Pluripotency breakthroughs came from a Japanese lab, not US policy
One of our recent commentaries brought this response from Doug Sipp, of Japan's RIKEN Kobe Institute:
Charis Thompson raises an interesting question in her article, "Can opposition to research spur innovation?" [1] and one that is particularly timely in light of the recent breakthroughs in the induction of pluripotency in differentiated mouse and human cells. It seems undeniable that resistance to a given field of research from some quarters can prompt support from others; this has certainly been the case for human embryonic stem cell research in the US. However, the furor surrounding human ES cells is not a global phenomenon, and is indeed restricted to a fairly limited number of countries (at least of those capable of conducting significant research efforts). Japan, where the first discovery of the four "Yamanaka factors" was made, provides a reasonably permissive regulatory framework for human ES cell research, and there has never been public opposition to the field of the sort seen in the States. This is not to say that there are not obstacles. As Norio Nakatsuji pointed out in his article, "Irrational Japanese regulations hinder human embryonic stem cell research," there are regrettable bureaucratic hurdles confronting would-be human ES cell researchers [2], but I don't feel that this can accurately be characterized as "opposition" in the sense used in Thompson's article. So it seems a bit inappropriate to use the discovery of induced pluripotency as an example of how opposition can lend impetus to a field of science, and thereby lead to new discoveries. This nonetheless appears to be the thrust of recent mendacious self-serving statements from the Bush administration claiming that the discoveries of Yamanaka and others somehow vindicate the restrictive policies in force in that country [3]. It should be remembered that the original discovery of induced pluripotency was not made by an American lab, and that the uproar, quibbling and qualms voiced in the US have for the most part been only a distant spectacle, not fuel for the engines of scientific discovery. So, while I agree that conflict may spur innovation, I do not think that induced pluripotency was the fruit of such a troubled union.
Doug Sipp
RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology
1 http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0712/071213/full/stemcells.2007.128.html
2 http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0708/070809/full/stemcells.2007.66.html
3 http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/bush-to-greet-g.html
Comments
Thanks for posting that, Monya. There yet another reason that opposition doesn't spur innovation, and this one's from my personal experience. The politicization keeps young researchers like myself from even wanting to enter the field.
Posted by: mr. gunn | December 20, 2007 12:03 AM