【Native Speaker每日综合训练—38系列】【38-07】科技 Stem Cells

ffffionabear

内容：Cherry 编辑：Fffffionabear

公益申请名额，每月一名   

Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here ---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

Hi~~今天cherry妹纸电脑有点问题所以我们又见面啦~~#别打脸#
今天的话题是Stem Cell~Speaker告诉你们干细胞可以修复心脏呢~~
speed说的是stem cells面临的困境，资金方面啊~~前景方面神马的
obstacle则是说美国关于限制科学家参与胚胎干细胞试验的条例~~
嘿嘿嘿嘿~~科普文什么的最有爱了~~enjoy~~

Part I: Speaker

Stem Cells Help Heal Broken Hearts
Valentine's Day can lead to plenty of broken hearts. But for cardiac wounds that time alone won't heal, science has made some major advances. When it comes to heart attack, for example, a big development is emerging from a tiny source. Stem cells are coming of age.
Stem cells, harvested from a patient's own bone marrow, have been heralded as a potential quick fix for damaged heart tissue. But can these progenitor cells actually work to heal massive muscle damage?
A new review of 33 studies assessed data from more than 1,700 heart attack patients. The review researchers found that those patients treated with stem cells—in addition to the standard care of angioplasty—had stronger tickers for years to come than those who had not gotten stem cell therapy. The review article is published in The Cochrane Library. [David Clifford et al., "Stem Cell Treatment Following a Heart Attack"]
It's too early to say whether those with stem cell treatments will live longer, according to the new analysis. But for affairs of the heart, it's more evidence that good things can come in very small packages.
—Katherine Harmon

Source: Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/stem-cells-help-heal-broken-hearts-12-02-14/
[Rephrase 1, 01:18]

ffffionabear

Part II: Speed

Tough Cell to Investors
Venture capitalists fully understand the rich potential of stem cells. Yet a host of reasons also makes them hesitate to invest, as Nuala Moran explains
Jun 27, 2005 |By Nuala Moran
[Time 2]
Many venture capitalists make the comparison with monoclonal antibodies, which took more than 20 years to translate from basic research to marketed products. As Lutz Giebel, venture partner at SV Life Sciences in San Francisco, remarks: "The promise of monoclonal antibodies was obvious, but VCs [venture capitalists] that invested at an early stage pretty much lost their shirts".

Not that stem cell companies are entirely unattractive. In the first biotech initial public offering of 2005, ViaCell, Inc., a specialist in umbilical cord stem cells, raised $52.5m (£28.4m).

At the point that ViaCell went public, it had annual revenues of $36.8m from umbilical cord blood banking, combined with a cord stem cell product in the clinic, and the potential for forming corporate partnerships. But there are few similar opportunities where the risks inherent in the science are mi-tigated by a healthy revenue stream.

"ViaCell exemplifies how a lot of VCs feel about the risks of investing in stem cells", says Denise Pollard-Knight, head of Nomura Phase4 Ventures, the VC investment arm of the investment bank Nomura International plc, which was one of ViaCell's major venture-capital backers. "You just have to look at the numbers. VCs have invested $300m to date into stem cell companies as a whole, versus $20bn into other technology platforms".

In many respects this is due to the preliminary nature of the science. G. Steven Burrill, CEO of Burrill & Company in San Francisco, a life sciences merchant bank, says that a VC funding a stem cell company now would be paying for basic research that would ordinarily be carried out in academic laboratories. "We are beginning to see some business plans for stem cell companies, but we are still in the science end of it", he states.

This lack of basic research creates a major risk because it is not clear where the intellectual property might go, says Paul McCubbin, head of Ventures at BTG plc in London. "In the current model if you screen against a receptor and get a hit, you have novel IP; when you stimulate differentiation of stem cells, you have no idea whose IP you might cross", he explains.

Brian Kerr, director at Scottish Equity Partners (SEP) in Glasgow and sees almost every life sciences opportunity in Scotland, examines hundreds of business plans each year. Despite Scotland's scientific standing in the field, SEP has yet to fund a stem cell company. Kerr objects that not only is the science too preliminary, but the business plans per se are too risky.
[418 words]

[Time 3]
"Businesses need to be more sophisticated about how they control risk", he says. Stem cells have not been developed as a platform, and too many companies are focusing on a single treatment for a specific disease. "You wouldn't back a conventional science company that had only one product", observes Kerr.

