Who’s getting rich on unregulated stem cell research?

An April 2 decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office never made MSM coverage, and barely rippled through the “tubes.” But it contains hints of the awe-inspiring levels of potential profits in future stem cell research.

The ruling rejected extremely broad patent applications by the (University of) Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation on the methods and products of stem cell research, and put into question the potential profits that foundation might have made.

Conventional wisdom suggests that Democrats and researchers are almost universally supporting federal funding and regulation of ESC research, while conservatives oppose it. Dig a little deeper, and you can see why some of the major players in this field (CEOs) are actually quite ambivalent about the federal funding and the concurrent regulation that would come if the present bills pending in the House and Senate actually saw passage.
The April 2 ruling came in response to a challenge to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation’s (WARF)to three WARF patents on stem cell lines; the patents covered both the cell lines and the methods by which they were obtained. These patents (according to Science, 13 April 2007) have already earned WART $3.5 million inlicensing fees.

Most scientists doing basic stem cell research in academic or government labs are minimally restricted by WARF’s current policies…[but]collaboration is slowed considerably by having to negotiate the WARF…agreements…WARF’s grip on the “basic platform technology critical to the future development” of the field is bound to impede progress.”

Science reports that licences on the stem cells developed by such for-profit arms can amount to “six figure fees.”

If federal funding were used for some or all ESC research, most or all of the information would become public and it would be more difficult to achieve such patent profits.

What’s ultimately at stake is control of a potential billion-dollar industry that could make therapies to treat some of the world’s most devastating diseases.

That quote is part of an analysis of University of Wisconsin’s effort to secure such extremely broad patent on the methods used to create stem cell lines that future developers will be tied to their methodologies. WARF says its policies are “evolving.” But their issues are just the tip of the iceburg of potential stem cell profiteering.

Who’s doing stem cell research in the United States now? Stemnion in Pittsburgh, Geron of Menlo Park, California and (surprise?) Cellerant, a subsidiary of Novartis which contributes 27% to Democrats, 73% to Republicans

Readers might be surprised that the CEOs of some stem cell companies might actually be fighting federal support–or at least, not jumping on the lobbying bandwagon to see federal funds channeled into the field. For larger companies, the logic seems to be “no support–no public scrutiny or regulation” (except the standards agreed by the companies, themselves.)

“(Biotech) companies want to make sure that no legislation is passed that will hinder the sale of their products,” said Sophia Kolehmainen, who directs the human genetics program at the Council for Responsible Genetics. The Council is a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Mass., that advocates “socially responsible” use of new genetic technologies. Kolehmainen and other bioethicists say the lack of a legal mechanism to govern cloning prevents mainstream researchers from responsibly tapping into new technologies such as genetic engineering. The failure on the public-policy front to address cloning in any significant way has turned the field into a Wild West that cultists, romantic researchers and profit-minded businesspersons have threatened to exploit.

Republican lawmakers are walking a tightrope, trying to appease both their anti-abortion and pro-business constituents. “Republicans are also favoring the biotech industry,”

It’s evident from their campaign contributions that CEOs like Chiron’s William Rutter are leaning Republican. Why? If Federal Funding were so desireable, wouldn’t these CEOs be backing only Democrats? The answer, of course, is that there’s a schizophrenia in the marketplace–a desire for start-up money but not the scrutiny that would follow.

Meanwhile, we lose scientists to overseas efforts.

As a result, many U.S.-based scientists are looking for opportunities to take their work abroad. Two studies out of Princeton University show that U.S. stem cell scientists, compared to researchers in other fields, are disproportionately considering leaving the country. Patent concerns and access to the essential cells were among the reasons cited.

I’m well aware that for many this is a sincere issue of ethics. There are outstanding small companies which could do amazing things with the jump-start that federal funding would provide. But realize, that for others, there’s money involved!