The Market’s Invisible Hand and Its Impact on Stem Cell Research

By Dr. Matthew Watson

As the $3 billion California stem cell
agency intensifies its efforts this year to push cures into the
clinic, a Canadian academic is raising a host of serious questions
about the drive towards commercialization in scientific research.

Exhibit No. 1 was stem cell research,
in an article Monday in The Scientist magazine. It was written
by Timothy Caulfield, a Canada Research Chair in Health Law
and Policy, and a professor at the Faculty of Law and School of
Public Health, University of Alberta. He said,

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process. But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

Caulfield noted that research has
played a role in commercial enterprises and that the goal-oriented
research has led to important developments. But he also wrote,

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science. The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity. And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India.

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field?

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy.

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways?
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

In late July, the governing board of
the California stem cell agency is expected to make some hard
financial decisions about where its future spending will be targeted.
Just last week it approved a five-year plan with explicit goals for speeding stem cell research into the marketplace.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss