholders that will profit.''
E-mail Bernadette Tansey at btansey@sfchronicle.com.
--------------
|
| |
|
|