On top of this he believes a further obstacle has developed in Europe, where the funding engine has broken. After the genomics boom and bust, the public markets have continued to shun biotechs, forcing VCs to fund companies for longer. "It's almost impossible to make money in Europe with a first- round investment in any sort of biotech", states Kerr.

The situation in Europe contrasts with Australia where a number of stem cell companies have listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. But Alison Coutts, director of the investment bank eG Capital in Sydney, says these tend to be early stage: "I think Australia is unique in this respect. While there has been a lot of criticism of the Australian Stock Exchange that it lets companies list 'too early'---quite often when

there have been no clinical trials on any product--it has been the primary mechanism for funding a lot of great science that we produce here, and it has even started to attract international companies".
Stem cell startups may also get a sympathetic hearing from Bio*One Capital, the investment arm of Singapore's Economic Development Board. "The potential of stem cell research is too enormous for us to ignore", says Swee Yeok Chu, CEO. "We recognised that we need to take a long-term approach in this field". Bio*One Capital mitigates risk by investing in companies at different stages of development, with different research projects and business models.

That public expectations of the ability of stem cells to provide cures for degenerative disease and severe trauma have gotten so far ahead of what the science can to deliver is largely because of the publicity given to small-scale trials with adult stem cells.

But while there is evidence of efficacy, adult stem cells are not attractive to VCs, says Giebel of SV Life Sciences: "Most people are talking about autologous transplants using cells harvested from patients. But from an investment point of view that's not scalable. It's also difficult for the FDA to get an arm around it. Every single time it is different cells".

While much legwork remains, embryonic stem cells conversely do have the potential to be produced to Good Manufacturing Practice standards.

One VC who has intimate experience of the difficulties of producing potentially commercial stem cell lines is Sir Christopher Evans, founder and chairman of Merlin Biosciences in London. Merlin put £250,000 ($460,000) seed capital into ReNeuron Ltd when it was formed in 1997, followed by £5m a year later. The company went public in November 2000, raising £19.5m and becoming the only quoted stem cell company in Europe.
[481 words]

[Time 4]
But ReNeuron was beset by genetic instability problems in its foetal neural stem lines, and in 2003 the Merlin Consortium put fellow investors out of their misery, paying £3.6m to make ReNeuron private again.

"You just have to look at the numbers. VCs have invested $300m to date into stem cell companies as a whole, versus $20bn into other technology platforms". --Denise Pollard-Knight

The company has since overcome problems with the cell lines and is aiming to get regulatory approval before the end of 2005 (in either the US or the UK) to carry out a clinical trial.

"We have had to pay for work that would normally be done in an academic laboratory, but if ReNeuron came to us today we'd back it again. But as for backing any other stem cell companies--there aren't any", remarks Evans.

This prompted him to form the Stem Cell Foundation, a charity designed to plug the gap between academic research and mid-stage clinical trials. "In three years we should have 10 to 15 projects approaching or in the clinic. With the usual attrition rate this will translate into two or three successes, and we will then get [private investment] money flowing in", says Evans. "The foundation is the catalyst--we will create a phenomenon in stem cells".

Evans is keen to get the foundation up and running before the money starts flowing from California's Proposition 71 and other US state funding schemes for stem cells and thus prompts a brain drain of researchers from the UK to the US.
[258 words]

[Time 5]
"We are beginning to see some business plans for stem cell companies, but we are still in the science end of it". --G. Steven Burrill

But the fact that California and other states are raising their own budgets for stem cell research highlights yet another hurdle in the way of its commercialisation. Uniquely, for a medical product, it is unclear whether it will be possible to get a single regulatory approval to sell a stem cell therapy across the US or whether the states with bans on embryonic stem cell research will ban products based on them also.
The situation is no better in Europe, where there is a patchwork of different regulation, most of it militating against embryonic stem cell research.

Cathy Prescott, science director at Avlar BioVentures in Cambridge, UK, says: "The major issue is on the regulatory side of things at the moment. National rules are applying in Europe, and in the US different states have taken a different stance, and therefore there is a fragmented marketplace".

