California Stem Cell Research: Hype, Folly and Contempt?

If you believe a Washington Post editorial and an op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle this weekend, California should fold up its stem cell research rather than capitulate "to "the unholy lust of scientists."

Citing the Korean scandal, self-described "professional philosopher" David S. Odeberg called for separation of science and state in his piece in the Chronicle.

"How could the millions thrown at scientists be anything other than a veritable inducement to misconduct? When you combine it with the innumerable honors and awards that await the next would-be secular savior of humanity, one wonders that fraud is not even more common than it appears to be," he wrote.

Odeberg, professor of philosophy at the University of Reading, England, continued:

"It would be an act of utter folly and of contempt for honesty and integrity were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's beloved California Institute for Regenerative Medicine now to go ahead."

The Washington Post, whose editorial was carried on some California websites, also noted the pressures on scientists to overstate their results. But its main argument was that states are a "bad place" to conduct stem cell research because it would be politicized at the state level.

"In California, universities already are hiring scientists and building labs, even though lawsuits have prevented the state's $3 billion funding program from issuing any grants. This kind of hype makes it particularly difficult for states, which do little basic research funding, to judge the value of individual stem cell research projects."

The Post did not mention that the reason states are seeking to fund embryonic stem cell research is because of the President's own politics and personal beliefs and the political gridlock in Congress on the issue.

Bioethics Blog Disagrees with CIRM Exec

The editors blog of the American Journal of Bioethics does not agree with the position of Zach Hall, president of CIRM, that peer review can prevent a Korean-type scandal in California.

Here's the key quote:

"This from the guy who is giving out the money. Oversight is the key to giving the money out responsibly. It is one of the reasons why we should give government funding in the first place. California has become the standard-bearer for state-based biotechnology research funding…."

This would be okay, "but not if the standard-bearer claims that fraud is best prevented by peer review."

Chronicle: CIRM Needs Careful Regulation

The San Francisco Chronicle said today the Korean stem cell scandal is a “cautionary tale” that shows that the California stem cell agency needs additional public regulation.

The editorial in today’s paper said:

"What is to prevent similar fraud and ethical lapses from happening here in California, where voters agreed to spend $3 billion on stem-cell research?
"'Scientists,' responded Zach Hall, president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the funding entity created by Prop. 71. Warning that every industry has the potential for an Enron, Hall touted the American system of peer review as the best way to expose rogue scientists and bad science and to keep research-funding decisions apart from undue political, religious or geographic influences. 'What will not stop this from happening is government oversight,' he said.
"In a world of 'pure' science, maybe. But stem-cell research is, at this point, anything but pure. Scientists rail about the 'political'interference in their work by the religious-right aligned Bush administration, but what was the campaign launched by the stem-cell research proponents to sell the stem-cell bonds, if not political? With business and political capital -- not to mention the state's image as a technological innovator -- on the line, the stem-cell institute needs oversight, both regulatory and scientific."

The editorial continued:

"Questions remain about the sourcing of the human eggs and about which avenues of research are best pursued with the taxpayers' money. Would voters embrace research that might require hundreds of human eggs to produce a therapy for a single person? If these rules are adopted, who enforces them? Are there punishments for infractions?
"These matters of great public concern should be subject to government regulation -- especially when taxpayers are picking up the multi-billion-dollar tab for this research."

New Money-Raising Effort at CIRM

The California stem cell agency began a new, $2 million fundraising drive yesterday to pay for such things as a national conference in May on the medical risks of human egg donations and how to reduce them, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.

Reporter Terri Somers quoted Zach Hall, president of CIRM, as saying the effort is aimed at financing “nongrant” scientific activity. Hall also said the agency is now focusing on creating a structure that will allow it to move quickly once litigation against it is resolved.

"We want to hit the ground running once the money comes in. Rather than sending out a slow and gradual stream of funding, the plan now is to let a torrent of funding flow like waters set free from a sluice gate."

Somers wrote that the “image of a torrent worries” Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society.

“He wondered if there was enough good science to warrant such funding at this time. But he was also somewhat comforted by the plan.
“Originally, the institute's leaders talked about making their first grants last May, which Reynolds said was ludicrous. To hear them now talking about having their organizational infrastructure in place first sounds better, he said.”

The latest fundraising effort is in addition to the $50 million effort to sell bond anticipation notes.

