- FDA Rules for Cigarettes Are a Victory for Public Health, for Science (and for the Earth’s Climate?)
- Legislation Introduced to Codify Stem Cell Rules
- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Hard Data: National Policies Limit Stem Cell Research Output
According to a recent study published in the journal Cell, federal policy has a measurable impact on the amount of human embryonic stem cell research conducted in different countries. Countries that exceed expectations for hESC research output tend to have permissive policy environments for the work, whereas underperforming countries often have “protracted policy debates” and strong feelings of uncertainty about the science at hand.
The study, conducted by Aaron D. Levine of Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Public Policy, compares data on the number of hESC-related publications appearing in peer-reviewed journals and concludes that the United States is lagging in the production of hESC-related research publications. Although still the largest single producer of hESC-related research publications, the United States is still the largest underperformer following the metric used by the analysts. One explanation is the fact that Bush Administration policy dictates that federal funds may only be used for hESC research only on cell lines derived before August 9, 2001.
According to the study, scientists in the United States produced 36 percent of worldwide hESC-related research, compared with 47 percent of RNAi-related research. Research involving RNA interference, a method used to inhibit gene expression, is much less controversial than hESC research. According to the study, “Scientists in the United States produced 36% of hESC-related research compared with 47% of RNAi-related research and 46% of research in the control set.” Thus, it is numerically apparent that America’s contribution to RNAi research publications fell more closely in line with the standard than hESC research. This is why RNAi research output becomes a suitable control with which to compare with work on hESC.
The comparison data demonstrates that the share of research from different countries related to hESC differs more from the control set than do their shares of research related to RNAi:
National polices also render France an underperforming country, despite having temporarily relaxed its laws. This makes a key component of the study clear: countries which have long histories of relentless support for hESC research are those countries which are currently over-performing.
Four top overperforming countries were identified: the United Kingdom, Israel, China, and Singapore. While there was no clear relationship between underperformance and the policy environment, countries categorized as underperforming in hESC-related research lacked permissive policies, complementary government support, or both. The study also provides an interesting insight into the relationship between hESC and RNAi performance. As the figure below demonstrates, only the United Kingdom and China demonstrate a slight significant RNAi overperformance. None of the hESC overperforming countries have underperformed in the number of published papers on RNAi research:
Comments on this article
Two aspects of this data set and analysis strike me as inconsistent with some of the conclusions. First, the relative difference is a better measure of performance. The US’s absolute difference (-10%) is large because its control is large (46%). Using this would place the US tied for 10th of 16, if my counting is right.
Second, while national policies are important, they are clearly not the only factor. Germany has the most restrictive policies among the nations listed, yet is about in the middle in both absolute and relative measurements. Several nations listed prohibit cloning-based stem cell research (SCNT), although the US does not. This list includes France, Canada, Netherlands, Italy, and – until very recently – Japan and Australia.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm