document

NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 7 • NUMBER 3 • MARCH 2001 263

NEWS

Australia’s research community hasacknowledged an Aus $2.9 billion (US$1.6 billion) five-year plan to boost sci-ence and technology as a welcome butbelated attempt to redress years of ne-glect.

Prime Minister John Howard, whofaces a general election this year, isclaiming that the package to boost re-search grants, improve university infra-structure and restore R&D investmentincentives was “the largest commit-ment to innovation ever made by anAustralian government.”

Over the next five years the govern-ment has pledged to double AustralianResearch Council (ARC) competitivegrants to $736 million, increase univer-sity places and double postdoctoral fel-lowships, provide $246 million forupgrading tertiary research infrastruc-ture, restore R&D tax concessions,boost start-up funds for commercializa-tion of research ($535 million) and ex-pand the Cooperative Research Centreindustry partnership program ($227million). The money follows a dou-bling of the budget for the NationalHealth and Medical Research Counciltwo years ago (Nature Med., 5, 598;1999).

But the response from the scientificcommunity is divided. A key lobbyistfor the package, ARC chair Vicki Sara,

is predicting that it will help Australiato lead the world in strategic areas in-cluding molecular biology and quan-tum computing. And the Federation ofAustralian Science and TechnologicalSocieties (FASTS) suggests the packagecould reverse the technology-drivendecline in the Australian dollar.

However, some say the initiative,called ‘Backing Australia’s Ability,’does little more than “play catch-up,”and although the government maygain electoral kudos from the an-nouncement, the bulk of funds will notbe available until 2003.

The Australian Society for MedicalResearch (ASMR) believes that the in-jection of funds will bring the countryup to par rather than confer any specialadvantage by the end of five years. “Itwould be nice if there was more moneyavailable in the earlier stages,” ASMRpresident Peter O’Loughlin com-mented.

FASTS policy chairman Ken Baldwinsays that the lukewarm reception for thepackage “partly reflects its long gesta-tion” and warns that more reforms areneeded. O’Loughlin agrees with FASTSthere has been a “sea change” forced bythe massive investment of fast-growingeconomies such as Singapore, Canadaand Ireland in science and technology.

Rada Rouse, Brisbane

Election year boost for Australian R&D

Angst is growing within America’s bio-medical research community that the newGeorge W. Bush ad-ministration will cutoff money for fetal-tis-sue and stem-cell re-search because of itsviews on abortion.Newly inaugurated,Bush wasted no timeinjecting himself intothe controversial de-bate by once again de-claring his oppositionto government fund-ing of medical researchthat uses fetal tissue obtained from abor-tions, or stem cells derived from embryosthat are later destroyed.

Although he did not say he would over-turn the current policy that allows suchfunding, he reiterated statements he hadmade during the 2000 presidential cam-paign, saying, “I do not support researchfrom aborted fetuses.” Meanwhile, Bush’snew secretary of Health and HumanServices, former Wisconsin GovernorTommy Thompson—an abortion foe—hasin the past praised stem-cell research, par-ticularly the University of Wisconsin scien-tists who were among the first to growstem cells in large quantities. ButThompson is now hinting that he mighthave to change his views and review thegovernment’s policy towards stem-cell re-search.

In his first days in office in 1993,President Clinton overturned a ban on fed-eral funding for fetal-tissue research intro-duced by Ronald Reagan. Since that time,the government has spent $124 million onfetal-tissue research. Last year, the NIH(National Institutes of Health) was awarded$20 million in grants for such research, andhopes to begin funding the first grants forembryonic stem cell research later thisyear.

At the time that Clinton overturned thefetal-tissue ban, Congress explicitly prohib-ited the executive branch from stoppingfetal-tissue transplantation research. Thiswould make it extremely difficult for Bushto stop all fetal-tissue research money, al-though he could issue an Executive Orderbarring stem-cell research specifically.

Scientists are unhappy at the thoughtthat adult stem cells would become theonly research alternative. “You can’t ex-pand these cells—they can’t grow in large

Bush is a threat to US stem-cell research

numbers,” says John Gearhart of JohnsHopkins University. “These [adult] cells

don’t have thesame plasticity orbroad range of po-tential. Also, wedon’t know theimpact the agingprocess wouldhave on thesecells. And they arevery few in num-ber—you wouldhave to collect alot of cells. Finally,if you have a ge-

netic-based disease, the [adult] stem cellswould have the same gene defect. Withembryonic cells, we know we can manipu-late them genetically.” Johns Hopkins

University has received a $58.5 million do-nation to create a new institute focused onstem-cell research.

Scientists are also worried that inroadsalready gained will be lost, and that thepace of stem-cell research will slow if fundsfor embryo research are eliminated. CurtFreed, a researcher at the University ofColorado Health Sciences Center—who isdue to report encouraging results withfetal-tissue transplants in patients with ad-vanced Parkinson disease in the NewEngland Journal of Medicine—calls the NIH“the only source of funds for high qualitycontrolled clinical trials. If there is no NIHfunding, then research would revert toanecdotes, and the possibility of exagger-ated evaluation of transplantation out-come.” Gearhart agrees, adding thatwithout federal funding, “the researchwon’t move as rapidly.”

Marlene Cimons, Washington, DC

President George W. Bush

AP

Phot

o/Ph

il Sa

ndlin

©20

01 N

atu

re P

ub

lish

ing

Gro

up

h

ttp

://m

edic

ine.

nat

ure

.co

m© 2001 Nature Publishing Group http://medicine.nature.com