ment in biotechnology later in the year.“It’s absolutely essential that the public

and industry sectors grow side byside…after all this is the strength ofAmerican science,” says Cory.

According to geneticist Bob Williamson,director of the Murdoch Institute,Australia’s lack of competitiveness in ge-nomics has revolved around an overallweakness in human molecular geneticsdue to a lack of biotechnology start-upcompanies. The implementation of theWills report—which calls for a doubling offunding for medical research (Nature Med.5 9; 1999)—will be “as critical as the AGRFitself,” he says.

RADA ROUSE, BRISBANE

366 NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 5 • NUMBER 4 • APRIL 1999

NEWS

The argument over whether US govern-ment funding can be used for human em-bryonic stem cell research has intensified,on paper at least, and looks likely to enterits most critical period in the next threemonths.

Although the Department of Health andHuman Services (HHS) gave the greenlight to federal funding for such researchin January, 70 members of Congress havesince contested the agency’s legal reason-ing in a letter to HHS Secretary DonnaShalala. And last month, 33 Nobel laure-ates wrote to Congress urging federal fund-ing for human stem cell research.

All eyes are now on guidelines for this re-search being drawn up by the NationalBioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) atthe request of Harold Varmus, director ofthe National Institutes of Health (NIH).Once the guidelines have been established,the NIH will begin accepting and reviewinggrant applications for such studies.

The issue central to the legal debate isthe distinction between the derivationand use of the cells. In their letter of objec-tion, the Congressmen, most of whom areRepublicans, assert that “any NIH actionto initiate funding of such research wouldviolate both the letter and spirit of the fed-eral law.” They are referring to wording inthe 1996 appropriations bill, which in-cludes a rider prohibiting “research inwhich a human embryo or embryos aredestroyed, discarded, or knowingly sub-jected to risk of injury or death...”Congressional aides say that new legisla-tion banning stem cell research has notbeen ruled out by the letter’s signatories.

Proponents of stem cell research counterthat since the cells have already been iso-lated and cultured as immortal lines, sub-

sequent work on them would not entaildestroying embryos, so this research couldbe funded by the NIH.

John Fletcher, University of Virginia, amember of NBAC, insists that the possiblemedical benefits of stem cell research makea legislative ban unlikely. “There are cer-tainly more votes [in favor of funding] be-cause of advances in research,” saysFletcher, adding that he believes the ap-propriations committee is leaning towardslifting the current restrictions on embryoresearch rather than strengthening them.

The letter from the Nobel laureates,written under the aegis of the AmericanSociety for Cell Biology, points to the “se-rious negative consequences” of not fund-ing federal research programs: “The neteffect will be to bar the majority of theNation’s most prominent researchers whoare supported by the National Institutes ofHealth and the National ScienceFoundation at universities and non-profitinstitutions throughout the country[those most qualified to make dramaticadvances towards using stem cells for thetreatment of disease] from engaging inthis critical research.” The letter goes on tosay that “any new scientific understand-ing that emerges would not flow into thepublic domain and may be restricted tothe commercial sector.”

At NBACs meeting last month, prelimi-nary discussion seemed to be leaning to-wards permitting both the use andderivation of human stem cells in feder-ally funded studies, according to NBAC’sexecutive director, Eric Meslin. NBAC’srecommendations for research guidelineswill be released in June.

KAREN BIRMINGHAM & ALAN DOVE, NEW YORK

Stem cell debate heats up as guidelines are prepared

Scientists bemoan lack of finances for new centerMarch 26th saw the official opening of theAUS$10 million (US$ 6.3 million), feder-ally funded, Australian Genome ResearchFacility (AGRF), which has divisions inMelbourne and Brisbane. The AGRF offersantipodean researchers facilities for high-throughput gene sequencing and geno-typing services, and perhaps moreimportantly, embodies hopes for anAustralian stake in the genome revolution.

The facility represents the most notablecommitment by the federal governmentto genome research to-date. But far fromrejoicing, scientists are questioning thegovernment’s genuine commitment tothis field of research, because althoughthe AGRF has broken even financiallyafter a year of contract work, it has nooperating budget with which to recruitstaff or participate in major internationalprojects.

AGRF director John Mattick explains,“we need core funding so we’re not justlurching along on customer charges.”Mattick, who has asked the federal gov-ernment for an annual AUS$2 million,warns that the facility’s potential will notbe reached without substantial funds forbasic genome research projects. He wantsthe country’s federal funding agency forbiomedical research, the National Healthand Medical Research Council, to dedi-cate AUS$20 million annually to projectssuch as the mouse and zebrafish genomesequencing project, high density muta-tion screening, and pathogen sequencing.

Australia’s Health Minister, MichaelWooldridge, to whom the Prime Ministerrecently gave special responsibility forbiotechnology, praises the foresight of theAGRF’s founders for establishing a “valu-able resource” that will “enable Australianresearchers and companies to play a majorrole in the biotechnology revolution.”And he defends the government’s contri-bution of a AUS$10 million establishmentgrant as adequate. “The sponsors of the fa-cility are expected to manage its operationfrom within their own resources,”Wooldridge told Nature Medicine. “The re-searchers associated with the facility arehighly regarded within the Australian andinternational research scene and I am con-fident of their ability to attract significantresearch funds from [other sources] to sup-port the facility,” says Woolridge.

The Melbourne division of AGRF, lo-cated within the Walter and Eliza HallInstitute of Medical Research (WEHI), hasresponsibility for genotyping and muta-

tion detection, while the Brisbane divisionhandles DNA sequencing for more than500 medical and agricultural researchgroups. WEHI director Suzanne Cory seesAGRF as “a catalyst that’s going to makethe power of modern genetics accessibleright across the spectrum of research inAustralia;” but adds, “we need to investfurther in order to be able to release the fa-cility’s full potential.”

This year is pivotal for the country’sR&D future, with the government set torespond to the Wills report on medical re-search this month, and a review of thecapital gains tax intended to offset invest-

© 1999 Nature America Inc. • http://medicine.nature.com©

199

9 N

atu

re A

mer

ica

Inc.

• h

ttp

://m

edic

ine.

nat

ure

.co

m