Excited as the whole world is of the prospects of stem-cell biology in alleviating the ills of life, the poor medical ethics observed in pioneering South Korean stem cell studies had stung progress. But in an effort to move ahead of this episode the board administering California's $3 billion research bid has aside from setting preliminary standards, agreed to offer the state 25 percent of revenues accruing from commercialization.
True to learning from the past, the board hopes to ensure that the promise of stem-cell research is not hampered by poor standards of ethics and integrity. And it is on this that the American state of California hopes to lead the way. Last November, prior to the biggest scam in research ethics, California passed the Proposition 71 to ensure that all such research would be pursued via a newly created California Institute of Regenerative Medicine.
But the stumbling block after the proposition was how the institution could to reimburse the state for grants made towards stem-cell research, given the commercial value of such research. In Friday's meeting of the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee (the institute's board), it was decided that the state should be handed 25 percent royalty on revenues generated that overshot $500,000.
At the time of deliberations on revenue sharing, some members had rued that such a move could discourage scientists and the for-profit sector from investing in research programs. Another concern was that it could make it difficult to raise funds for the institute through state-sold tax-exempt bonds. Vice chairman of the board and president of the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, Ed Penhoet opined that a compromise had been achieved with “probably nobody completely happy''.
With the potential for this research to expand beyond just cells, to tissues and organs for treating conditions from brain disorders and burn injuries and lifestyle diseases like diabetes, it is essential to have rules for a controversial science. When the most usable stem cells originate from embryos, it makes it all the more difficult to ensure a balance between science and ethics. While the revenue-share guideline pertains to university and non-profit institutional research, a policy is to be formulated for businesses that benefit from research grants.
But these drafts are based on seven months of deliberations by the institute's Medical and Ethical Standards Working Group comprising of reputed scientists, ethicists and patient advocates. The standards try to put the egg donors' safety and interests above everything through a more informed consent that includes an understanding of health risks and the process before consenting.
Also with such donors to not be reimbursed beyond expenses, the question of egg-donation for monetary motivation does not arise. Moreover, records need to be maintained of every single egg received as donation and its usage. The question now is how to observe these standards to the spirit and who will pay for monitoring.
