Show Me the Money (Trail)

November 6, 2006

To secure constitutional Amendment 2 in Missouri, the Stowers family has contributed much of the $28 million amassed, by various reports. Why would anyone spend that much money to attempt to amend a state’s constitution? From a business standpoint, investments are made in order to have a return that is greater. Voters in Missouri would be wise to ask themselves just what will $28 million buy? What is the expected return?

Ostensibly, $28 million will buy a piece of the embryonic stem cell market, but how much? Will it reap millions more in patented processes and treatments? That is a hard call. Most researchers who commit to some timeline for embryonic stem cell cures, of which there are currently none, estimate that at least 10, and maybe 15, years will be required before any human therapies from embryonic stem cells are available (if such are possible). Will it result in a “brain gain,” enticing researchers from other institutions to the St. Louis or Kansas City areas? Will researchers such as Kevin Eggan, funded by Stowers (“approximately $5.9 million in funding for Eggan’s lab over the next five years . . .” Harvard University Gazette, November 03, 2005), relocate from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute? Even if such occurred, what would the investors realize from their investment?

Where patenting is concerned, a lesson can be learned from Wisconsin. In 1998, James Thomsen from the University of Wisconsin was able to grow in cell culture embryonic stem cells. Such accomplishments bring fame, but it is the patenting of life and life processes that have proven a boon for the holders of those patents. The University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) “in essence owns virtually all imaginable characteristics of human embryonic stem cells.” (Glenn McGee, “Working With Stem Cells? Pay Up; What the Wisconsin patent stranglehold means for researchers,” in The Scientist). McGee apparently saw this coming in 2001, as he “told a US Senate subcommittee that as much as half of stem cell revenue would likely end up going to patent holders because of absurd patents on the human embryo” (Ibid). Californians, who voted in 2004 to spend $3 billion on stem cell research, do not desire to pay extensive royalties to WARF. What will Missourians do if they approve a constitutional amendment to do stem cell research, and then learn that much of the money will be funneled to WARF, unless the patents are challenged successfully?

Who actually benefits from embryonic stem cell research? In the short term, researchers earn salaries, and some may procure patents. Patents could alternately be held by universities or biotech companies. Money may follow the patents; time will tell. Patient benefits are at least a decade away, by best estimates. If such therapy is made available, which patients will benefit—only those who can afford the therapy, or will laws be passed to equalize therapy for all? If everyone is treated, who will fund such? Will universities or biotech companies be required to pay back to the state a portion of their receipts on patents, if taxpayers fund this venture? These are a few of many questions that need to be seriously considered before Missouri approves a constitutional amendment that appears to benefit primarily one sector of the populace.