Reverse Brain Drain:
Could You Become a Scientific Emigrant?
Nan Knight
|
|
Printer-friendly
version
|
The story is a staple of 20th-century scientific
biography: brilliant researcher, oppressed by
political restraints on scientific activity and
expression, leaves a restrictive nation in search
of an open academic atmosphere in which to perform
groundbreaking work that expands the horizons
of his or her field. In the previous iterations
of this story, the scientist would settle in New
Jersey or Massachusetts or California, prosper
in the freedom and latitude given to scientific
research, and become a proud citizen of the United
States.
The 21st-century version of the same story may
be shaping up quite differently.
Biomedical technology is one area in which current
debates among politicians, religious groups, ethicists,
and researchers have caused serious doubts about
the ability of the United States to remain at
the forefront of innovation in genetic technologies
and their myriad applications. Already, restrictive
requirements on stem cell research and widespread
speculation about additional regulatory restraints
have caused several noted researchers to depart
to countries that welcome and support this promising
scientific area. Warnings about the possible results
come from academia and from concerned legislators.
William Keye, MD, president of the American
Society for Reproductive Medicine, cautions:
"If all cloning technology is made illegal
in the United States, other countries, some of
which have already approved this technology, could
benefit, attracting our leading biological scientists
in a 'brain drain.' As a result, America could
relinquish its place as the leader in biomedical
research, and Americans could lose access to cures
developed for diseases." Senator Arlen Specter
(R-PA) notes that proposed legislation to ban
cloning and severely restrict stem cell research
would "tie the hands of medical science in
the 21st century" and "create an enormous
brain drain out of the United States to Europe."
Is the possibility of a "reverse" brain
drain real, or is this merely one of the rhetorical
weapons brought to an increasingly heated debate?
Will international political considerations now
play a part in career decision-making for biochemists
working in the broad range of high-tech genetic
applications and for those thinking about entering
these fields? What are the likely practical outcomes
to an ongoing war of words between opponents and
proponents of cloning and stem cell research?
JobSpectrum.org takes a closer look at the very
rapidly changing international career landscape
in the biosciences.
Taking the Lead
Elsewhere
In August 2001, President Bush restricted federally
financed stem cell research to 64 existing stem
cell lines taken from embryos discarded by fertility
centers. No lines created after that moment could
be used for research by any institution receiving
federal funds of any sortand it soon became
clear that less than 20 of these 64 existing lines
were suitable for research. In April 2002, Bush
announced his strong support of a Senate bill
that would ban somatic cell nuclear transfer,
the basic process that facilitates cloning and
the creation of embryonic stem cells. Although
supported in this effort by conservative lawmakers
and a large segment of the American public, Bush's
description of cloning as "a nightmare scenario"
in which embryos would be created and grown for
spare body parts or custom-tailored to the demands
of affluent parents brought grim responses from
the scientific and medical community. Forty Nobel
laureates issued a joint statement in which they
noted that restricting nuclear transplantation
technology would have "a chilling effect
on all scientific research in the United States."
But the signs of a U.S. chilland an increase
in activity elsewherehave been evident since
the first fierce ethical debates that accompanied
the quest to elucidate the human genome in the
1990s. The widely publicized birth of Dolly, the
cloned sheep, put Great Britain at the cutting
edge of scientific investigation in applied genetics.
In 2001, Great Britain became the first country
to allow the creation of human embryos as a source
of stem cells. In February 2002, the House
of Lords approved research on human embryonic
stem cells cultured from surplus embryos from
fertility clinics. The
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)
both regulates and supports this research at a
number of institutions throughout Great Britain.
A stem-cell
bank is being planned by the Medical
Research Council (MRC) to maintain a diverse
supply of stem cells for new research, and British
scientists are already referring with some pride
to a coming "brain gain." "The
climate for this kind of research is enormously
better in Britain than in the U.S.," says
Professor Chris Higgins, director of MRC's clinical
sciences center at the
Imperial College in London.
