Politicized Prognostication on Pluripotency and Patent Portfolios
Posted by Jesse Reynolds August 29, 2008
Biopolitical Times
Yesterday, researchers at Harvard announced a major development towards the goals of regenerative medicine. Using mice, Doug Melton and his team transformed one type of cell into another, but they bypassed stem cells and embryos.
These results are impressive. But some of the initial reactions were all too predictably polarized. Conservative opponents of embryonic stem cell research said that embryos are no longer needed. Liberal supporters, many of whom have downplayed progress in cellular reprogramming and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), asserted that the use of embryos remains essential.
I don't pay too much attention to these claims. Most of these stem cell ideologues have been saying the same thing for years, and will continue to do so, regardless of scientific developments. And most of them are non-scientists making arguments concerning competing lines of scientific inquiry. The scientists themselves, of course, support more funding and oppose most regulation, regardless of how they feel about the method in question.
Many of those ideologically committed to one side of the embryonic stem cell debate or the other believe that, although science plays a role, the debate will not be resolved through science, but instead through politics - and they are probably right. In that regard, the momentum of developments gives hope to the opponents of using embryos. If the trajectory continues, they'll soon have a strong case - but they're not there yet.
On a related note, I was surprised by the reaction of Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) to the development:
Why the drastic turn on Lanza's part? Perhaps the reporter used only the enthusiastic portion of his response, and left out his criticisms of iPS cells or ongoing preference for cloning methods. Or maybe Lanza sees the writing on the wall, and is positioning himself for his next job, as ACT is on the verge of collapsing. Or perhaps he has a financial stake: ACT has a large and complex intellectual property portfolio, and just last week it obtained an exclusive license on inventions concerning somatic cell reprogramming. The company "believes that the filing date and scope of the intellectual property on this important reprogramming technology could prove to be strategically significant in defining the somatic cell reprogramming patent landscape."
These results are impressive. But some of the initial reactions were all too predictably polarized. Conservative opponents of embryonic stem cell research said that embryos are no longer needed. Liberal supporters, many of whom have downplayed progress in cellular reprogramming and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), asserted that the use of embryos remains essential.
I don't pay too much attention to these claims. Most of these stem cell ideologues have been saying the same thing for years, and will continue to do so, regardless of scientific developments. And most of them are non-scientists making arguments concerning competing lines of scientific inquiry. The scientists themselves, of course, support more funding and oppose most regulation, regardless of how they feel about the method in question.
Many of those ideologically committed to one side of the embryonic stem cell debate or the other believe that, although science plays a role, the debate will not be resolved through science, but instead through politics - and they are probably right. In that regard, the momentum of developments gives hope to the opponents of using embryos. If the trajectory continues, they'll soon have a strong case - but they're not there yet.
On a related note, I was surprised by the reaction of Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) to the development:
I'm stunned. It introduces a whole new paradigm for treating disease....When induced iPS cells were first announced a year ago, Lanza went out of his way to highlight the new method's potential ethical shortcomings. In a letter published in Science and statements to newspapers, he highlighted the cells' potential to lead to clonal or chimeric humans, reliance on genetic modification through viruses, and likelihood of forming tumors in humans. This wasn't surprising: While iPS cells may at some point reduce or even obviate the need for embryonic stem cell research, they already represent the nail in the coffin for cloning-based work, on which ACT had banked.
One day, this may allow the doctor to replace the scalpel with a sort of genetic surgery. If this can be perfected, it would represent one of the Holy Grails of medicine.
Why the drastic turn on Lanza's part? Perhaps the reporter used only the enthusiastic portion of his response, and left out his criticisms of iPS cells or ongoing preference for cloning methods. Or maybe Lanza sees the writing on the wall, and is positioning himself for his next job, as ACT is on the verge of collapsing. Or perhaps he has a financial stake: ACT has a large and complex intellectual property portfolio, and just last week it obtained an exclusive license on inventions concerning somatic cell reprogramming. The company "believes that the filing date and scope of the intellectual property on this important reprogramming technology could prove to be strategically significant in defining the somatic cell reprogramming patent landscape."