Kirstin R.W. Matthews

International Stem Cell Collaboration: How Disparate Policies between the United States and the United Kingdom Impact Research

As the scientific community globalizes, it is increasingly important to understand the effects of international collaboration on the quality and quantity of research produced. While it is generally assumed that international collaboration enhances the quality of research, this phenomenon is not well examined. Stem cell research is unique in that it is both politically charged and a research area that often generates international collaborations, making it an ideal case through which to examine international collaborations. Furthermore, with promising medical applications, the research area is dynamic and responsive to a globalizing science environment. Thus, studying international collaborations in stem cell research elucidates the role of existing international networks in promoting quality research, as well as the effects that disparate national policies might have on research. This study examined the impact of collaboration on publication significance in the United States and the United Kingdom, world leaders in stem cell research with disparate policies. We reviewed publications by US and UK authors from 2008, along with their citation rates and the political factors that may have contributed to the number of international collaborations. The data demonstrated that international collaborations significantly increased an articles impact for UK and US investigators. While this applied to UK authors whether they were corresponding or secondary, this effect was most significant for US authors who were corresponding authors. While the UK exhibited a higher proportion of international publications than the US, this difference was consistent with overall trends in international scientific collaboration. The findings suggested that national stem cell policy differences and regulatory mechanisms driving international stem cell research in the US and UK did not affect the frequency of international collaborations, or even the countries with which the US and UK most often collaborated. Geographical and traditional collaborative relationships were the predominate considerations in establishing international collaborations.

The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States

In the past 30 years, the average age of biomedical researchers has steadily increased. The average age of an investigator at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) rose from 39 to 51 between 1980 and 2008. The aging of the biomedical workforce was even more apparent when looking at first-time NIH grantees. The average age of a new investigator was 42 in 2008, compared to 36 in 1980. To determine if the rising barriers at NIH for entry in biomedical research might impact innovative ideas and research, we analyzed the research and publications of Nobel Prize winners from 1980 to 2010 to assess the age at which their pioneering research occurred. We established that in the 30-year period, 96 scientists won the Nobel Prize in medicine or chemistry for work related to biomedicine, and that their groundbreaking research was conducted at an average age of 41—one year younger than the average age of a new investigator at NIH. Furthermore, 78% of the Nobel Prize winners conducted their research before the age of 51, the average age of an NIH principal investigator. This suggested that limited access to NIH might inhibit research potential and novel projects, and could impact biomedicine and the next generation scientists in the United States.

Stem Cell Research in the Greater Middle East: The Importance of Establishing Policy and Ethics Interoperability to Foster International Collaborations

While fossil fuel reserves have strengthened the economies of numerous countries in the Greater Middle East (GME) for decades, multiple nations within this region are now increasingly investing in internal science and engineering programs as a mechanism to develop more extensive knowledge-based economies. One of these newly pursued disciplines is stem cell research. Nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have founded nascent programs while Iran, Turkey, and Israel are more established in the field. The extent to which these investments have been productive, as measured by publication quantity and impact, remains unknown. Here we assess the state of stem cell research in the GME, report on the policy and ethical considerations facing the region, and determine the impact of international research collaborations in this area. In the majority of the region, there is no legal framework regulating stem cell research. Instead, scientists often rely on religious decrees outlining acceptable practices. These guidelines do not provide the necessary structure to foster international collaborations with nations that have enacted formal laws recognized worldwide. Our results illustrate that international collaborations in the GME produce publications of greater impact despite the fact that political tensions and issues unrelated to science have the potential to dramatically hinder cross-border relationships in the region. Overall, we conclude that the national governments of countries within the GME have the unique opportunity to establish stem cell research policies which confer interoperability between nations to foster crucial international collaborations throughout the region.

Religion among Scientists in International Context: A New Study of Scientists in Eight Regions

Scientists have long been associated with religion’s decline around the world. But little data permit analysis of the religiosity of scientists or their perceptions of the science-faith interface. Here we present the first ever survey data from biologists and physicists in eight regions around the world—France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, countries and regions selected because they exhibit differing degrees of religiosity, varying levels of scientific infrastructure, and unique relationships between religious and state institutions (N = 9,422). The data collection includes biologists and physicists at all career stages from elite and non-elite universities and research institutes. We uncovered that in most of the national contexts studied, scientists are indeed more secular—in terms of beliefs and practices—than those in their respective general populations, although in four of the regional contexts, over half of scientists see themselves as religious. And surprisingly, scientists do not think science is in conflict with religion. Instead, most see religion and science as operating in separate spheres.

