That's a frequently asked question: “if stem cell research holds so much promise, then why is the private sector not funding it and taking advantage of it?” The private funder first needs to anticipate a potential return on the investment in two to five years. In our country, we develop therapies from basic research already funded and conducted with public sector funds. The NIH funds 80% of basic biomedical research.
As a field develops slowly, organically, over many many years, sometimes over a generation or more, at some point new technology and new ideas will develop to the point where private funders come in and cherry pick the best ideas developed through basic research. They then develop a potential treatment into the FDA approvable product that we as medical consumers buy off the shelf or go to the hospital to receive.
ESCR began in 1998 - 8 years ago. It normally takes a long time from discovery to treatment, but we are really poking along here. The way federal policy is written, scientists can lose funding as the result of an audit if any federal funding is used for research with unapproved ESC lines. Stem cell researchers have to physically separate the private and public funded research. Scientists don’t want to deal with that. Young scientists become discouraged as they see political and funding instability, and hesitate to devote their careers to this research. But I think that tide is changing.

http://grassrootsconnection.com/vip_shanesmith.htm

Paula,
Great summary - thanks
jean

I think this interview could be really helpful at this time for anyone who is an advocate for stem cell research, especially during these last days before the election. Dr. Smith provides informative answers to many of the claims made by opponents of the research, such as private vs federal funding, and the amount of NIH funding actually going towards ESCR, the use of cord blood stem cells adn more.

His study of the Prentice list is also eye-opening and interesting reading. Dr. Prentice who is a national spokesperson against ESCR, composed a list of what he said are 65 proven treatments for various diseases using adult stem cells. His list was cited again and again by Sen. Brownback during the House debate on HR 810 last July.

So Dr. Smith and 2 other scientists checked all of the references on Dr. Prentice's list and found a majority of them were incorrect, or were based on only one isolated study or there was not an FDA approved treatment available or the references were about other types of treatments. For example 2 of the 4 adult stem cell "treatments" Prentice claimed are currently available for PD were actually citations to studies published on GDNF -- a treatment that has nothing to do with adult stem cells and is not even available anymore since Amgen pulled the plug on GDNF clinical trials in Sept. 2004!
The truth shall set us free!

http://www.grassrootsconnection.com/vip_shanesmith.htm

opinion on why the private sector are not more involved as they should be, could be ESCR under the religious right Bush Administration has insured politics and religion have regulated ESCR and the science behind it out of the viable equation of many in the private sector Bio-Tech industry. Research in any form is high risk business, regulatory controls imposed by government forces has meant many potential business's have pulled out or delayed investment on valued research until the conditions become more in tune with public opinion, and the science community. 65% of Americans are in favour of research

Republicans make spurious claims against ESCR on the grounds..A life is taken.. Yet they fail to address the issue on why millions of embryos around the world are discarded each week never to be a beginning to new life. These (thrown out) embryos could have been allocated to science way back from 2001 when the current administration placed heavy handed subjective regulatory controls over any research. The private sector will not get involved under such despotic regulatory controlled conditions. Thus, ESCR has remained stagnant while in the control of political nay sayers. Once science becomes depolitised as it should and controlled by those in the science community private industry will become involved with investment and innovation similar to the computer industry in the 1980s, the auto industry in the early 1900s and the airline industry in the same era.

GO HARD SCIENCE