Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Wilcox on 16 December 2010 (WA 210–11) and her answer to Lord Patel on 19 January (Official Report, col. 361), why the Medical Research Council and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine have focused particular attention on human somatic cell nuclear transfer if a review of regenerative medicine and the science that will deliver it is more important than a review of single-cell stem cells.
Answer
The Medical Research Council (MRC) and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) held a scientific workshop on a topic of mutual interest. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) represents a research area with a relatively small number of researchers, and where international collaboration might offer advantages due to the technical difficulties being tackled. The MRC and CIRM wished to examine the progress of the science in this area, and form a view as to whether human SCNT offered any specific opportunities compared to other methods of cellular reprogramming, and whether there might be a need for funding agencies to collaborate specifically in this area. The conclusion from the assembled expert working group was that although human SCNT remained technically challenging, much progress was being made and that there were several potential benefits that could emerge through SCNT. The forthcoming government review will be looking at current progress and the future trajectory of regenerative medicine, with a view to identifying how best to support UK scientists in delivering stem-cell based therapies and maintain the UK at the forefront in this area. It is not evident at present which area of stem cell research may deliver the most effective treatments for particular conditions, and the review will therefore consider all types of stem cell research. In keeping with the Haldane principle, prioritisation of an individual Research Council's spending within its allocation is not a decision for Ministers. Such decisions are rightly left to those best placed to evaluate the scientific efficacy of proposed research.