Among those handful of states that fund embryonic as well as
other forms of stem cell research, Minnesota
is the newcomer.[1]
Minnesota
is home to the nation’s first interdisciplinary institute dedicated to stem
cell research, the University of Minnesota Medical School’s Minnesota Stem Cell
Institute, founded in 1999. Even so,
public funding for all forms of stem cell research there was approved only in
2014, with the first grants being made in 2015. This year’s grants mark the
third round of funding. Regenerative Medicine Minnesota (RMM) is
charged with approving and distributing the grants.
By way of comparison, both California
and Maryland
began funding stem cell research in 2007.
More on this below.
In the three years that Minnesota has provided state funds for stem
cell research, it has noticeably steered clear of funding human embryonic stem
cell research (hESCR).
In 2015, the first round of grant
making, just under $3 million in
grants was given to six research projects.
None of them involved hESCR.
In 2016,
$2.75 million was distributed to 9 research projects.
Again, none of them utilized human embryonic stem cells
(hESCs).
Ten
grants were awarded in 2017, totaling just under $5 million.
Of the ten, nine explicitly funded non-embryonic stem cell
research. The research description for the tenth one creates some ambiguity, as
it refers to “pluripotent stem cells,” without specifying whether they are
embryonic or non-embryonic.
Nine of the grants were clearly non-embryonic. (Regarding the remaining grant, there is room
for ambiguity. The research description
refers to “pluripotent stem cells” which could refer to non-embryonic iPSCs, as
well as hESCs.)
As noted before on this blog (here,
here,
and here),
California and Maryland have in recent years strongly favored research using
adult, induced pluripotent and other forms of non-embryonic stem cell research
in their grant making.
But this was not always the case.
When both states handed out their first grants in 2007, they
strongly favored hESCR. Maryland gave only 4
grants to projects using adult stem cells, while 11 projects using hESCR
received grants – almost three times as many.
California
first round of grants went to 72 research projects, all of them utilizing
hESCs. A second round of grants in 2007
went to 29 projects – again, all of them centered on hESCs (two also involved
somatic cell nuclear transfer, a.k.a., cloning).
This has changed over the years, with both states now
heavily favoring non-embryonic stem cell research in their grant making.
Minnesota,
in marked contrast, has given little, if any, support for hESCR. Why? Timing may provide an answer.
California and Maryland began funding
stem cell research against a background of hype and hyperbole regarding the
potential of hESCs to cure any number of diseases and conditions. Human embryonic stem cells were hyped as the
“gold standard” in the field of regenerative medicine, while adult stem cell
research was dismissed as far inferior.
All that began to change in 2007, when Shinya Yamanaka discovered a method
to produce what he called “induced pluripotent stem cells.” Like embryonic stem cells, these cells were
fully pluripotent. However, they did not
require the destruction of human embryos; they could be derived from a simple
somatic cell, such as a skin cell. With
a ready source of ethically non-contentious, fully pluripotent stem cells now
available, more and more researchers began turning to them rather than hESCs.
Moreover, adult stem cells were proving far more versatile
and effective in providing therapeutic benefits to patients than those who
dismissed them as inferior had predicted.
While not yet providing cures, patients treated with adult stem cells
for such things as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, diabetes and other
diseases began to show improvements from their treatments. In fact, over 1
million patients have been treated thus far with adult stem cells.
When Minnesota
handed out its first stem cell grants in 2015, the changes the advent of iPSCs
had wrought in the field of regenerative medicine were evident. Also evident by then was the complete failure
of hESCR to live up to all the hype regarding miracle cures they were supposed
to bring about. Only a handful of
clinical trials were underway using hESCs; in contrast, the NIH on its website
listed thousands of clinical trials for patients using adult stem cells.[2]
It is thus not unreasonable to assume that given these
developments, Minnesota
decided to steer clear altogether of hESCR and instead provides funds for what
has proven to be far more promising adult, induced pluripotent and other
non-embryonic stem cell research.
[1] The
other states are California, Maryland,
Connecticut and New York.
[2] At http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=adult+stem+cell+transplants&type=Intr
A recent study has questioned the validity of at least 18 trials listed on the website. That still leaves several thousand valid trials listed testing adult stem cells.
A recent study has questioned the validity of at least 18 trials listed on the website. That still leaves several thousand valid trials listed testing adult stem cells.