Most biotechnology companies rely on doing deals with big pharmaceutical companies to get their products through the later stages of clinical trials and on to the market.
"The market fragmentation is making stem cells a very, very difficult business model for big pharma", says Prescott. "If biotechs haven't got partners, how can they take it forward"?
[227 words]

[Time 6]
"Businesses need to be more sophisticated about how they control risk.You wouldn't back a conventional science company that had only one product". --Brian Kerr

No doubt VCs are daunted by the ethical and regulatory baggage surrounding stem cells. Several prominent firms in North America and Europe did not wish to be interviewed for this article. Others were prepared to discuss the scientific challenges but not the baggage.

Proposition 71 will change attitudes, believes Burrill of Burrill & Company: "At present, stem cell science is tainted. Proposition 71 will legitimise a lot of research in the US, which under federal guidelines is perceived to be not investible".
[107 words]

Source: Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tough-cell-to-investors/

ffffionabear

Part III: Obstacle

Scientists Chafe at Restrictions on New Stem Cell Lines
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is rethinking its rules in the wake of a recent breakthrough involving the creation of stem cell lines from a cloned human embryo
Jun 4, 2013 |By David Cyranoski and Nature magazine

[Paraphrase 7]
The announcement last month of a long-awaited breakthrough in stem-cell research — the creation of stem-cell lines from a cloned human embryo — has revived interest in using embryonic stem cells to treat disease. But US regulations mean that many researchers will be watching those efforts from the sidelines.

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH), which distributes the majority of federal funding for stem-cell research, prohibits research on cells taken from embryos created solely for research — a category that includes the six stem-cell lines developed by Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a reproductive-biology specialist at the Oregon Health and Science University in Beaverton, and his colleagues. The team used cloning techniques to combine a donor cell with an unfertilized egg whose nucleus had been removed, creating a self-regenerating stem-cell colony that is genetically matched to the cell donor.

Mitalipov’s cell lines are also off limits to researchers funded by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which was created in part to support stem-cell work that is restricted by the NIH. CIRM funds cannot be used for studies that pay women for their eggs or rely on cell lines produced using eggs from paid donors. That rules out Mitalipov’s lines, because his team paid egg donors US$3,000–7,000 each, says Geoffrey Lomax, senior officer to the standards working group at CIRM, which is based in San Francisco. That amount “is above and beyond any out-of-pocket costs” to donors, he says.

The end result, says Mitalipov, is that a dozen or so universities are struggling to negotiate ‘material transfer agreements’ to receive the new cell lines without running afoul of CIRM or the NIH. Interest in the new cell lines is high, especially since the identification of errors in images and figures in Mitalipov’s research paper shortly after its publication in Cell. But regulations would require laboratories to use only dedicated, privately funded equipment to study the new cells, a condition that only a few researchers — such as George Daley, a stem-cell expert at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts — will be able to meet.

That concerns Daley, who calls the NIH stem-cell policy “a frustrating limitation that will preclude federal dollars being used to ask many important questions” about how Mitalipov’s cell lines compare with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), which are created by reprograming adult cells to an embryonic state. “Most labs will take the path of least resistance and continue working with iPS cells unless someone shows that there is a clear and compelling reason to change course,” Daley says.

Mitalipov also worries that his cell lines won’t be sufficiently analyzed, which he says could hamper efforts to understand how epigenetic changes — modifications to chromosomes that determine how genes are expressed — affect stem cells' ability to transform into a wide array of mature cell types. “We just don’t have that much expertise at looking at all aspects of epigenetics,” he says.

But some scientists say that the impact of US stem-cell restrictions is overestimated. Alexander Meissner, a developmental biologist at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says Mitalipov's cell lines will not reveal much about how stem cells transform. That work can be done only with eggs that are easy to come by, allowing scientists to examine the reprograming process at many points. In practical terms, that means relying on eggs from mice instead of humans. “Everything is over by time you derive those cell lines,” he says of Mitalipov’s cells. “There is no signature that would tell you what has happened. It’s the wrong species.”