The "brain gain" is being supported
by an influx of funding from both private and
government sources. MRC is providing fast-track
grants for international researchers who want
to come to Great Britain, and other government
agencies there are earmarking more than $60 million
a year to support fellowships and training in
embryo-related research. Universities across Great
Britain are working actively on all phases of
stem cell investigation and potential beneficial
medical applications. Private endeavors, such
as ReNeuron
(Guildford, UK), a biopharmaceutical company developing
stem-cell applications for neurological disorders,
are springing up to produce marketable products
from these innovative technologies.
A Noted Departure
British scientists and legislators were pleased
to report in July of 2001 that their efforts to
create a net brain gain for their country were
paying off. In that month, Roger Pedersen, one
of the United States' most accomplished and internationally
honored stem cell researchers, left his position
as director of the Reproductive
Genetics Unit at the University of California,
San Francisco (UCSF), and took his research to
a handsomely funded situation at Cambridge
University (UK). Like researchers in universities
across the U.S., Pedersen had seen his range of
activity increasingly limited by restrictive government
proscription. In April 2001, a National
Institutes of Health (NIH) ruling on "indirect"
costs (including pencils, paper, and computers)
indicated that even privately funded stem cell
research at universities might still be determined
to be tapping into government funding and, therefore,
be proscribed. Pedersen temporarily suspended
some research in his lab. Other universities entered
into complex (and sometimes clandestine) agreements
with private concerns to take stem cell research
off campus.
Pedersen had seen enough. He announced, "after
working for 5 years in this field in the US, I
have become increasingly frustrated at the prospects
for public funding." His decision to go to
the UK went with the understanding and support
of many at UCSF. Haile Debas, dean of the UCSF
School of Medicine, said, "We consider embryonic
stem-cell research to be very important. Dr. Pedersen
is obviously seeking an opportunity where he can
do his work with less difficulty than he faces
in the United States." Pedersen was welcomed
to Cambridge with an instant MRC grant of £1
million to continue his work. Sir Keith Peters,
professor of physics at Cambridge, noted, "They
[MRC] saw that there was a research opportunity
for the UK to take advantage of this more liberal
legislation to secure a high-quality scientist."
Whether large numbers of scientists will follow
Pedersen, whose move to the UK was covered extensively
in the US and British press, remains to be seen.
Many researchers in the US are waiting, working
in what one has termed "an ill-defined netherworld,"
as debates about government support and restrictions
continue. At UCSF, Debas notes, "If federal
support for stem cell research is not forthcoming,
the risk exists that talented scientists will
leave
.This would be a tragedy of the greatest
proportion." Pedersen believes that the most
rational and ultimately productive route is for
the US to implement guidelinesincluding
ethical standardsthat will govern stem cell
research while allowing the derivation of necessary
additional stem cells. "It is critically
important to avoid laws preventing any aspect
of stem cell research, such as [proposed] legislation
that would
criminalize genomic replacement
studies," he says. "The potential benefits
of stem cell research promise to transform healthcare
and stimulate economic growth. But they will accrue
to countries where the policies and funding encourage,
rather than hobble, the stem cell enterprise."
Biotech Expansions
Across the Globe
A Customer Country?
Where does this leave the US? Among other confusions,
it means that US researchers are in need of more
stem cells and new stem cell lines that are permissible
under the narrow restrictions in place after the
August 2001 curfew set by President Bush. On April
12, 2002, NIH announced an agreement
to purchase embryonic stem cells produced by ES
Cell International, which is based in Australia
but maintains laboratory facilities in Singapore,
The Netherlands, and Israel. ES Cell holds 6 of
the viable stem cell lines that would be permissible
under the August 2001 restrictions . The stem
cells would be provided both for research at NIH
and at nonprofit organizations supported by NIH
grants. Ruth Kirschstein, acting NIH director
stated that, "The cell lines being offered
are genetically diverse and, as such, will expand
opportunities for researchers to explore important
differences among cell lines." Other NIH
staffers viewed the purchase as a "make-do"
effort to bridge a substantial and growing gap
in available research materials. "We are
merely purchasing this as a product, while at
the same time our ability to do meaningful research
is being threatened," said one NIH administrator.
