Cell Divisions

The Stowers has made a splash scientifically too, including high-impact stem-cell papers by Pourquié and Julien Dubrulle (Nature 427, 419–422; 200410.1038/nature02216) and by Linheng Li's group (J. Zhang et al. Nature 425, 836–841; 200310.1038/nature02041). Buoyed by these successes, the institute announced in February that it would build another facility to hold 20 principal investigators.

Solid foundations: both Washington University, bottom, and the Stowers Institute have built strong reputations in stem-cell research. As long as the state doesn't enact a ban, the future looks bright for further developments.

But there are some clouds. The state governments of Kansas and Missouri, which Neaves had hoped would help the region by funnelling money into local institutions such as the University of Missouri-Kansas City and the University of Kansas Medical Center, have not invested "as rapidly as we'd have hoped", Neaves says.

And money that the states do provide may come with limitations, owing to restrictive stem-cell policies. Before the Stowers announcement in February, rumours abounded that if Missouri did not ease its anti-stem-cell stance, the Stowers might locate the new building in another state, one more receptive to stem-cell research. The donors, Jim and Virginia Stowers, will not allow the new building in any state that restricts research on early stem cells produced by nuclear transfer. However, Neaves remains optimistic that the building will be in Missouri.

Bill Duncan, president of the Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute (KCALSI), says that the area is being "driven by the Stowers Institute's investment". The original plan of this scientific regional development agency, formed when the Stowers was created, was for KCALSI's eight member organizations to spend $500million a year on research and development. "That would put us in the top 10 to 15 regions," Duncan says.

However, research and development at KCALSI has not yet reached that level. It spent $219 million in 2003, more than twice its 1994 total, but still less than halfway to the $500-million goal. This was partly because the institute was expecting research to benefit from money paid by tobacco companies as part of a national health-compensation settlement. When the states faced financial difficulties, the tobacco money went to pay other bills.

Duncan is cautiously optimistic that other funding will materialize. For instance, the state of Kansas passed a Bioscience Authority Act this year, which will funnel $500 million into the state during the next 10 years. Much of this would benefit the Kansas City area, which straddles the Kansas–Missouri border, as about 65% of Kansas's research activity takes place there. The University of Kansas Medical Center is already slowly adding 25 senior scholar positions.

Missouri is considering similar schemes, but Duncan is concerned that "overly broad legislation" on stem-cell research could stop any moves gaining momentum. "We can't afford to mess this up," he says.

James Spigarelli, president of the Midwest Research Institution, says that any Kansas or Missouri law against stem-cell research could paralyse recruitment by local centres, preventing the collaborations envisaged by KCALSI. "We have an uphill battle to hire the best scientists as it is," says Spigarelli.

Attracting people who have never lived in the middle of the country can initially be tough, says Spigarelli. In fact, the area has much to offer, on top of a low cost of living. The research infrastructure in Kansas City boasts facilities that rival institutions on both coasts. And the city is far from being a cultural wasteland — as attested by sculptor Claes Oldenburg's giant shuttlecocks on the lawn of the Nelson–Atkins Museum of Art, visible from Spigarelli's office window.

But restrictive laws could be ruinous, especially if Californians vote in next month's state referendum to channel millions of dollars into stem-cell research. "If our laws are more restrictive on stem cells, we're going to miss the boat for 30 years," says Spigarelli.

Meet me in St Louis

St Louis, 250 miles to the east of Kansas City, has its own challenges. The future is looking uncertain for two of the area's biggest scientific employers: Monsanto, which has downsized over the past few years, and Pfizer, which has reduced and consolidated sites nationally since acquiring Pharmacia last year. But Washington University, like the Stowers to the west, is holding strong.

Mark Wrighton: setting a $300-million research agenda for Washington University.

Sitting in his office, in the tower of a century-old Neo-gothic building that might have been airlifted from the University of Cambridge in England, Washington University chancellor Mark Wrighton was eager to share news that the university's medical school had just edged out Harvard's in receiving the second-highest amount of National Institutes of Health funding, trailing only Johns Hopkins University Medical School in Baltimore, Maryland.

Wrighton was also keen to tout his new research agenda, called Biomed 21, a $300-million scheme to organize biomedical research around three units — the Center for Genomics and Human Genetics, the Center for Biological Imaging, and the Division of Clinical Sciences. The programmes will provide training for 50 PhD, MD and MD/PhD students. This effort is complemented by a fund-raising campaign that has raised $1.5 billion, enough for 165 endowed professorships and 11 endowed faculty fellowships.

One programme was funded by former faculty member Phil Needleman — now an associate dean at Washington's medical school — who developed the blockbuster arthritis drug Celebrex while on his way to becoming chief scientific officer at Pharmacia. Wrighton believes this history hints that Pfizer will stay committed to St Louis. Although other Pharmacia sites are being closed now that Pfizer owns the company, the St Louis site has been named the company's global centre for cardiovascular and inflammatory disease.

Washington University isn't the only local recipient of philanthropy. A $75-million facility for the not-for-profit Donald Danforth Plant Science Center opened three years ago, with funding from the St Louis-based Danforth Foundation and the Monsanto Foundation, and a tax credit from the state of Missouri. The centre now has 11 principal investigators, supported by about 190 other scientists. It plans to increase its staff to 17 principal investigators, along with their teams of students, postdocs and technicians.

The Danforth centre is also supported by Washington University. Its collaborations with Washington and several other universities, as well as the Missouri Botanical Garden, put St Louis at the heart of plant science research.

With private support for Washington University, the Stowers Institute and the Danforth Center, St Louis has shown that it can build world-class centres and attract high-calibre scientists. State investment to bolster such centres — and freedom from restrictive stem-cell laws — may be what the state needs to turn the corner and attain its goal of becoming one of the top research and development states in the country.