Alumni Gazette

Q&A: Pizzo to Help Guide California’s Stem Cell Work

Two days after California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 71, last fall’s statewide referendum that called for the state to borrow $3 billion to fund embryonic stem cell research, Philip Pizzo ’70M (MD), dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine, was tapped as the first person to serve on a 29-member board that will oversee the 10-year effort. Pizzo, who has been medical school dean at Stanford since 2001, will help direct the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the agency created to decide which projects will receive roughly $300 million in annual funding.

(Photo: Stanford Office of Communications & Public Affairs)

What’s the mission of the institute?
While the opportunities are exciting, the responsibility to assure that this investment is wisely spent and achieves the highest degree of scientific knowledge and clinical application, with the highest degree of ethical standards, is enormous. The proposition called for the establishment of an Independent Citizens Oversight Committee comprised of leaders from academia, industry, and disease-based patient advocacy groups to provide ultimate oversight over the institute. In many ways the committee will function as a board of directors with ultimate responsibility for the institute. There will also be subcommittees responsible for the processes and reviews that will determine funding for research proposals, facilities, and regulatory policies.

What does the institute mean for medical science in California and in the United States?
Currently, the National Institutes of Health budget for stem cell research is approximately $25 million. The institute will provide $300 million per year. Clearly, this will serve as a major stimulus for stem cell research in California𔃏it will impact all our universities and will also stimulate the engagement of our already robust biotechnology community. It’s likely that California will become the nation’s leader and thus help drive the agenda. It will surely mean the attraction of scientists and biotechnology to the state. I also hope that it will further promote a national conversation about stem cell research and stimulate other states to enhance their investments. The institute will have a global impact as well.

How do the institute’s research parameters vary from the federally mandated ones, which, for example, prohibit NIH–funded researchers from developing new lines of embryonic stem cells?
California passed legislation prior to the passage of Proposition 71 permitting stem cell research to move beyond the federal restrictions using state or private funding and resources. Naturally, it’s imperative that all the research that occurs follows the highest ethical standards. We are absolutely committed to that at Stanford and, as part of our Stanford Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Research and Medicine that was established in 2002, we have put in place a Program on Regenerative Medicine that includes a bioethics subcommittee. We envision that our ultimate work will involve the establishment of new stem cell lines (of course, we will use no federal support in doing so) as well as the careful and judicious utilization of the technology of nuclear transfer to establish new multipotential stem cell lines. This research will be carefully regulated and monitored and will, I hope, open new understanding to diseases like cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders, and heart disease, among others.

Is California a model that other states could follow?
I spent 23 years of my own career as a research scientist working in the intramural program of the NIH, and I know that the funding the NIH has provided to academic centers has made our nation the world leader in biomedical research. Sadly, we are at risk of losing our prominence in stem cell research, which promises to be one of the most important future areas of inquiry. The political (and, to a degree, ideological) oversight and regulation of the NIH has negatively impacted stem cell research. I fully believe that biomedical research should be coordinated through the NIH and that Proposition 71 was a response to misguided restrictions that have stymied this important research opportunity. While I support other states’ establishing programs in stem cell research, I hope even more that the federal sector will provide more support through the NIH in a manner similar to that which will occur in California.

Is it possible to predict when patients will begin to see the results of the institute’s work?
I think one must be careful to offer such predictions. Obviously, everyone hopes this will occur as soon as possible. But the most important thing is to make sure that we are developing a research agenda that will eventually have clinical application. When it does, it will occur with the highest ethical integrity and, I hope, be a significant benefit to children and adults.