U.S. lags in stem cell work, study finds

The United States' share of new publications in stem cell research is unexpectedly low and declining, according to a recent paper by Aaron Levine, a doctoral candidate in the Wilson School. The paper speculates that the U.S. political environment may be a factor.

"One question at least is settled by empirical test ... the United States, long the global life-sciences hegemon, is indeed falling uncharacteristically behind," the article said.

Levine's article, "Trends in the geographic distribution of human embryonic stem-cell research," published in the journal "Politics and the Life Sciences" and winner of the 2005 Association for Politics and Life Sciences Graduate Student Paper Award, is the first attempt to quantitatively measure the impact of restrictions on stem cell research.

"I was surprised to see there wasn't any research already on this," Levine said. "I wanted to add an additional data point for policymakers to look at."

Molecular biology and Wilson School professor Lee Silver, Levine's dissertation adviser, said that research like Levine's is rare.

"There are very few people out there who could have done this study," Silver said. "Aaron combined his knowledge of science — which technologies to look at — with quantitative social analysis."

Levine compared the United States' share of publications about embryonic stem cell research in 2004 with its share of publications about other biotechnological breakthroughs when they were at comparable stages of development.

"I compared the spread of stem cell research to 'typical' diffusion," Levine said. "I certainly expected the distribution of a technology to mirror the distribution of other research."

The United States' share of embryonic stem cell publications was 30 percent, compared to an average of 51 percent for five other biomedical technologies including DNA microarrays, polymerase chain reaction, yeast two-hybrid screening, green fluorescent protein expression tagging and RNA interference.

The article conjectures as to the reasons behind the United States' lack of publications.

"From the beginning there was less stem cell research in the United States," Levine said. "The environment in the U.S. was never quite hospitable for stem cell research."

The article also suggests a diversion of researchers from embryonic stem cell research into adult stem cell research as a possible reason for the United States' gap in published research.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"Stem cell research is a host of different fields," Levine said. "You don't move back and forth that rapidly from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. This would reduce the U.S. share in embryonic stem cells, although it might not hurt the worldwide effort to cure disease."

Silver was less optimistic about what the diversion of resources to adult stem-cell research could do. "Venture capitalists are very smart people," Silver said. "The answer to the question, 'What's the best investment?' is not adult stem cells, but embryonic stem cells. Not surprisingly, [venture capitalists] will invest in countries, like Singapore, where the political environment is more friendly."

Levine hopes that his research will have a part in the upcoming New Jersey and Connecticut debates about state funding of stem cell research.

"The decision-making is dominated in a large part by political factors," Levine said, "but this makes more data available so that policymakers can make more rational decisions."