"Will We Lose in the Stem Cell Race?"

Read the full OP/Ed piece by Joseph Fuller and Brock Reeve in The Washington Post, February 3, 2007. Joseph Fuller is a founder of the Monitor Group. Brock Reeve is executive director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

What the authors say about the development of the international pharmaceutical industry in the last 15 years:

Less than 30 years ago, five of the world's top 10 pharmaceutical companies, including the two largest, were European. Between 1980 and 1984, Europe invented more than half of the world's new drugs. Observers assumed that Europe would lead the anticipated revolution in biotechnology.

Today, however, American companies account for more than three-quarters of worldwide biotech revenue and have almost 4,500 products in development -- 2 1/2 times as many as European companies.

How did we turn the tables?

· Government actions and court decisions allowed the patenting of living organisms and made it possible for private researchers to commercialize discoveries funded by federal grants. Further, Stanford University, which controlled key patents, ensured their widespread and rapid adoption.

· In Europe, the countries of the European Union had independent regulators until the 1990s. The patentability of living organisms remained uncertain until 1998. And state-funded academic institutions had little incentive to encourage academics to pursue commercially oriented research.

· Between 1985 and 1995 the U.S. government invested more than $50 billion in the biological sciences. Federal spending during that period dwarfed the amount spent in Europe and encouraged private-sector investment.

· With the availability of affordable, fundamental patents and a supportive public policy environment, between 1987 and 1997 investors bet some $6 billion of risk capital on the fledging sector in the United States, roughly five times as much as their European counterparts.

Comment: I have quoted this extensively because it is such a good statement of the importance of funding, especially government funding for fundamental research (which lays the pre-competitive basis for commercial technology development). It should make us think where the funding will come for the research to deal with the diseases of the poor and of poor nations. JAD

Stem Cell Research

The Bush Administration's wrong headed policy depriving stem cell research of federal funding has greatly reduced the rate of growth of the field in the United States. Fuller and Reeve recognize the efforts of some state governments and foundations to fill the gap, but they also recognize that the lack of federal support has dampened corporate investment in stem cell research. They also tag the restrictive licensing of key patents as slowing the course of research. They conclude:

In short, the stem cell sector is at risk of experiencing a failure to launch at the national level. Yes, some progress is being made: WARF has just revised some of its licensing policies; venture capital activity has picked up recently; and academic research and clinical centers, disease foundations and patient-advocacy groups are adopting a more aggressive stance in breaking down existing barriers. But will this be enough? Or will foreign governments, using America's biotech success as a model, systematically encourage the development of stem cell research and, not satisfied with emulating our competitive performance, succeed in outstripping us?

Comment: What they don't say is that stem cell research offers the promise of important medical advances that could cure major diseases, reduce human suffering and extend life spans. Delay in the research means delay treatment getting to patients, and will eventually be counted in disease, suffering, disability and deaths. JAD