"The foundations for stem cell biology are still being constructed, and that takes basic science," says Arnold Kriegstein, a neurologist at UC San Francisco who raised the issue at a recent meeting of the institute's board.
Kriegstein contends that in much of stem cell research, product development is premature. He fears that the move in that direction is motivated by a "desire to come up with a real clinical triumph they could claim credit for. I'm concerned that in the rush to get there they may be spending a fair amount of funds on projects that are just not ready yet."
Marie Csete, the institute's chief scientific officer, says Kriegstein's concerns are overwrought. "We have no intention of abandoning basic science," she told me, observing that the institute has helped fund more than $600 million in training, research and infrastructure over the last four years. "We've supported basic research in a huge way."
She also strongly disagreed that the time is not ripe for product development. "There's very mature work that is quite close to clinical applications," she said, adding that just because there are gaps in our knowledge of stem cell biology doesn't mean all development efforts need to be put on hold.
With the change of administrations in Washington and the deterioration in the state's fiscal health, the time has come for a fundamental rethinking of the stem cell program. The debate over its future has to take place in the context of the state's overall needs, not merely among a small group of self-interested board members.
Proposition 71 endowed the program with what looked like an embarrassment of riches. The danger is that, without better oversight and broader debate about its policies and goals, it will become simply an embarrassment.
--
Michael Hiltzik's column appears Mondays and Thursdays. Reach him at michael.hiltzik@latimes.com and read his previous columns at www.latimes.com/hiltzik.
