First published online May 10, 2006
Stem Cells
Vol. 24 No.
6
June 2006, pp.
1411
doi:10.1634/stemcells.2006-0280; www.StemCells.com
© 2006 AlphaMed Press
OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE
Troublesome Questions
Curt I. Civin, M.D., Editor-in-Chief
Sadly, we all came to understand an unexpected and totally unintended consequence of the U.S. Presidential restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research: without the U.S. research enterprise fully engaged in this research, it took the scientific community quite a long time to detect scientific fraud in stem cell research, even when the fraud involved such a high profile topic as human somatic cell nuclear transfer [1–3]. In this issue, Dr. Mahendra Rao, my faculty colleague at Johns Hopkins University and a STEM CELLS editorial board member, sounds the alarm on yet another consequence of the stem cell research restrictions that has been largely ignored [4].
In Maryland, "extramural" to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), we are greatly cheered by the passage in April 2006 of a stem cell research bill that will provide state funding for competitive, peer-reviewed research proposals involving new human embryonic stem cell lines. We look forward to these studies, and we hope this legislation will reduce the exodus of our stem cell research colleagues from Maryland to England, California, and other locales with more favorable stem cell research climates. Contrast this with Dr. Rao’s illustration of how intramural researchers at NIH have absolutely no possibility of conducting human embryonic stem cell research beyond the Presidential restrictions.
Here are the four questions that troubled me as I read Dr. Rao’s commentary:
- How do NIH stem cell researchers continue in this bottled-up state?
- How many stem cell researchers will leave intramural NIH?
- How far will intramural NIH fall in prestige and productivity?
- How long will this calamitous policy hold fast?
If they trouble you, too, let us hear from you. If they don’t, we would also like to hear your point of view.
The only aspect of Dr. Rao’s commentary that is not troublesome is the fact that he will continue to pursue stem cell research; we are most pleased with that and wish him the very best.
 |
FOOTNOTES
|
|---|
Available online without subscription through the open access option.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Kennedy D. Retraction of Hwang et al., Science 308:1777–1783. Retraction of Hwang et al., Science 303:1669–1674. Science 20 January 2006;311:335. DOI: 10.1126/science. 1124926; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5759/335b[Medline]
- Civin CI. Cloned Photomicrographs, Not Cloned Cells. STEM CELLS EXPRESS 2005: http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/reprint/2005-0656v1.
- Civin CI, Gewirtz AM, Goodell MA et al. Editorial Retraction. STEM CELLS 2006;24:804.[Free Full Text]
- Rao MS. Embryonic stem cell research and U.S. policy. STEM CELLS 2006;24:1412–1413.[Free Full Text]
Top
References