CIRM, Cibelli, Korea and The Bee

An official of the California stem cell agency is taking issue with a Sacramento Bee editorial that indicated that CIRM was not taking the Korean scandal sufficiently seriously.

The editorial referred to a meeting Dec. 1 of the Standards Working Group. At that time, the Hwang affair had not surfaced completely, but it was evident that extremely serious problems existed.

Bernard Lo, co-chair of the group and director of the UC San Francisco Program in Medical Ethics, said in his letter:

"Contrary to the assertion that we went 'out of our way' to avoid discussion of Hwang's difficulties, a review of the written record of the Dec. 1 meeting of this committee, posted on Dec. 12, demonstrates that the Korean developments were the catalysts for extensive discussion on egg donation. The result was numerous recommendations to prohibit the practices that sparked the Korean controversy. Further, we have developed enforceable rules that exceed existing state and federal guidelines to ensure that research is conducted safely and ethically."

A search of the 263-page transcript shows that the word "Hwang" was mentioned twice and "Korea" or variations of it popped up eight times. Obviously such a simple count does not measure the quality of the discussion. Korea did trigger some exchanges, and the group also discussed a wide range of ethical subjects, including the value of a woman's eggs.

One of the members of the standards group is Jose Cibelli, a reknown Michigan State University scientist. He is also a co-author of the fraudulent March 2004 paper by Hwang that reported the first-ever closed human stem-cell line. Cibelli was present at the December meeting and participated in the discussions.

Queried by the California Stem Cell Report, a spokeswoman for Michigan State said,

"Michigan State University is conducting an investigation into Dr. Cibelli’s role on the '04 paper, where he is listed as a co-author. The investigation was started at Dr. Cibelli’s request. Given the investigation, there won’t be any comment available. For more information on the process, see: http://www.msu.edu/unit/vprgs/level2/conductres.htm

We should note that CIRM officials have stated in the past that scientists are often reluctant to criticize their peers' work in public. It is one of their justifications for maintaining closed door reviews of grant applications.

California Pushing Ahead with Cloning ESC

From San Diego, where stem cells meet the surf(see "Science of Surfing"), comes a couple of stories dealing with the California stem cell agency and some of the California fallout from the Korean scandal.

Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote in some detail about the plans of California scientists to jump into the field of cloning human embryonic stem cells. It was that effort in Korea that turned out to be frauduent.

But scientists in California aren't giving up, and they hope to secure funds from the California stem cell agency to pursue their work.

Somers wrote:

"My guess is that just about everyone who has a stem cell research center is going to jump into this," said Jeanne Loring, a stem cell researcher at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla.

"All of the California research institutes stressed that in moving forward, they will follow the latest and strictest ethical guidelines to avoid the lapses uncovered in South Korea."

Also weighing in from San Diego was Richard Murphy, president of the Salk Institute and a member of the Oversight Committee for CIRM. His op-ed piece in the San Diego paper was a reprise of CIRM one year later. He said:

"I am often asked when California's stem cell research is going to get off the ground. The answer is, we don't know. At the moment, state-supported human embryonic stem cell research is at a standstill, tied up in the courts by research opponents who are arguing that Proposition 71 is unconstitutional.

"But these opponents have not succeeded in preventing CIRM's employees from creating an impressive state-supported stem cell institute that is ready to spring into action once the monies flow. Government agencies are often targets for criticism, but Californians are getting more than their money's worth from this one."

IP, IP, IP and More IP

The website of the Health Committee of the California state Senate is awash in intellectual property – that is, information dealing with the multimillion dollar questions of who profits from research funded by the California stem cell agency.

The Health Committee is chaired by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, who is carrying a proposed constitutional amendment concerning IP and CIRM. So much of the information comes from her hearing last Oct. 31, including a transcript of the proceedings.

But there are additional links to to background information at the University of California, the NIH, the California Council on Science and Technology and alternative IP models. Also included is information from last March's hearing into implementation of Prop. 71 and a hearing on the measure prior to its passage in November 2004.

If you want to know what is going on with IP issues and CIRM, this is one of the places you need to check out.

Vaccine Advisory

For those of you who have been looking for the "sunshine vaccine" item, it has been reposted a couple of items below. It was inadvertently removed during a feeble attempt to fix some html coding errors.

Hwang Reaction: Research Needs More Care

In the first of what is likely to be a series of comments about the impact of the Korean stem cell fraud findings, a top Stanford researcher says they show that researchers must "work more deliberately."

