California voters last fall passed a ballot initiative that allotted $300 million a year for 10 years to research on embryonic stem cells. The vote was a victory for the scientific community and an end run around White House policy. But a year later, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is still trying to issue a grant. We asked CIRM's interim president Zach Hall whether stem cells are a lost cause.
WIRED: The institute was supposed to give research a $3ébillion boost. Where are our miracle cures?
HALL: This proposition tapped into a huge reservoir of optimism about stem cell research and was passed by 59 percent of voters, but it is being held up in court by the right-to-life people. The net effect is to impede our ability to raise bond funds.
Meanwhile, many other nations have strong stem cell programs. Can the US catch up?
The action right now is in South Korea. The National Institutes of Health, the biggest player in biomedical research, has basically opted out. It's a terrible thing.
Has the political climate made the US a lousy place to do this kind of science?
That's too pessimistic. The mood is changing. We've seen this with DNA and in vitro fertilization - once it's clear they are helpful to people, then it all quiets down. The same will be true for stem cell research.
What's realistic to expect from that research?
You might ask, What are the low-hanging fruits? The general consensus is that there are three: Parkinson's, spinal-cord injury, and type 1 diabetes. There will be a lot of focus on those in the next few years.
Email hotseat@wiredmag.com
Zach Hall
START
Why's Everyone Standing Around?
6 Factory Tours to Write Home About
Don't Give Up on Stem Cells
