Big Name Companies will pursue Embryonic Stem Cell Research…BYE-BYE GE

UPDATE 4-131-05: Letter From GE and Response

Note:  As long time shareholders of General Electric Stock, we are outraged to learn they will pursue embryonic stem cell research.  Despite the declining value of the current market price of their stock, we are left with no choice but to sell it and re-invest in companies that are not involved in unethical research.  If you are a shareholder in GE or any of the other companies listed below, we encourage you to contact them at once and voice your complaint!  Click below to:

To read our letter of response 
To read the GE Statement
To contact GE Shareholder Relations:
Email –pauline.berardi@corporate.ge.com
Mailing Address:
General Electric Shareholder Information
Attention:  William Cary, VP
3135 East Turnpike
Fairfield, CT  06828
Phone:  203 373-2475 or 203 373-2468

Big Companies Quietly Pursue Research on Embryonic Stem Cells 
By Antonio Regalado

12 April 2005
The Wall Street Journal

(Copyright (c) 2005, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Stepping gingerly into a politically charged arena for the first time, some large companies in the U.S. are pursuing plans to study stem cells drawn from early-stage human embryos.

Big companies so far have been notably absent from the heated public debate over the scientific and moral implications of such research. But the recent moves show how the scientific — and commercial — appeal of embryonic stem-cell research is luring some companies into at least exploratory work. Their involvement could spur spending and help win wider acceptance for the research, but also could draw fire from religious groups and other opponents.

Among companies that have initiated research programs or have plans to are Becton, Dickinson & Co., Invitrogen Corp., Johnson & Johnson, General Electric Co. and the U.S.-based research operations of Swiss drug giant Novartis AG. Their interests range from using the cells to test drugs to developing new transplant treatments.

Embryonic stem cells have the ability to turn into any type of tissue, including nerves and heart cells. That potential has been hailed by patients with chronic ailments who hope research leads to ways to replace cells damaged by diseases like Type-1 diabetes and Parkinson’s.

Opponents call the research immoral because it requires the destruction of early-stage human embryos, most often obtained from fertility clinics.

Starting in August 2001, the Bush administration permitted federal funding for studies using embryonic stem cells, but it restricted support to supplies already taken from embryos at the time. Advocates of stem-cell research, including some Republicans, hope to win a Congressional vote this spring on a bill that would broaden the policy to provide funding for research on cells created more recently.

The federal action didn’t place any constraints on privately funded research, but some scientists claim the White House policy has had a chilling effect on companies, in part because of corporate worries about consumer boycotts or shareholder protests. To date, research using the cells has been pioneered by university laboratories and a few small biotechnology firms in the U.S. and abroad.

For big, publicly traded companies, the decision whether or not to enter stem-cell research has prompted extraordinary internal deliberations, including by corporate boards and in town-hall-style meetings. Some companies entering the field are striving to keep a low profile over their involvement.

“Drug companies are afraid of risk,” says Laurie Zoloth, a professor of medical ethics at Northwestern University. “And stem cells put you at risk morally, politically and scientifically.”

With household names like GE and Johnson & Johnson taking up stem cells, supporters are likely to see a major endorsement of their position. But stem-cell critics may seize on the chance to carry their ethics fight to companies’ doorsteps. “Because of the moral issue, many of us would not want it funded at either the federal or the private level,” says David Prentice, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council in Washington.

A survey by The Wall Street Journal of 12 of the world’s largest drug firms by sales, as well as leading U.S. biotechnology concerns and medical-device makers, found several previously undisclosed research programs involving human embryonic stem cells. But many companies said they weren’t using stem cells, and several had policies forbidding the research.

In no case is a major U.S. company working directly with human embryos. Instead they are turning to small companies and universities to obtain supplies of the cells. Johnson & Johnson, for instance, is backing cutting-edge research on the cells at a biotechnology company in California. Becton Dickinson received supplies from the University of Wisconsin. Other companies declined to say where they obtained cells or where they planned to get them.

Human embryonic stem cells were discovered and patented in 1998 at the University of Wisconsin. Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, says the nonprofit, which handles the school’s patent estate and grants licenses to users, has issued eight commercial licenses so far. It doesn’t publicly reveal the names of licensees. Among major corporations, only Becton Dickinson confirms it has obtained one.

Mr. Gulbrandsen says interest has picked up since California voters approved a $3 billion stem-cell spending plan in November. Organized by patient groups seeking a way around federal policy, the measure authorized state bonds that will pay for a huge expansion of research in the state. Other states, including New Jersey, are pushing their own funding proposals.

The entrance of big players could bring major new resources to the area. So far, research on human embryonic stem cells has been supported almost exclusively by private charities and about $25 million a year from the federal government. Most venture capitalists have avoided the area, and small companies dependent on joint research programs with drug firms say they haven’t found many takers.