Irving Weissman, director of the Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, released a statement that included the following:

"With the dollars provided by California's Proposition 71, Stanford intends to recruit scientists who will find ways to do nuclear transfer research, first in animal models and then with human cells, using the safest and most effective methods.

"The Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine is committed to advancing the field through the creation of new stem cell lines, research to further understand stem cell biology and the development of treatments for disease. Proposition 71 will play a significant role in helping Stanford researchers as well as other California institutions achieve the full therapeutic potential of stem cells."

Weissman called the Korean scandal a "personal tragedy" for Hwang and his scientific colleagues.

"While the announcement is a disappointing setback for nuclear transfer stem cell research, we are all making significant progress in the fields of adult tissue stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research and cancer/leukemia stem cell research. We must work more deliberately on nuclear transfer stem cell research, but we must go forward ethically and responsibly, as the future potential applications for the diagnosis and treatment of human diseases using these tools is so great," Weissman said.

CIRM Promises Open Search on General Counsel

After we posted the item below, the California stem cell agency emailed the following comment on Bedford's position at CIRM.

"CIRM will engage in a full and open recruitment process for the position of General Counsel when our funds become available."

Update on CIRM's General Counsel: An Orrick Connection

The California stem cell agency may have found the man who will be its new general counsel once the money really starts rolling in.

He is Daniel R. Bedford who is working fulltime pro bono at CIRM while he winds up affairs at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP of San Francisco.

It is our understanding that Bedford will fill the general counsel slot at a later point, but neither he nor CIRM would confirm that. Currently CIRM has put a hold on new hiring because of its budget crunch.

Bedford is assisting "CIRM generally on its many legal matters," says Nicole Pagano, a spokeswoman for CIRM. "At the moment most of his time is devoted to helping CIRM put together its Grants Administration Policy and advising on internal governance questions."

According to Orrick's web site, Bedford focused his practice on complex asset-based and lease financing, with an emphasis on agribusiness, domestic and international project financing, and tax-advantaged leasing."

His work has included representation of John Hancock Life Insurance in areas concerning equity and debt direct private placements. Other clients included public transit districts and Banc of America Securities. Much of his work involved various kinds of debt, which would seem to be a good fit with the needs of CIRM in connection with the issuance of state bonds.

Bedford has also participated in complex negotiations for natural gas pipelines involving government agencies, both in the US and involving Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Bolivia. Orrick's site did not list any involvement with biotech firms.

Orrick is bond counsel to California, but Orrick's site does not show any work by Bedford for the state.

Bedford received a B.S., M.B.A. and J.D. from Stanford University, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Time for a Stem Cell Sunshine Vaccine

The international scientific conference that was sponsored last fall by the California stem cell agency had an interesting sidelight that is now surfacing in the Korean research scandal.

It was in San Francisco at the time of the conference that Gerald Schatten, the University of Pittsburgh scientist who co-authored the fraudulent Korean stem cell paper, met with Hwang Woo-suk and asked for a 50 percent share of the patent, according to Merrill Goozner, director of the Integrity in Science project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Hwang rejected Schatten's request. About six weeks later Schatten publicly broke with Hwang, helping to set in motion a string of events that culminated in Hwang's disgrace.

The rejected request by Schatten has been reported previously (Nov. 29), although we had not seen the location of the meeting. But as Goozner notes, it has received little notice in American media. Goozner also points to a story on Saturday by reporter Jennifer Bails of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, who wrote that Schatten "is seeking to patent technology to create embryonic stem cells without crediting his now-estranged colleagues in South Korea."

The 50-percent request is not the only allegation about Schatten that has received little scrutiny. Totally overlooked by most newspapers was a report Dec. 16 by Associated Press writer Paul Elias. He wrote that Schatten, who was listed as "senior author" on the Hwang paper, could also become a victim of the Korean scandal.

"At the very least, Schatten faces a formal reprimand once an internal school investigation is concluded," Elias said.

He quoted Arthur Levine, dean of Pitt medical school, as saying:

"One should only be the senior author of a scientific paper when one has prepared and was responsible for all the data in that paper. It also implies the senior author is the chief of the lab where the experiment took place."

Other allegations concerning Schatten have also received short shrift in this country. They include aKorean statement that Hwang rejected Schatten's request to serve as chair of the once-vaunted World Stem Cell Hub. Hwang also reportedly rejected a Schatten request for a payment of $200,000 to help start the US operations of the World Stem Cell Hub, according to Digital Chosun.

