« Prev Next »
One of the first technical problems that must be tackled before doing any experiment is to ensure there'll be enough raw samples available. I've known many researchers who chose their favorite model organisms based purely on how fast they grow and how easily they may be acquired. In the case of human stem cells, both of these features are suboptimal and the difficulty with acquisition is probably the greater evil.
My lab lost over half of our cell stocks almost two years ago thanks to a nitrogen tank malfunction. Some of the lines lost were human stem cells, and were especially hard to replace. We may only use approved lines from the NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry, which are maintained by the National Stem Cell Bank, to be eligible for federal funding. We submitted a requisition order to the cell bank over a year ago, and the transaction is still deadlocked by the lawyers at our institution, mainly due to the wording in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from the cell bank. And because the terms of the MOU are non-negotiable, we're unlikely to get those cells anytime soon.
This MOU, as understood by me, is basically telling us that 1) the stem cells were expanded according to specific standards, 2) we do not have ownership or intellectual property rights to these cells, 3) these cells were provided to us to serve a public good, and 4) these cells are experimental and may be hazardous. In addition to the MOU, we must also sign a letter that says we will not try anything that may produce a whole embryo or fetus, or implant the cells into a uterus under any circumstances. I, personally, have no problems with the terms, but I don't speak for my institution and I don't know which part of the MOU is bothering the lawyers.
I don't know if anyone else feels the same, but I find this type of boondoggle to severely limit the tenet of collaborative stem cell studies and discussions. If only a few institutes have the infrastructure to ease or eliminate the legal and bureaucratic red tape that characterizes stem cell research, then they would also have a limited number of collaboration partners. This would also mean that the researchers essentially work in a cocoon. What kind of impact could such a hive-mind setup have on the field? On the one hand, it would benefit from the focused attention of top experts and they can pool technologies and resources. On the other hand, this small-ish network may become stagnant if new ideas aren't getting in from outside this exclusive circle. At this point, we'll just have to wait and see what will happen. What's clear is that we still have a long way to go before the fear and stigma inspired by stem cell research are removed, and maybe the lawyers can then be a little less diligent.
Image: © Adam Hart-Davis (http://bit.ly/xhiyuv)
