Volume 2, Issue 9
Dean's Message
Geoffrey Owen
Dean, Biological Sciences
March 2005
Dear Friends,
Last November, California voters supported a new initiative, known by its ballot name as Proposition 71, to fund an aggressive, state-wide research program into the biology and clinical applications of human stem cells. Why stem cells? What are they and why should we invest so much effort and money into understanding them? Five days after fertilization, a human egg, or oocyte, has become a blastocyst, a hollow sphere made up of about 200 cells that will eventually form the placenta, and an "inner mass" of about 30 cells that will eventually form the embryo. The cells of the "inner mass" are identical to each other but each one is pluripotential, i.e., it possesses the capacity, given the appropriate growth factors, to differentiate into every kind of cell in the human body. For this reason, they are called stem cells, the cells from which all other cells are derived. At this stage of development, therefore, what identifies the blastocyst as human is purely chemical. The hope is that by carefully controlling differentiation, a colony of stem cells can be transformed into, for example, dopamine-producing neurons which can be used to cure a patient suffering from Parkinson's disease. Or perhaps to generate insulin-producing pancreatic cells that can cure a patient suffering from diabetes. The possibilities are boundless, and the implications for future health care are profound. There are many risks, of course, and if stem cells are ever to be used in this way, those risks must be fully understood and minimized.
The barriers to the success of the initiative are substantial, however. Obviously this kind of research raises a variety of ethical issues that must be addressed responsibly and incorporated into guidelines governing the execution of the research. The federal government, taking the view that the development of new stem cell lines is unethical, has mandated that only stem cells derived from a limited number of "approved" cell lines, generated prior to 2000, can be used in federally funded research. A recent study showed that the techniques used to generate those cell lines left them contaminated by non-human genetic material, however, and it may be impossible to use them for developing a treatment for human patients. Despite this, the government has not softened its position and the California initiative, though necessary from a scientific point of view, could well run into significant congressional opposition.
The National Academy of Sciences organized a meeting at UC Irvine last December to discuss the scientific, ethical and legal issues surrounding stem cell research (for a transcript, see http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/downloads.php). What was impressive was the vigor with which these issues were debated and the recognition that the success or failure of the California initiative would depend, in large part, on its success in dealing with them. Undoubtedly, that recognition will shape the way in which the initiative is implemented in the months to come. The most exciting prospect, however, is that the injection of funds into this exciting, and hitherto neglected, area of biomedical research, many young scientists (and even established ones) will be encouraged to take a new interest in stem cells. While no-one can predict when discoveries will occur, there can be no doubt that this initiative will yield major advances and these could spark a revolution in health care that would benefit not only Californians, but people all over the world.
As always, we welcome your comments, insights and ideas.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Owen
Professor of Neurobiology
Dean, Division of Biological Sciences
College of Letters & Science
UC Berkeley
Geoff_Owen@ls.berkeley.edu