Stem cells, undifferentiated cells that have the ability to transform into specific cell types, promise a beneficial effect on health problems such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, stroke, heart attack and damage to the spinal cord. Before his death, Christopher Reeve was a strong supporter of stem cell research.
There were disagreements about some types of stem cells. There are three sources of stem cells, of which one type, cells derived from early human embryos, caused political division, because creating a line of embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a human embryo. In this regard, President Bush in 2001 announced his intention to “allow federal funds to be used to study existing stem cell lines, where a decision on life and death has already been made,” but no federal funds for new cell lines. This selection has been discussed. The television show “60 Minutes” reviewed the issue twice in February 2006, February 12 and February 26.
In the state of New Jersey, this dispute was of a purely partisan nature, while the Democrats were in favor of the stalk fund and (some) against the Republicans. However, there is a separate division regarding “what kind” of stem cell research. Hedging his stakes, New Jersey offered to spend $ 150 million on cutting-edge stem cell research, including controversial embryonic stem cells, $ 50 million on less controversial research on stem cells from umbilical cord blood, placenta, and other human tissue, and $ 50 million for a center designed for commercial applications and clinical trials of adult stem cells.
The field of commercial applications has created unforeseen challenges in the bold new world of large-scale public funding for research. A legal opinion in 2005 prepared for California State Treasurer Angelis, suggested that tax-exempt bonds could not be used to fund research in which the state would share the money received from research (in particular, the sharing of payments by people who used patents, funded research). A meeting of people with stem cells in March 2006 revealed a new problem. Patent owners who already exist in the area want future researchers (for example, in California) to pay them for research using their patents. Ironically, the claim was made by one state (WARF Wisconsin) against another state (CIRM California). With the statement that South Korea will continue patent applications from a displaced researcher Woo Suk Hwan, it can be understood that there are likely to be many patent holders in this area, everyone is eager to get cash for large sums of money provided by states such as California, New Jersey , Maryland, Connecticut and Illinois. An important recognition is that the money from state funding for stem cell research intends to create new horizons in treatment, can be used to pay holders of rights already created.
Some problems can be solved. A recent Supreme Court decision (Merck v. Integra) defines a great safe haven for those conducting research that are required to obtain federal regulatory approval (for example, FDA approval). This exemption from research can mitigate the impact of claims such as Wisconsin vs. California. However, expectations of tangible results in the short-term scale may be unrealistic. One may ask whether government funding will produce FDA-approved embryonic stem cell therapy in ten years. Patents issued in the next few years may be “too soon” on time, since the commercialization of embryonic stem cells is far away. This is an exciting time in a promising area, but with unknowns you need to recognize that there will be bumps on the road.
