California Council for S&T Issues Caution on Expectations from Stem Cell Research

One of the latest big-ticket investments targeting stem cell research came from Ann Arbor last week as the University of Michigan committed $10.5 million of its internal resources to establish an interdisciplinary center for stem cell research. The announcement is one of dozens from around the country since California voters approved Proposition 71 in 2004, borrowing $3 billion over 10 years for stem cell research.

With total spending on medical research now approaching $100 billion annually, up 154 percent from what it was a decade ago according to the Alerion Institute, many states seem to be feeling a need to get ahead or just catch up with their peers as each new funding commitment is announced.

To justify the public investment, the political rhetoric accompanying the calls for state funding in life science research generally, and stem cell research more specifically, is often colored by promises of economic growth and the development of new industries as well as new approaches to life-threatening ailments.

California's independent, nonpartisan think tank on science and technology issues, says not so fast. In its interim report on the recommendations for dealing with intellectual property resulting from Proposition 71, the California Council for Science & Technology (CCST) states "research may take years, decades even, before payoffs in the form of therapies and treatments are seen."

In addition, CCST expressed its concern that heightened expectations about quick returns on investment could result in policies that require unrealistic revenue returns to the state. It is unlikely that the program will quickly provide a new direct stream of revenue for the state, the report notes. However, over the long-term, substantial economic benefits are expected to come through the creation of new jobs and new industries, with the associated increased tax base.

"Expectations that there will be major new treatments forthcoming in the short term are overstated," said Stephen Rockwood, executive vice president of SAIC and co-chair of the study. "It's important that we all understand this and put in place a system to make sure that, as this research program gets under way, there is a logical process by which new data and resulting technology resulting from it can readily be licensed and disseminated.

California's massive stem cell research investments are being coordinated through the new California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). The CCST study group recommended priority be given to publication of research over licensing. Making research tools developed with CIRM funding largely available to other scientists is critical, the study concludes. "Progress in stem cell research, like other research, will depend on researchers' ability to access and use information in the public domain and to combine public and proprietary data into new databases as well as to re-evaluate and reuse existing data," it says.

As a result, the study group urged CIRM and the state to proceed with caution and not set overly prescriptive policies for intellectual property. The report emphasizes balancing the state's interest in receiving benefits from its investment in research with the need to bring actual therapies to market through workable IP agreements. The study group encourages timely publication of research results to maximize public benefit from the project.

Policy Framework for Intellectual Property Derived from Stem Cell Research in California is available at http://www.ccst.us