In the meantime, CIRM is re-examining the rules that govern the research its supports. The institute is not likely to alter the restrictions against funding studies that pay cell donors, but it might overturn the rules against using cell lines produced in such studies, Lomax says. The original policy was set in 2006 to address concerns that arose in the wake of fraud and ethical violations by Woo Suk Hwang, then a researcher at Seoul National University.

But there is no word on when CIRM will complete its review. Lomax would not give a timeline.
[701 words]
Source:Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-chafe-at-restrictions-on-new-stem-cell-lines/

疏离无罪

占~~~~~~~~~~

Speaker: A new reseach found that stem cell theray may be a new and good way to heal damaged heart tissue.

02:24
VCs are cautious to invest in stem cell companies.Because this science is preliminary and many companies's business plans are risky.

02:37
Stem cells have no developed as a platfor.Many companeis just focused on a single treatment on a special diseases.The funding engine of stem cells seems to be broken in Europe.Australia gives the chance,thought there are a lot of critisms.Much legworks remained to be solved before the stem cells products can be produced.

01:38
A charity fundation was funded to support the clinical trials of stem cells therapy.

01:14
Stem cells companies will facing a very very difficult business models to sell their product and a stem cell therapy for the fragmented marketplace caused by different regulations.

00:49
For so many problems faced by stem cell companies,it's reasonable for VCs to be careful.

05:29
Main Idea: Restrictions on stem cell research.
A big achievement was made in stem cell research.But the US regulations mean that many researchers will be watching those efforts from the sidelines.Regulations would require laboratories to use only dedicated, privately funded equipment to study the new cells,which means only a few researchers can meet the request.
And many scientists worried about the further study of stem cells.But some people also thought that the restriction is overestimated.The new discovery is not as important as thought.
In the meantime,CRIM is re-examing the rules and may make a change.

行者无疆945

明天考三科期末.....晚上提交~楼主辛苦！

Speed
The promise of monoclonal antibodies is obvious and VCs know that they can get a considerable return of investment from investing in stem cell

companies, but there are still some factors that stop them from doing that:
The huge amount of investment they need, the long interval before commercialization and the lack of basic research.

Besides all the factors metioned above, further obstacle has developed inEnrope that the piblic markets have continued to shun biotechs.
AC consider it as the natural phenomenon that usually happened in the early stage.
Since the potential of stem cell reserach is too enormous for VCs to ignore, VCs should consider a long-term in this field.
Besides VCs, the pubic also have expection about the ability of stem cells.
Compared to adult stem, which has efficacy but hard to collect and analyze, the embryonic stem cells attract much attention of VCs.

R was beset by genetic instability problems, so he formed the Stem Cell Foundation to plug the gap between academic reserach and mid-stage

clinical trials.
Every year they have 10to 15 projects. If some of the projects were translated into success, they would get the money flowing in to make

further projects.

Another problem about stem cell reserach is commercialisation.
The regulatory side can have a big influence on this kind of medical product.
Besides that, the market fragmentation also makes the stem cells a very difficult business model for big pharma.

When considering all the things that mentioned above, the stem cell science can be investible for VCs.

掌管 6        00:04:11.19        00:15:14.47
掌管 5        00:00:41.11        00:11:03.28
掌管 4        00:02:23.26        00:10:22.16
掌管 3        00:01:39.06        00:07:58.90
掌管 2        00:03:06.74        00:06:19.
掌管 1        00:03:13.10        00:03:13.10

期末考试期间智商严重不够用啊。。。。。

小麦爱自由

Speaker：

progenitor [prəu'dʒenitə] n.an ancestor in the direct line

Time 2：2.92min

Many venture capitals hesitate to investstem cell startup not only because the science is too preliminary but alsobecause the business plan is too risky.

Time 3：2.50min

Time 4：1.13min

Time 5：1.13min

Time 6：0.60min

Time 7：3.47min

读了没太读进去，我是不是得了ADD呀

二岔口

[time 2]
VC investors lose a lot.
Investment in stem cells is minority of the entire investment in tech sector.
Risks: take too long to go through basic research to market products; lack of basic research, ownership of intellectual property.
Lost their shirts血本无归

[time 3]
Stem cells company confront funding breaking in Europe.
In the contract, companies in Australia go public in early stage, which invite critics. Australia has attracted some international companies.
The potential of stem cells is enormous. Autologous transplants are more attractive.
Introduce the only quoted stem cell company in Europe

[time 4]
ReN became private. The company is going to carry out clinical trial after getting approval.
ReN is the only company the VC’s willing to back.
VC intends to inject fund to the stem cell company between research and mid-stage trial.