"Can we really blame those who look to countries
with less restrictive research environments and
a more scientifically sophisticated assessment
of the beneficial potential for this technology?"
Who's Away from Home?
Interestingly, no one can say definitively how
many scientists have opted to leave the country.
The US Department
of State does not maintain reliable figures
on the numbers of Americans working overseas.
"We have people working in other countries
while they're on sabbatical, as 'guest scientists',
in locum tenens [temporary fill-in] positions,
or on loan agreements from universities in the
US," said one State Department official.
"These people certainly don't renounce their
US citizenship when they take these positions,
so we have no way of knowing the nature and extent
of their commitment to their new jobs." Pedersen,
for example, maintains ties with UCSF while working
at Cambridge. Other American scientists have taken
temporary positions outside the country to continue
their work as these issues are sorted out back
home. University career counselors contacted for
this story reported no increase in recruitment
efforts from other countries among biology or
biochemistry majors and graduate students.
American Industry: Optimistic
But Bags Packed
Private concerns and institutions continue to
perform stem cell research in the US, some quite
successfully. Advanced
Cell Technology (Worcester, MA), through its
subsidiary Cyagra LLC, sells its cloned dairy
cows for $20,000 each. The leading company in
the field is Geron
Corporation (Menlo Park, CA), which also owns
Roslin Bio-Med Ltd., holder of the patents to
the technique that created Dolly the cloned sheep.
Other big players are Infigen (DeForest, WI) and
the Anthrogenesis Corporation (Cedar Knolls, NJ),
which recently acquired Atlantic Stem Cells, Inc.
Each of these companies has contacts and sometimes-structured
relationships with university labs, and many hire
new recruits from university programs.
Despite their relative freedom from some of the
more rigid restrictions that regulate government-funded
research, these companies are facing significant
challenges. One is in the area of patents, in
which current disputes have reached a crisis.
Several of the core patents that govern much of
cloning technology are under scrutiny by the U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office. The result,
says Infigen president Michael D. Bishop, can
be financial headaches. "Anytime there is
confusion in the marketplace over who owns the
rights to what, raising capital becomes a challenge,"
he says. "If we can't clear up the ambiguities
of these base patents, we won't be able to move
forward with the technology." Efforts by
some companies to license specific stem cell lines
have caused others to go overseas to look for
new lines. With some of the most innovative research
progressing overseas, the very real possibility
of researcher flight, and the availability of
productive cooperation between academic institutions
and private business, several of these companies
are looking at the possibility of expanding--or
moving--some of their U.S. activities abroad.
Geron, for example, spends more than $4 million
each year supporting researchers at the Roslin
Institute in Glasgow. Thomas Okarma, Geron
CEO, has told several news sources that the company
is open to a possible move. "We can grow
that or not, depending on where the political
winds go," he said.
As an indicator of the ever-shifting political
landscape, Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health
and Human Services, announced in late April that
four new infrastructure enhancement grants for
human embryonic stem cell research would be awarded
through NIH. The grants are designed to jump start
basic research in the field by providing funds
for expansion, testing, quality assurance, and
distribution of existing cell lines that meet
the President's criteria for federal funding of
research on stem cells. Two of the awardees are
Australian-owned companies, ES Cell International
and BresaGen, Ltd., which hold stem cell lines
not previously available in the United States.
Scientific Superstition?
At the root of the current difficulties in the
United States, say some observers, is a deep and
intransigent misunderstanding and miscommunication
about the terms and techniques under discussion.
President Bush has referred to cloned embryos,
which usually contain no more than 16 stem cells,
as "individuals" and has indicated that
therapeutic applications of these cells would
"require the destruction of a nascent human
life." Michael West, president and CEO of
Advanced Cell Technology, said of Bush's recent
descriptions of the consequences of cloning: "I'm
not proud to be an American when our leadership
doesn't take the time to get the science right."
