Editorial: Cell transplant ban a loss to the nation

Advances in medicine often involve risk. The world would be a much poorer place if the hazards of research into immunisation had not been surmounted. Of course, the risk, both to the patients who serve as guinea pigs and to the wider community, must be minimised as far as possible.

Therein, however, lies a further danger. Research may be curtailed because the danger, perhaps unreasonably, is seen as too great. Such appears to be the fate of Auckland medical researcher Dr Bob Elliott.

Dr Elliott has fought for permission to transplant pig cells into diabetes patients as a natural source of insulin. Frustrated at virtually every turn in New Zealand, he first took his research to Mexico. There, pig cells succeeded in producing insulin in the bodies of some teenagers who received them.

Now, Dr Elliott has been approached to take his work to the Cook Islands. The two countries inevitably raise the spectre of charlatans, including, most notably in the case of the Cooks, Dr Milan Brych. Yet such a link does a disservice to Dr Elliott. His research has excited international interest.

Last month, pioneer British transplant surgeon Sir Roy Calne said he was sufficiently intrigued to want, in the first instance, to test variations of pig-cell transplants on animals. He also suggested that a "cautious continuation" of human trials would be sensible.

A Health Research Council advisory committee drove caution in a different direction in rejecting Dr Elliott's application to experiment in this country. The committee referred, in particular, to the risk of introducing new strains of viruses into humans, particularly retroviruses. That concern originally led the ministry to ask Dr Elliott to halt clinical trials in the mid-1990s, prompting his shift to Mexico.

Since then, Dr Elliott maintains, research has determined that it is technically impossible for a retrovirus in pigs to be transferred to humans through cell transplants. Certainly, the United States Food and Drug Administration was moved last year to allow this type of research, albeit under strict conditions.

That seems a sensible way to proceed. There must be caution when dealing with aspects of nature that we do not fully understand. And even on a professional basis, stringent guidelines are essential if Dr Elliott's work is to have any standing with his peers. Quite understandably, it will be regarded as suspect if it is devoid of normal research controls.

Dr Elliott appreciates that. That is why he applied to work here. That is why he plans to adopt the tighter age restrictions for guinea pigs dictated by the Food and Drug Administration. And that is why he says that he will inspect medical facilities in the Cooks to ensure they can handle the pig-cell implants.

Should the Cooks, a country with one of the world's highest rates of diabetes, give Dr Elliott the green light, New Zealand will not be insulated. Those who receive implants will, presumably, be free to enter here. Thus, this country will, in any event, be exposed to any risk. There is an obvious irony in that New Zealand has turned away from the financial benefit that may accrue from Dr Elliott's work.

Most fundamentally, the climate does not bode well for biotechnology's supposedly key role in the drive for a more prosperous future. There is surely room for cautious trials on human pig-cell transplants. It will be New Zealand's loss if Dr Elliott's pioneering work takes place elsewhere.

nzherald.co.nz/health