Schatten and Pitt have generally not responded to the allegations. Pitt is conducting its inquiry behind closed doors, a process Goozner called outrageous.

Bails wrote:

"The rush to file biomedical patents for early-stage technologies creates roadblocks to research that do a disservice to the public by requiring scientists to dish out licensing money whenever they have an idea that might be worth pursuing, Goozner said.
"'It sets up arbitrary financial roadblocks to research,' Goozner said. 'We need new systems that make these technologies open to all scientists at the lowest possible price, and when the government funds them, it should be the government insisting that's how they are managed.'"

In his blog, Goozner wrote that Hwang was also attempting to patent the same research without mentioning Schatten.

"Ownership disputes over key stem cell patents have been simmering since the field emerged in the late 1990s. The University of Wisconsin, whose researcher James Thomson used Geron Corp. funding to isolate the first embryonic stem cell lines, charges $100,000 to commercial concerns and $5,000 to academics for access to those lines. It also granted Geron exclusive rights to pursue therapies in the most promising fields. Last May, San Diego-based stem cell researcher Jeanne Loring told Nature magazine her start-up firm collapsed because it couldn’t get access to the Wisconsin patents at reasonable rates," Goozner said.

In the case of Hwang, however, one wonders why someone would want to patent bogus research results.

Aside from the San Francisco meeting between Hwang and Schatten, what does all this have to do with CIRM? Much of it goes right to the point of the hottest issues before CIRM this year. The agency, as well as the legislature, is in the midst of wrestling with the question of ownership of state-funded research results and sharing access to those results. The fallout is likely to build support for more sharing rather than less. The Korean scandal also reminds us that the stakes are huge and people are tempted by riches and fame. It tells us that more disclosure is better than less about the economic interests of those associated with the $3 billion California effort. Call disclosure a kind of sunshine vaccine. Without some protections such as could be provided by a pending state constitutional amendment, the CIRM program would not likely survive a scandal of even a fraction of the magnitude of the Korean affair.

Why Whales Migrate

When two U.S. scientists decided to take their research to Singapore last fall, one Stanford stem cell researcher called it a "loss for America."

The two are Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins. They left the National Institute of Cancer in Maryland and rejected a pitch from Stanford as well before deciding to depart for Asia.

They said they would have moved to California if funds were available from the state's stem cell agency. Writers Sara Webb and Mia Shanley of Reuters recently explored more of the couple's reasons for leaving the Home of the Free and the Land of the Brave. They included "restrictions on government funding for stem cell research, shrivelling grants and curbs on commercial spin-offs from their work such as consulting and other fees," the scientists told Reuters.

The news agency reported:

"'The amount of money going towards research is going down. It doesn't have a high priority (in the United States). In Singapore it does," said Copeland, adding that they would like to exploit some of their Singapore-funded research commercially.
"Copeland and Jenkins said they had been won over by Singapore's scientific freedom, deep pockets and interest in commercial applications, at a time when the U.S. government's National Cancer Institute in Maryland -- where they worked for 20 years -- began a clamp down on consulting work by its scientists."
The story continued:
"In an era where funding is critical -- even a microscope can cost half a million dollars -- wealthy Singapore has the money.
"That, say scientists, has been Singapore's attraction, along with speedy grant approvals and lack of burdensome paperwork.
"'We don't want to spend the rest of our lives writing grants,' said Copeland, adding that Singapore's quick access to funding was key. The couple's colony of 20,000 mice costs some $1 million a year to maintain."

Singapore is currently engaged in a major recruitment drive to attract top scientists – "whales"-- as part of a multi-billion dollar biomedical research effort. Last fall reporter Lisa Krieger of the San Jose Mercury News wrote about the couple's decision. Irving Weissman, director of Stanford's Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine, told Krieger:

"'It is a loss for Stanford and a loss for America,' Weissman said. 'Without a doubt, they are the best people I know to find out which genes are altered to cause cancer.
"'When they do their work, it will be for Singapore,' he said. 'They'll conduct their clinical trials in Singapore. The first place their work will be patented and used will be Singapore.'"

Studying the Science of Surfing

It's just like science say the biotech "dudes" who combine business and surfing in the Pacific Ocean near San Diego.