Cord Blood Banking in the Arab World: Current Status and Future Developments

Umbilical cord blood transplants are now used to treat numerous types of immune- and blood-related disorders and genetic diseases. Cord blood (CB) banks play an important role in these transplants by processing and storing CB units. In addition to their therapeutic potential, these banks raise ethical and regulatory questions, especially in emerging markets in the Arab world. In this article, the authors review CB banking in five countries in the region, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, selected for their different CB banking policies and initiatives. In assessing these case studies, the authors present regional trends and issues, including religious perspectives, policies, and demographic risk factors. This research suggests strong incentives for increasing the number of CB units that are collected from and available to Arab populations. In addition, the deficit in knowledge concerning public opinion and awareness in the region should be addressed to ensure educated decision-making.

Gene patents, patenting life and the impact of court rulings on US stem cell patents and research

In June 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that naturally occurring genes were unpatentable in the case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. Up until this decision, Myriad Genetics was the only company in the USA that could legally conduct diagnostic testing for BRCA1 and 2, genes that are linked to familial breast and ovarian cancer. The court case and rulings garnered discussion in public about patenting biological materials. This paper will describe the progression of the Myriad Genetics case, similar US rulings and biological intellectual property policies. In addition, it will discuss the impact of the case on biological patents - specifically those for human embryonic stem cells.

Globalization of Stem Cell Science: An Examination of Current and Past Collaborative Research Networks

Science and engineering research has becoming an increasingly international phenomenon. Traditional bibliometric studies have not captured the evolution of collaborative partnerships between countries, particularly in emerging technologies such as stem cell science, in which an immense amount of investment has been made in the past decade. Analyzing over 2,800 articles from the top journals that include stem cell research in their publications, this study demonstrates the globalization of stem cell science. From 2000 to 2010, international collaborations increased from 20.9% to 36% of all stem cell publications analyzed. The United States remains the most prolific and the most dominant country in the field in terms of publications in high impact journals. But Asian countries, particularly China are steadily gaining ground. Exhibiting the largest relative growth, the percent of Chinese-authored stem cell papers grew more than ten-fold, while the percent of Chinese-authored international papers increased over seven times from 2000 to 2010. And while the percent of total stem cell publications exhibited modest growth for European countries, the percent of international publications increased more substantially, particularly in the United Kingdom. Overall, the data indicated that traditional networks of collaboration extant in 2000 still predominate in stem cell science. Although more nations are becoming involved in international collaborations and undertaking stem cell research, many of these efforts, with the exception of those in certain Asian countries, have yet to translate into publications in high impact journals.

Regulating the therapeutic translation of regenerative medicine

Regenerative medicine and stem cell research are exciting new fields. But as the fields progress toward clinical therapies, controversies emerge. Hype surrounding stem cell research has caused an increase in their use in interventions that are not clinically proven. Furthermore, the regulatory agencies have a lot of difficulty dealing with cell therapies, which are distinctly different from drugs and medical devices they more commonly approve. To move the field forward, advocates, regulators and scientists need to come together to find new options for stem cell research oversight that protects both the patients and the research field.

Revisiting the Warnock rule.

The seminal 1984 Warnock Report1 established that research on human embryos should be limited to the first 14 days of development (Box 1). Since that time, the rule has been broadly adopted and adhered to across the research community. With the introduction of new methodologies into human embryology, however, our ability to culture human embryos in vitro has progressed rapidly, to the point where we now are reaching the 14-day Rubicon. In August 2016, two groups in the UK and in the US reported experiments on human embryos that were sustained in culture for 12–13 days after fertilization2,3. To comply with British law, the UK lab destroyed its embryo on the 13th day. In the following article, Nature Biotechnology brings together a group of experts to discuss whether, in the light of these advances, it is now time to reassess the 14-day rule.

Responding to Richard: Celebrity and (mis)representation of science

Drawing on 48 in-depth interviews conducted with biologists and physicists at universities in the United Kingdom, this study examines scientists’ perceptions of the role celebrity scientists play in socially contentious public debates. We examine Richard Dawkins’ involvement in public debates related to the relationship between science and religion as a case to analyze scientists’ perceptions of the role celebrity scientists play in the public sphere and the implications of celebrity science for the practice of science communication. Findings show that Dawkins’ proponents view the celebrity scientist as a provocateur who asserts the cultural authority of science in the public sphere. Critics, who include both religious and nonreligious scientists, argue that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists and reject his approach to public engagement. Scientists emphasize promotion of science over the scientist, diplomacy over derision, and dialogue over ideological extremism.