In November 2001, ACT scientists announced that
they had cloned a six-cell human embryo as a source
for embryonic stem cells for transplantation.
The root of the misunderstanding is a failure
on the part of many to differentiate between the
use of the new technology to create a cloned human
being and the application of specific cell lines
to the treatment of medical conditions and disease.
Despite a recent announcement by an Italian physician
that a cloned embryo had been successfully implanted
in female patient, almost no scientists favor
the creation of cloned humans. "The cloning
of a human being should be prohibited," said
Paul
Berg, who won the Nobel Prize in 1980 and
spoke on behalf of dozens of other Nobelists.
"Nuclear transplantation technology, however,
is meant to produce stem cells, not babies."
The American public clearly opposes cloning and
has problems with the whole area of stem cell
research, according to a recent poll by the Pew
Research Center for the People & the Press.
According to the results of the poll, American
are united in opposition to both human cloning
and experimentation in human cloning by more than
four to one (77% to 17%). The position on stem
cell research is less clear-cut. Half (50%) of
those who "have been paying at least some
attention to the issue" favor government
funding for stem cell research, but a substantial
minority (35%) are opposed. Well-educated respondents
were much more likely to favor stem cell research.
Opposition by religious groups to stem cell research
remains strong and well organized.
The rift between those who support and oppose
stem cell research is unlikely to heal soon. Many
researchers who entered what they once believed
to be the value-neutral field of scientific research
find themselves facing their own ethical quandaries
in deciding how and whether to pursue such new
lines of inquiry. For others, the choice is clear.
Peter Hintze, a German conservative politician,
has called opposition to stem cell research "the
ethics of the healthy." For many who have
family members or relatives with previously untreatable
diseases or degenerative illnesses that might
be cured by stem cell technologies, the potential
benefits are compelling.
Professions Without Borders?
In a press release from the prestigious Gairdner
Foundation in Great Britain, Joseph Martin,
dean of the Harvard Medical School neatly summed
up the situation: "The U.S. is going to end
up being the most recalcitrant about coming to
any kind of conclusion that the public at large
will be able to accept. So, we have this situation
evolving where science will become regionalized,
where people who do work in this area will, to
some degree, have to decide what their work is
going to be and, therefore, where they're going
to live."
Does the current political climate mean that
in the future planning a career in bioscience
will involve a sort of rubric in which "allowable"
areas of scientific investigation will be plotted
against a list of appropriate host countries?
No mass exodus is predicted, but with the current
climate and pending legislation, it is difficult
for American science to move confidently forward
in this area. For many researchers, the decision
to stay, leave, continue their research, or seek
another line of inquiry hangs in the air. "The
waiting is killing us," Jennie Hunter-Cevera,
president of the University
of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, told
The Scientist.
It is a wait that has implications across the
board for government, academic, and private research
across the United States.
Nan Knight is a freelance science writer and
editor whose credits include Smithsonian exhibits,
Discovery Channel Web sites, and a wide range
of publications on radiation in medicine.
Editor's Note: In future articles, JobSpectrum.org
will look at some of the practical aspects of
working in the new international biotechnologies:
Working overseas:
How to position yourself if you want to
go.
How to respond if you're assigned to work outside
the US.
What you need to know about overseas scientific
work environments.
Ethics in the scientific workplace:
How to respond when you have ethical questions
about your company's research directions.
How to deal respectfully and responsively with
coworkers whose ethical concerns about work
differ from yours.
Related Reading
For more information on stem cells and the debate
surrounding their use in medical research, see:
National
Institutes of Health Stem Cell Primer
Basic information and a constellation of links
to other resources on stem cells
American
Association for the Advancement of Science
The AAAS position on stem cell research, along
with links to supporting materials and sites
CNN's
Stem Cell Debate and Resources
An in-depth news report on stem cells, along with
links to other CNN stories and background site.
|