"In San Diego's booming biomedical industry, opportunity tends to come in waves — the kind found at La Jolla Shores or Black's Beach or Scripps Pier. Surfing has become a way to make contacts, get face time with the boss and arrange deals," wrote reporter Denise Gellene in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday.

They call them "board" meetings and report that "it's where the best business gets done." One surfer, Steve Mayfield, named his company, Rincon Pharmaceuticals Inc., after a surfing spot somewhat farther north on the California coast. Mayfield is also an associate professor of cell biology at the Scripps Research Institute.

Laura Shawver, chief executive of Phenomix Corp., said riding the waves has something in common with biotech.

"This is just like science. You must be very persistent. You can have spectacular wipeouts followed by the high of your life. And you are always looking for the next one."

We should report that we surfed a spot in La Jolla early in December but did not see any major stem cell breakthroughs or deals being hatched. But again it is about being in the right place at the right time.

California Researchers Forging Ahead with SCNT -- Among Others

Newsweek had something to say in its most recent edition (dated Jan. 16) on the impact of the Korean scandal on stem cell research in California as well as elsewhere.

Here are the most pertinent paragraphs in the item written Claudia Kalb and B.J. Lee:

"The Hwang debacle isn't stopping U.S. scientists. Nor are they starting from scratch. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)—the technique Hwang claimed to have mastered in humans—has already been accomplished in mice. If researchers can move it to people, they say SCNT will allow them to watch complex diseases develop in the petri dish, spot problems and then test drugs to fix them.
"The procedure, which requires human eggs, is technically daunting and only a handful of U.S. scientists have said they have plans to try it. Three from Harvard, who specialize in diabetes and brain and blood diseases, hope to start experiments soon. The biotech firm Advanced Cell Technology, in Worcester, Mass., says it's moving ahead again after shutting down in the wake of South Korea's supposed advance. Stanford says it's recruiting scientists to work on the procedure. And last week, Larry Goldstein of the University of California, San Diego, went public, telling NEWSWEEK that he and several colleagues now plan to pursue SCNT as well. A politically active stem-cell researcher—he fought hard for California's $3 billion initiative—Goldstein wants to use the technique to focus on the genetic underpinnings of Alzheimer's: 'It's a unique approach to understanding disease.'"

Correction

On Jan. 4 in the "eggs and ethics" item, we made an incorrect reference to the "Center for Policy and Genetics." The correct reference is to the Center for Genetics and Society. We are told that we have done this in the past, much to our regret -- the error -- not the criticism. We can only attribute it to a synapse breakdown.

Our policy is to correct all errors. We do not want to repeat them. If you see a mistake, please call them to our attention by sending an email to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. Or you can post it directly online by clicking on the word "comment" at the end of each item.

San Diego Voice: Don't Tar California Stem Cell Effort

From San Diego, one of the hotbeds for stem cell research, comes an appeal to the public to not paint California's efforts with a Korean brush.

The pitch was made by Elie A. Shneour, president of Biosystems Institutes, Inc. and research director of Biosystems Research Institute of San Diego

Writing in the Voice of San Diego, an online news outlet in that area, he said,

"California in general, and San Diego in particular are directly affected by the fallouts of this debacle. It has to do with damage to the credibility of the stem cell enterprise, and the trust of the public in the funding of scientific research. But it should not be."

He continued:

"What happened in South Korea unjustifiably reverberates in California, but it should not create one more unmerited impediment to an already charged situation."

Shneour went on to praise the work of the agency and said:

"Unfortunately, this grand project is now mired in legal conflicts generated by politically and religiously motivated antagonism that mirrors the resistance of Washington to stem cell research."

"Disappointingly, California, a state that has always been at the forefront of progress, is allowing the uninformed and the fearful to deny it the opportunity to take one of the first steps."

.

Wilson Cites Other Commitments

According to CIRM, Gayle Wilson left the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency because "her other commitments have shifted in the last year and she is unable to devote the full time and attention necessary to participate fully as a member of the ICOC."

That was the response from Nicole Pagano, spokeswoman for the agency.

Gayle Wilson Leaves Oversight Committee

Gayle Wilson, the wife of former California Gov. Pete Wilson, has resigned from the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency.

Wilson's resignation took effect last Sunday, according to a press release from CIRM. The statement said she will "continue to advise CIRM leadership on state and federal legislative matters." The reason for her departure was not disclosed in the press release, but we have a query into the agency.

