All stem cell research is not created equal, a truism that
found fresh validity this week. Particularly research that could play a role
in whether the California stem cell agency can find more cash to continue its
operations.
The difference was highlighted yesterday by articles on the stem
cell agency’s blog. The pieces dealt with findings – some esoteric and some
not-so-esoteric -- that received international attention. The articles written by CIRM staffers Amy Adams and Don Gibbons were fine as far as they went. But it is one thing to deal with the nuts and bolts of
research and another to look at it from the perspective of whether it resonates
with the public.
The research in question is from Spain and Stanford. Researchers
in Spain reprogrammed adult cells in a
living mouse to become like embryonic stem cells. Those results received much “gee
whiz” attention in the mainstream media, most of which overlooked problematic aspects involving its cancer-linked results(see researcher Paul Knoepfler's take here and Gibbons' item here).
The other findings out of Stanford dealt with people and
Down syndrome, along with cognitive function, aging and Alzheimer’s.
The press release by Krista Conger from Stanford said,
"'Conceptually, this study suggests that drug-based strategies to slow the rate of stem cell use could have profound effects on cognitive function, aging and risk for Alzheimer’s disease in people with Down syndrome,' said co-author Craig Garner, PhD, who is the co-director of Stanford’s Center for Research and Treatment of Down Syndrome and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.”
Both the press release and the CIRM blog item briefly noted
that funding from CIRM helped to sustain the research. Stanford buried the information at the end of its release. CIRM mentioned it much higher in
its item.
In neither case were specific funding figures mentioned. Nor
was there any attempt to say whether this research would have been slow in
coming or not coming at all without CIRM help.
Why does that matter? The $3 billion state stem cell agency
will run out of funds for new grants in about three years, not very long given the
length of time it takes to develop major funding sources and the rather
deliberate pace at which CIRM works on some matters.
Currently the agency spends about $300 million year on
research and is not likely to be able to renew its funding at that level. But
if it wants to play at even the $50 million level, it will have to generate
some sizzle from the research that it has funded.
Sizzle is what the Stanford research has. It resonates with
people. We all know somebody or a family with issues such Alzheimer’s, Down
syndrome or cognitive problems. Missing largely, however, from the press releases, media
stories and even the CIRM blog is some sort of way of assessing whether CIRM
funding played a KEY role.
And that is the clincher for agency. That is the sizzle that
will sell the agency as absolutely necessary if it truly wishes to turn
stem cells into cures.
(Editor's note: Shortly after this item was posted, we searched the agency's Web site. One of the results disclosed that agency gave $1.4 million to Michael Clarke of Stanford for the research. He has filed two progress reports on his findings.) The research received additional support from CIRM as well, but the amounts were not readily apparent.)
(Editor's note: Shortly after this item was posted, we searched the agency's Web site. One of the results disclosed that agency gave $1.4 million to Michael Clarke of Stanford for the research. He has filed two progress reports on his findings.) The research received additional support from CIRM as well, but the amounts were not readily apparent.)
No comments:
Post a Comment