This entry relates to 2 separate news articles.
I read with some regret last month (sorry, only had time to write it up tonight) that the company known as Embryonic Stem Cell International (ESI) folded up its embryonic stem cell research program after a 5-year attempt to get the research off the ground.
The company announced that it had to abandon the work on therapies due to the lack of success and soaring costs. The aim by the original investors- namely the Singapore Government and the Australian Stem Cell Centre (a private investment group)- raised an impressive SGD 24 million (approx RM 50 million) and recruited Dolly creator Alan Colman as its CEO to lead the research effort.
DECISIONS AND REASONS
Professor Alan Colman was extremely honest in providing the reason for the company's decision, mainly that investors had lost interest due to:
a) any commercialization of its research in the short term was "vanishingly small"
b) the attempt to make well functioning insulin cells and cardiac muscle cells from embryos "proved really difficult" as each therapy would require a minumum of 1 billion cells for each dose
c) and that producing such a dose would be prohibitively expensive.
Other scientists comment that other problems with embryonic stem cells include scaling up the required number of cells and problem with immune rejection and the risk of tumour formation.
ESI MOVING ON TO OTHER NON STEM CELL ACTIVITIES?
ESI has not closed down however, according to this article Professor Alan Colman has tendered his resignation as the CEO, the company has since been taken over by its board of directors and its direction is now towards more revenue generating activities such as "drug screening and drug discovery" (which could mean that its services are rented out to the pharma companies).
Prof. Colman has moved onto a position in the Government which is responsible for stem cell research. He is now named as the Executive Director of the Singapore Stem Cell Consortium and the principal investogator at the Institute of Medical Biology. His focus now will be back to laboratory work (presumably he had to do more marketing and administrative work in the previous entity) and dealing with "all sorts of stem cells, not just human embryonic" he was quoted as saying.
I don't usually write about embryonic stem cells in this blog, but have decided that this piece provides some important perspectives on the topic of stem cell research. While the goals of embryonic stem cell research and commercialization are noble and the prospect attractive at first glance, the existing chasm in both its applications (still none confimed to-date) and its hype to the public has been far greater than any in adult stem cells. Investors will base their expectations on when they see the return of their investment, and these days even a 5 year business plan -with the best and most experienced names on board- can seem difficult to forecast.
Ultimately, investors look at revene generation and the company's bottom line to decide whether they wish to stick with it or cut their losses and find somewhere else to put their money. I admit that it is very difficult to assess what to look for in a biotech investment, most are research oriented and revenue will often seem like betting on a horse you know very little about.
And even if you do know a lot about biotechnology and science, understanding the business strategies and direction of the board and its management team is also critical to whether the company will be able to deliver on its corporate objectives. One may have the most wonderful idea in the world, demonstrated its usefulness in advancing the human race and yet have it sidelined due to factors concerning costs and the lack of adoption by the masses.
ANOTHER RISKY EMBRYONIC STEM CELL INVESTMENT?
This brings me to the next interesting snippet of news that I came across. It appears that since my partners and I started the company close to 6 years ago, there have been some others around the world who have decided that they like our company's name enough to either use it in its entirety or an approximation of it.
The headline of the news article screamed "PRIVATE STEM-CELL BANK IS A POOR INVESTMENT". The "stem cell bank" that the article was referring to was an embryonic stem cell company called StemLifeLine which offered couples undergoing IVF to transfer their unused frozen embryos to a company in San Francisco Bay.
The company will make a "personal stem cell line"*, providing clients with a way to "protect their future and the future of their children". A very, very bold statement indeed (surprising that the US Ministry of Health / Federal Agencies isn't restricting the use of these words?)
The journalist correctly points out in the article that although the cell lines are personalized, they would be personalized to the unborn embryo, not to any of its parents or siblings. Furthermore, they state that a minimum of 10-12 embryos would be required to yield a viable line (okay ladies, that's 10-12 eggs, which is what you ovulate in a year). The article states that on average each IVF cycle yields about 10 embryos which are used in an attempt for successful implantation. I've also heard that the success rate of a couple that chooses to undergo IVF is less than 30% in some cases, so most couples would use all the viable embryos to give the procedure the best chance... hence would the stem cell bank be saving the least viable embryos to create the stem cell lines?
The company plans to market its services through leading IVF centres and generate its revenue (although it doesn't state how much the charges are) by isolating, growing and storing frozen embryonic stem cells. Given that ESI has just announced its plans to switch out of this area, this company's investors and doctors seem not to have read about all the issues surrounding the reason why embryonic stem cells have failed to live up to expectations thus far.
For those who think that cord blood stem cell collection and storage is not a valuable investment despite its proven list of applications and future potential applications, this embryonic stem cell service sounds to be of an even riskier bet.
I'm not saying that the public shouldn't have a choice, its just that from a business perspective I wouldn't even know where to start on that embryonic risk vs. benefit chart for ethical counselling.
*The idea of creating personalized stem cell lines for patients has been mooted before, and collapsed. If you're interested, read this 2005 article, a subsquent article and this one.
Posts
