A Noble pursuit; finding the best science to help the most people

MarkNoble-46

Mark Noble. Photo by Todd Dubnicoff

Mark Noble, Ph.D., is a pioneer in stem cell research and the Director of the University of Rochester Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Institute in New York. He is also a member of CIRM’s Grants Working Group (GWG), the panel of independent scientific experts we use to review research applications for funding and decide which are the most promising.

Mark has been a part of the GWG since 2011. When asked how he came to join the GWG he joked: “I saw an ad on Craigslist and thought it sounded fun.”  But he is not joking when he says it is a labor of love.

“My view is that CIRM is one of the greatest experiments in how to develop a new branch of science and medicine. If you look at ventures, like the establishment of the National Institutes of Health, what you see is that when there is a concentrated effort to achieve an enormous goal, amazing things can happen. And if your goal is to create a new field of medicine you have to take a truly expansive view.”

Mark has been on many other review panels but says they don’t compare to CIRM’s.

“These are the most exciting review panels in which I take part. I don’t know of any comparable panels that bring together experts working across such a wide range of disciplines and diseases.   It’s particularly interesting to be involved in reviews at this stage because we get to look at the fruits of CIRM’s long investment, and at projects that are now in, or well on the way towards, clinical trials.

It’s a wonderful scientific education because you come to these meetings and someone is submitting an application on diabetes and someone else has submitted an application on repairing the damage to the heart or spinal cord injury or they have a device that will allow you to transplant cells better. There are people in the room that are able to talk knowledgeably about each of these areas and understand how the proposed project might work in terms of actual financial development, and how it might work in the corporate sphere and how it fits in to unmet medical needs.  I don’t know of any comparable review panels like this that have such a broad remit and bring together such a breadth of expertise. Every review panel you come to you are getting a scientific education on all these different areas, which is great.”

Another aspect of CIRM’s work that Mark admires is its ability to look past the financial aspects of research, to focus on the bigger goal:

“I like that CIRM recognizes the larger problem, that a therapy that is curative but costs a million dollars a patient is not going to be implemented worldwide. Well, CIRM is not here to make money. CIRM is here to find cures for unmet medical needs, which means that if someone comes in with a great application on a drug that is going to cure some awful disease and it’s not going to be worth a fortune, that is not the main concern. The main concern is that you might be able to cure this disease and yeah, we’ll put up money to help you so that you might be able to get into clinical trials, to get enough information to find out if it works. And to have the vision to go all the way from, ‘ok, you guys, we want you to enter this field, we want you to be interested in therapeutic development, we are going to help you structure the clinical trials, we are going to provide all the Alpha Stem Cell Clinics that can talk to each other to make the clinical trials happen.

The goal of CIRM is to change medicine and these are the approaches that have worked really well in doing this. The CIRM view clearly is:

‘There are 100 horses in this race and every single one that crosses the finish line is a success story.’ That’s what is necessary, because there are so many diseases and injuries for which new approaches are needed.”

Mark says working with CIRM has helped him spread the word back home in New York state:

“I have been very involved in working with the New York state legislature over the years to promote funding for stem cell biology and spinal cord injury research so having the CIRM experience has really helped me to understand what it is that another place can try and accomplish. A lot of the ideas that have been worked out at CIRM have been extremely helpful for statewide scientific enterprises in New York, where we have had people involved in different areas of the state effort talk to people at CIRM to find out what best practice is.”

Mark says he feels as if he has a front row seat to history.

“Seeing the stem cell field grow to its present stage and enhancing the opportunity to address multiple unmet medical needs, is a thrilling adventure. Working with CIRM to help create a better future is a privilege.”

 

Money matters: how investing in research advances stem cell science

Our goal at the stem cell agency is simple; to accelerate the development of successful therapies to patients with unmet medical needs. But on the way to doing that something interesting is happening; we’re helping advance the scientific understanding of stem cells and building a robust stem cell research community in California in the process.

You don’t have to take our word for it. A new paper in the journal Cell Stem Cell takes a look at the impact that state funding for stem cell research has had on scientific publications. The question the researchers posed was; have the states that fund stem cell research seen an increase in their share of scientific publications in the field? The answer, at least in California’s case, is absolutely yes.

Let’s back up a little. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the field of stem cell research was considered quite controversial, particularly when it came to human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). To help scientists get around some of the restrictions that were placed on the use of federal funds to do hESC research a number of states voted to provide their own funding for this work. This research focuses on four of the biggest supporters of this work: California, Connecticut, Maryland, and New York.

The researchers looked at the following factors:

  1. The percentage of scientific publications in the U.S.
  2. With at least one author from those four states.
  3. That focused on hESCs and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).
  4. Comparing the numbers from before the state funding kicked in to after.

Finally – stay with me here, we’re almost done – they compared those numbers to the number of publications for two other areas of non-controversial biomedical research, RNAi and cancer. For California the results were clear. The percentage of papers on RNAi and cancer from 1996 – 2013, that had at least one California author, stayed fairly consistent (between 15-18%). However, the percentage of papers on hESCs and iPSCS with a California author rose from zero in 1998 and 2006 (the year each was discovered) to a high of 45 percent in 2009. That has since dropped down a little but still remains consistently high.

Study graphic study code The article says the reason for this is really rather obvious: “that state funding programs appear to have contributed to over-performance in the field.”

“After the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) issued its first grants in April 2006, the share of articles acknowledging California funding increased rapidly. Between 2010 and 2013, approximately 55% of hESC-related articles published with at least one California author acknowledged state funding, suggesting that this funding program played an important role as California maintained and built upon its early leadership in the field.”

Connecticut also saw its share of publications rise, though not as dramatically as California. Maryland and New York, in contrast, saw their share of publications remain consistent. However, as the researchers point out, with California gobbling up so much more of the available space in these journals, the fact that both states kept their share consistent was an achievement in itself.

The researchers acknowledge that scientific publications are “only one measure of the impact of state science programs” and say it’s important we look at other measures as well – such as how many clinical trials arise from that research. Nonetheless they conclude by saying:

“This analysis illustrating the relative performance of states in the production of stem-cell-related research publications provides a useful starting point for policymakers and, potentially, voters considering the future of state stem cell funding efforts as well as others interested in state science and technology policy more generally.”