Among the uses of stem cells being explored, some drug companies are looking at them for possible transplant treatments. Johnson & Johnson says it recently made an equity investment in Novocell Inc., a Carlsbad, Calif., company that controls several of the stem-cell supplies endorsed for funding by the White House. Novocell is trying to turn stem cells into insulin-making cells that could be transplanted into people with Type-1 diabetes, replacing tissue damaged by that disease.

Most drug firms still see such “cell therapy” as a risky bet unlikely to lead to products anytime soon. Many are instead eyeing the use of human embryonic stem cells to test conventional pills, says Peter Mountford, chief executive of United Kingdom-based Stem Cell Sciences Ltd.

Currently, companies test experimental drugs for toxic or positive effects in animal cells or in cancer cells. But those results don’t always predict what the drugs will do in people. Stem cells offer a way to produce large quantities of human heart cells, nerves, or liver cells with which to test new drugs.

At GE, spokesman Jim Healy says researchers at the company’s global research and development center in Niskayuna, N.Y., intend to acquire the cells this year in order to develop drug-testing products GE can sell to the pharmaceutical industry. “We are interested in helping them bring therapies to market,” says Mr. Healy.

Mr. Healy says scientists at GE, the largest company with plans to use embryonic stem cells, already have been studying genetic material extracted from embryonic stem cells. He declined to say where the material was obtained.

At Invitrogen, a Carlsbad, Calif., company that supplies chemicals and other products used by scientific laboratories, Chairman and CEO Gregory Lucier says his firm intends to supply both stem cells and chemicals needed to study to them.

In December, Mr. Lucier, whose firm’s sales surpassed $1 billion last year, announced the plan to 4,000 employees during a companywide meeting. Mr. Lucier says the plan was well-received and that he told his staff that any of them could abstain from working with the cells on moral grounds without fear for their jobs.

Companies have approached the stem-cell question carefully. Novartis, which has $28 billion in sales and has headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, has set up an ethics board in Basel to oversee its work. Paul Herrling, head of corporate research, says that out of respect for the cells’ origins the board will not allow “blue sky” experiments but only research with practical aims.

Novartis says it began preparations to use stem cells from embryos in 2001 after Chief Executive Daniel Vasella told company executives he believed the research was ethical. Dr. Vasella said he carefully weighed the potential medical benefits against the moral challenge of “using human beings — even ones not yet differentiated — to help others.”

The ethics panel approved its first proposal last summer, a plan by scientists at Novartis’s research institute in Cambridge, Mass., to turn stem cells into heart cells. Novartis says it is waiting on final approval by its lawyers before launching the program.

GE, meanwhile, will provide a look at its reasoning as early as next month in a report on social responsibility, the first issued by the company.

For most pharmaceutical companies, particularly those based in the U.S., the debate over stem-cell research remains a strong deterrent. Eli Lilly & Co., based in Indianapolis, says it has adopted a policy that the cells “will be used only after a diligent and documented search for scientifically appropriate alternatives.” Lilly doesn’t use embryonic stem cells currently. Baxter International says its policy rules out use of cells from embryos sacrificed expressly for research.

Others say the research is too speculative to interest them. Jean-Pierre Garnier, chief executive of drug maker GlaxoSmithKline, said in an interview that his company doesn’t use embryonic stem cells because the research is too early-stage. However, a spokesman confirmed that researchers inside Glaxo have requested a review of company policy, citing recent scientific advances.

Some companies are closely guarding details of their involvement. After saying it had never used human embryonic stem cells, Merck & Co. later confirmed an account by outside experts that the company had obtained the cells. Janet Skidmore, a Merck spokeswoman, says a supply of cells was purchased but later destroyed before being used.

Ms. Skidmore declined to say when the program was undertaken or why it was halted. Merck’s corporate policy currently bars its scientists from work with stem cells from human embryos.

Advocates see the trend moving toward acceptance of stem cells. “There is pent-up desire inside the companies,” says George Daley, a prominent stem-cell scientist at Children’s Hospital in Boston. Once the potential of the cells is clearly demonstrated, he says, companies’ qualms “will evaporate” and they will rush into the field.

—
Kathryn Kranhold and Bernard Wysocki Jr. contributed to this article.
—
Evolving Issue

A look at key dates in stem-cell research:

November 1998: University of Wisconsin scientists announce discovery of
stem cells from human embryos.

August 2001: President Bush allows federal funding for research on the
cells, but sets strict limits.

October 2004: Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry promises $100
million a year in stem-cell funding if elected.

November 2004: California voters pass a $3 billion stem-cell funding plan.

March 2005: House of Representatives agrees to vote on a bill to expand
federal stem-cell policy.

Source: WSJ research