Douglas Kniss, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University
Senior Associate Vice President for Research
 Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Biomedical Engineering




Question and Answer:

Q. Do you think conducting stem cell research in a conservative state like Ohio is more difficult than it would be in a more liberal state where people do not tie stem cells so closely with abortion issues?

A. It is very important at the outset to define what we mean by stem cells. Stem cells, unlike most cells in the body, have the unique ability to divide indefinitely and they can be coaxed into becoming many different types of cells - a process known as differentiation. It is these two properties that excite scientists and physicians who hope one day to use stem cells from many sources to cure diseases such as Parkinson's, heart disease, diabetes and spinal cord injury, to name but a few human afflictions. In general, there are two types of stem cells; adult (those derived from tissues in the body) and embryonic stem cells (those derived from very early blastocysts (pre-embryos) prior to their being implanted into the uterus). It is typically the embryonic stem cells that generate controversy.

To get back to your original question, in general, yes. More traditionally, liberal states view cutting edge technologies in a more favorable light than do traditionally conservative ones. However, it is also noteworthy that the debate about embryonic stem cell research is quite bipartisan and does not break down strictly along party lines. With few exceptions, even religious affiliation (with the exception of the Catholic church) does not appear to dictate one's position on embryonic stem cell research. It is very unfortunate that some people link embryonic stem cell research and abortion. The derivation of embryonic stem cells is not a form of abortion. At no time has the blastocyst ever been implanted into the uterus, therefore it has not been aborted.

A very important consideration of work on embryonic stem cells is that currently, public money can be used to fund only research involving about 22 embryonic stem cell lines created prior to August 9, 2001. (If one looks carefully at these 22 lines, less than 10 lines actually are useful for a variety of scientific reasons.) This date was set by President Bush as the cutoff date after which no public funds could be used to support the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines. Only a few universities and a few biotechnology companies have raised private money for embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. So far, however, no new human embryonic stem cell lines have been derived in the U.S. with public or private money since 2001. Many other nations have done so, however. Some of these nations include Australia, Singapore and England.

Q. Does Ohio State conduct a great deal of stem cell research and how does it compete with stem cell research at other top research universities?

A. Ohio State does not have a lot of investigators actively engaged in embryonic stem cell research. The reasons for this are complex. They involve funding for the work, a state climate that is not overly embryonic stem cell research friendly and the fact that there are not that many researchers working on embryonic stem cells in the entire U.S. My lab is one of the few labs on the OSU campus that has imported human embryonic stem cell lines (these are all approved by the Bush Administration and are in the National Institutes of Health Embryonic Stem Cell Registry). In reality, Ohio State does not have the same volume of research ongoing in stem cell research of any kind relative to many other universities. Hopefully, this will change in time.

Q. How is stem cell research at Ohio State currently funded?

A. In general, the National Institutes of Health funds stem cell research and most other forms of basic biomedical research at Ohio State and at other research institutions. Some funding exists for a subcontract with a consortium of universities who conduct stem cell research supported by a State of Ohio grant through the Third Frontier Initiative; but it only involves adult or cord blood stem cells. As far as I am aware, embryonic stem cells are not involved in any way in the work funded by the Third Frontier at this time.

Q. Do you think California's $3-billion stem cell initiative will give it a great advantage over Ohio?

A. Yes, but in reality the California initiative, if it proves to be fully implemented, will place that state at a competitive advantage over virtually all other states in the U.S.

Q. Do you foresee losing stem cell researchers at OSU to California universities because of funding issues?

A. As California and other states around the country begin to put money into stem cell research, including work with embryonic stem cells, scientists from Ohio State and other Ohio universities may depart to do their work in other universities. A few prominent scientists have already left the U.S. to go to other nations (for example, England and Singapore) to conduct their work under more favorable conditions.

Q. How would you like OSU stem cell research to advance in the future and what is being done currently to obtain those goals?

A. I want to see stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research, expanded at Ohio State. I have a vision of an institute for stem cell science in the future that would bring together scientists from all biological and even physical science and engineering disciplines to work on important problems of regenerative medicine using stem cells for cell therapies. Efforts in this area have grown here in recent years and there is reason for optimism.

Current pending legislation in the Ohio Legislature that would put severe restrictions on the use of state money to fund such research would obviously have a chilling effect on the advancement of this work. Regarding what is being done to change the embryonic stem cell landscape in Ohio and at Ohio State, I am working with other officials at OSU and with scientists from other universities to educate the public and lawmakers about the potential benefits of stem cell research. We work to help legislators understand the potential negative and unintended consequences of restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

Q. Do you think it is likely that a state funded stem cell initiate, like California's, would be created in Ohio?

A. I think it is unlikely that Ohio will put on any ballot a measure to raise state money specifically for stem cell research, and especially embryonic stem cell research. The reasons are both political and moral, but they are also economic. Until the state's economy turns around, it will be difficult for the state to raise significant capital to make a difference. Besides, the Third Frontier Initiative may fund stem cell research already, just not the derivation of new human embryonic stem cell lines. However, this is important, since most of the 22 currently available lines are inadequate to meet the demands of scientists who want to use them, and many of the lines are contaminated and are of little value other than for very fundamental research.

-Interview conducted by Liz Goeller, The Lantern 5/16/06