Wilson was appointed to the board by Gov. Schwarzenegger as a representative to a committee slot for "an executive officer of a commercial life science entity." She is serves on the board of Gilead Sciences, as biopharmaceutical company.

Stem cell chairman Robert Klein said, "Her outreach efforts to fully inform the stem cell debate in Washington D.C. have been invaluable-especially in moving pro-stem cell legislation forward and with advancing a scientific understanding of stem cell research and its promise for treating chronic disease."

Wilson is the second person to leave the Oversight Committee. Phyliss Preciado left in the middle of 2005 to take a job in Oregon.

Eggs, Ethics and Cash: What about Singapore?

What is the price for a woman's egg? Is it more or less than a man's sperm? Is an egg worth more than the $30 paid to the donor of a pint of blood? Is it worth more than a kidney, for which the official price is zero?

Some of the questions that are being discussed by the California stem cell agency as it develops rules for securing eggs for its taxpayer-funded research.

Prop. 71 prohibits paying women to provide eggs, beyond direct expenses. But the agency is trying determine whether eggs can be used that come from sources outside of California that may involve some sort of additional payment. The Center for Policy and Genetics says that many members of the CIRM's Standards Working Group have "advocated seizing on a potential loophole in Prop. 71," asserting that "compensation for egg providers would be legal as long as the funds for these payments came from a source other than the CIRM."

The topic of cash-for-eggs came up at the group's meeting in December. The meeting received no coverage in the media but was attended by a staffer from the Center. The Korean scandal, which involved payments of $1,400 for a human eggs, was discussed during the meeting, although the flap was in its early stages.

The transcript of the meeting shows a free-ranging and loose discussion of some of the considerations involving the use of human eggs. Often in such discussions, the beginning question is phrased as "should we pay women to donate their eggs?" Rarely is it phrased as "should women be allowed to sell their eggs?" The different starting points could lead to different conclusions.

Here is a semi-random sampling of some of the partial comments from members of the Standards Group as carried in the transcript of the meeting.

Ann Kiessling, director of the Bedford Stem Cell Research Association and associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School

"I think that in the consenting process itself, you cannot establish guidelines for people in Singapore or other parts of the world who may actually view this as a way for women to get together and actually create a small business to donate eggs. I don't think that should be absolutely prevented. What you want to prevent is having somebody go through this procedure who was not fully informed and not doing it of their own free will."

Zach Hall, president of CIRM

"The question is do we want to exclude cell lines that are made by well-meaning, thoughtful, responsible people who happen to come to a different conclusion for whatever reasons than we do on this particular issue?"

Kiessling, again

"Lots and lots of women are going to be willing to do this because they're going to be willing to do it. It's going to be a select group. You are not going to recruit people who can't afford to take off two weeks to do it... Plenty of women...are going to volunteer to donate eggs because women do things like that. That's not the issue. The problem is whether you ought to accept lines from other parts of the world or other parts of the country that have different guidelines."

Marcy Feit, president of ValleyCare Health Systems

"(Say)there's a cell bank in Singapore. What assurances do we have that even if we get paperwork that says informed consent was given, how do we validate the process of informed consent? Many times cultures work under different understandings of processes than we do. And so I think we have to give really careful consideration to lines that were derived before our standards were set in. And I'm not saying I have the answer of how we're going to go about that because I hear the plea from the scientists that you really want to include as many lines as possible that are usable for research. But given that, the attack on CIRM would be vicious internationally if we accepted one cell line that wasn't properly handled in another country. So to validate that process, to really understand, as much discussion as we had this morning regarding protecting women, and we know what we want, how do we validate that with cell lines that were created prior to this understanding this morning?"

The discussion turned to the value of eggs in dollars and cents.

Kevin Eggan, assistant professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard and a founding member of the Stowers Medical Institute

"The problem here is that...eggs somehow lie somewhere between blood and sperm
and a kidney. "

Robert Taylor, associate professor of medicine at Emory University

"So I'm having trouble following this argument. So the liver donor gets nothing.The kidney donor gets nothing. The sperm donor get $75 or something like that.The blood donor who has probably a slightly higher risk of injury than the sperm donor, which I would say is probably relatively minimal risk last time I thought about it, gets compensated to the tune of $30. I'm just -- I'm starting to -- so cost and risk clearly are either dissociated or inversely related. I can't figure this."

The topic of eggs and ethics is expected to be revisited later this month at a two-day meeting of the Standards Working Group.