[time 5]
Raising budget, but still hard to obtain approval in US.
It is similar in Europe.
Fragmented marketplace
Make deal with big pharmaceutical company to get the later trial and on the market

[time 6]
VCs should try to control risks on the investment of stem cell companies.

[time 7]
Regulatory restrict on stem cells research.
Mitalipov’s cell lines are also prohibited.
Regulations would require laboratories to use only dedicated, privately funded equipment to study the new cells. Daley’s research meets the requirements.
Delay suggests the restriction is frustrated.
Mitalipov also worries that his cell lines won’t be sufficiently analyzed.
The restriction is overestimated. The research could be conducted by using eggs that are easy to obtain.
CIRM is re-examining the rules.

TaoRs92

还有首页么。。。

没带电脑所以不方便计时。看的也不仔细。。大概还会这样子2个礼拜。。

Stem cell seems unattractive ( the example.only raise 52.2m)
VC feels risks to invest stem cell.(example.data.)
Reson:
Nature of this science
Lack of basic research
Where IP will go is unclear
Too risky
----------------
Business needs to control risks
In Europe--difficult to find investments
In Australia--easy.but too early
Stem cell has large potential(adult stem cell)
But adult stem cell is not attractive to VC.
Stem cell still has potential to get investment(example)
-----------------
Some problems in the investment--cell line.
Solutions--plug the gap.foundation.then attract funds.
-----------------
Some problems in the market/invest environment.
Fragmented marketplace--different countries and states have different standards--difficult to invest in stem cells.
-----------------
Current situation--VC not invest well.
------------------
The announcement--breakthrough in stem cell--stem cell line.
But it may be reconsidered due to some reasons(US regulations and restricts)
1 NIH
prohibits a particular research--one of the step of M's experiment invaded this restriction.
2 CIRM
its funds can not be used by M's research.
M's end result--negotiate.not afoul NIH and CIRM.
M's worry:
1 the restrictions are unnecessary limitations
2 cell line will not be sufficiently analyzed
Opinions--The impact of these US regulations is overestimated.
Current situation--CIRM is rethinking its rule,but there is no timeline,so now the result is unclear.

ffffionabear

自己占一个~
————嘿~你的作业~不，是你的作业~(￣_,￣ ) ~~~#作业天天见~~#~~~进击的阅读小分队~~~\(^o^)/~——————————————————
[speaker]
Stem cells are proved to heal heart disease and damaged muscle,it's hard to say how long they can live in the receptor,but it good evidence for the future cure.
[speed]
3'23
The ambiguity of path that intelligent property will go worsen the basic research of stem cell.What's more,more VC turn to focus on ViaCell cause they are fed up with the fruitless and risky investment in stem cell.
3'06
Although those biotech industry is always hot topic in public such as stem cell,for VC,it isn't worth to invest.
1.Many biotech focus on creating stem cell product just curing particular disease,which is risky to investors.
2.Stem Cell product isn't scalable yet,the research on it is too primarily.
Thus,to encourge the development of biotech,those company plan to introduce foreign capital.
1'46
The instability of flowing capital make it hard to keep the future studying go on.
1'26
The stem cell companies are in the science end,the market of this industry is too fractional for the clinic trail to go futher.
50'
There is also a problem of ethical and regulatory baggage for stem cell.Critics believe Proposition 71 will change the present situation.
[obstacle]
5'06
main idea:Embryonic stem cells now get back in the news for that a new self-regenerating stem-cell colony technology has been created.But US set new regulation recently,saying that many scientist are only allowed to watch the experiment from sidelines.
comments around:
1.Many labs will meet resistance and feel depress in futher studying in embryotic stem cell if no one show them how to do .
2.The regulation may not have so much impact as people assume.
3.In fact,it's no need to have so many scientist to monitor particulat experiment.

MAGGIEHE1993

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~