Scientists Seek Passports to Freer Environments

While US lawmakers and scientists clash over the cloning of human embryonic stem cells for therapy, researchers in the United Kingdom enjoy a peaceful regulatory climate, fueling speculation that US scientists may flee to freer shores. The Bush administration's delay in issuing a policy on research with material derived from human embryonic stem cells--which may have potential for healing degenerative conditions like Alzheimer's and diabetes--might send some of America's best minds overseas, predicts Harry Griffin, assistant director of the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, birthplace of Dolly,1 the sheep that has become the living emblem of cloning technologies. UK policymakers already have settled the legality of using human embryonic material for science--allowing scientists to get on with their work. "I'm sure we are going to see a reverse brain drain," the Scottish scientist says. Courtesy of The Roslin InstituteThe Roslin Institute's Harry Griffin (above) predicts a reverse brain drain of US scientists to Europe. Haile Debas, dean of the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine and vice chancellor for medical affairs, echoes Griffin's concerns: "If federal support for stem cell research is not forthcoming, the risk exists that talented scientists will leave academic centers to seek opportunities in the private sector, or even overseas. This would be a tragedy of the greatest proportion." Looking for Support A UCSF researcher has already publicly declared his intention to flee the US regulatory environment. Professor Roger Pedersen announced in July that he had wearied of the fight to persuade Congress to fund stem cell research and would move his work to the United Kingdom. Others have shown their frustration with President George W. Bush's stance on embryonic stem cell research by suing the administration in federal court. They also have quietly moved their labs off campus and obtained private funding. UCSF temporarily suspended Pedersen's work this spring after the Bush administration barred the use of federal money even to pay indirect costs, such as secretarial services and electric bills, for labs that house embryonic stem cell research. Pedersen plans to transplant his work to an undisclosed, off-campus location in August and maintain a position at UCSF even after he joins the faculty at Cambridge University. "I was faced with an irresistible career opportunity, and the possibility of carrying out my research on human embryonic stem cell research with public support," says Pedersen, research director, reproductive genetics unit, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, in a prepared statement issued by UCSF. Although some observers point out that one high-profile defection does not a mass exodus make, Pedersen was one of only a few scientists who had gambled on getting federal regulatory approval to work with stem cells from human embryos--so his departure carries significant weight. "I know there are frustrations," Griffin observes. "I know, for example, that very few people applied for the opportunity to do stem cell research, given all the uncertainty." And even scientists who do not perform stem cell research worry when a political agenda so dramatically interferes with scientific advancement. "Any time research becomes a political target, one becomes very concerned," says Robert R. Rich, executive associate dean for research and strategic initiatives, Emory School of Medicine, in Atlanta. "I don't think we would want to overplay the impact on the entire biomedical community. But it's a profound impact on people who are studying developmental biology issues and who want to explore all the things that this promises." The few universities that participate in stem cell research may be forced to follow UCSF in segregating their projects in separate facilities to preserve National Institutes of Health funding. For example, James Thomson, a pioneer in human stem cell research,2 already works in a clandestine laboratory off the University of Wisconsin campus. His lab is financed by Geron Corp., a Menlo Park, Calif., biotechnology company. Others may follow suit or give up the research altogether. "It is difficult to do research in a university that is not in some way touched by federal funding, even if the direct money does not come from the federal government," Rich says. Few institutes will sacrifice their federal dollars, although at least one small, specialized establishment has done so. The Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine of the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk relies solely on private and pharmaceutical company funding to keep its research on embryos going in the face of official hostility. Differing Policies The possibility of refugee researchers fleeing to Europe delights Griffin, After a decade of debate established the principle that scientists could create embryos for research purposes, British lawmakers at the turn of the year passed legislation setting up licensing procedures. "When the issue of research on human embryonic stem cells came to the fore with the publication in 1998 of James Thomson's work in Wisconsin, the UK had a history of discussing these issues in a formal way in our legislative system, rather than in your Supreme Court," says the Scottish researcher. "Also there were bodies set up whose responsibility it was to foster public debate." In contrast, US policy on stem cell research has wandered. The Clinton administration lifted a ban issued in the early 1990s, then warred with a Republican Congress over the issue and wound up allowing funding of the research in limited circumstances. The Bush administration reversed Clinton's stance but has failed to issue any blanket policy. Courtesy of The University of PennsylvaniaNeal Nathanson "The Bush administration is waffling. I think they prefer waffling," says Neal Nathanson, a former director of AIDS research for the NIH, who is now vice provost for research at the University of Pennsylvania. The highly charged political debate has done little to improve public understanding of cloning or stem cell research, Nathanson adds. Most stem cell research has nothing to do with humans, or with cloned human embryos. "It's a tiny corner of biomedical research and people have become obsessed about it," Nathanson says. The University of Wisconsin decision to move Thomson and lab off campus had less to do with official policy than with a realistic fear about the consequences should opponents discover the research. "They're not worried about the NIH. They're worried about this guy getting his head blown off," Nathanson says. Penn has not made any big changes or lost any big talent because of the stalemate on stem cells. "I don't think anyone in their right mind would go to Europe, where for every $100 of research money available here, they can get $1," Nathanson says. Christine Copple, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Neuralstem Inc., a Maryland start-up working with stem cells from fetal tissue, agreed. "It will be a while before the dust settles here in the US and I think it's sort of drastic for people to jump ship and go to England," she says. "Of course, I'm a brain-drainer from England. I came in the seventies, so I have no room to talk at all." No matter how the debate ultimately plays out this side of the ocean, the failure to set policy and move on has put scientists in the uncomfortable position of trying to keep ahead of the oscillating political climate. "The waiting is killing all of us," says Jennie Hunter-Cevera, president of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. Elias Zerhouni of Johns Hopkins warns that uncertainty may discourage important research--and that would be a problem for scientists throughout the world. "A reverse brain drain is always possible. At this point, I think it's a theoretical risk and I don't know of any particular cases," says Zerhouni, executive vice dean of the School of Medicine and chair of the radiology department at Johns Hopkins University. "The more immediate concern in my mind would be the discouragement of scientists here in the United States, bright people, from entering this very important and promising field." Peg Brickley (dbizpeg@bellatlantic.net) is a freelance writer in Philadelphia. References 1. I. Wilmut et al., "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells," Nature, 385:810-3, 1997. 2. J.A. Thomson et al, "Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts," Science, 282:1145-7, 1998.

Scientists Seek Passports to Freer Environments

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of