December 2001: Vol. 81, No. 1

UGA scientist Steve Stice is at the forefront of both cloning and embyonic stem cell research

teve Stice, Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar and cloning expert (see GM, March 2000), is aware that he has a responsibility to be more than just a scientist. Stice, who produced the first cloned rabbit in 1987, is in a unique position to demystify that process and demonstrate its pharmaceutical value to the public. Stice also plays a pivotal role in stem cell research. The University of Georgia is one of only four sites nationally and 10 internationally to possess stem cell lines. Stice manages UGA's stem cell lines, which can be manipulated to produce any type of cell. The medical consequences of this type of science are immeasurable, and Stice can help assure the public that President Bush's endorsement of stem cell research is an important step for the American medical community.

A decade after he cloned rabbits, Stice developed the first cloned transgenic calves. His research earned the first U.S. patents for cloning animals and cattle embryonic stem cells. Recently, he demonstrated the ability to dramatically improve the success rate of cloning calves. He is also investigating ways to induce embryonic stem cells to become primate neural cells. This phase of his research is targeted at Parkinson's disease and could be ready for clinical trials in the next five years. What follows are excerpts from GM assistant editor Alex Crevar's recent interview with Stice:

GM: How did UGA become a stem cell site?
Stice: I'm vice president for human stem cell research at BresaGen Inc., a company that holds four of the world's cell lines. With my help—and that of the Georgia Research Alliance and the Department of Industry, Trade, and Tourism—BresaGen moved here from Australia and set up a unique partnership with the University of Georgia. BresaGen was one of the groups that had contact with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which advised President Bush prior to his stem cell announcement in August.

GM: Michael F. Adams is among the 100 college and university presidents who signed a letter urging the Bush administration to maintain funding for stem cell research. Why is it important for UGA to possess these stem cell lines?
Stice: The idea is that BresaGen will supply the cells from those lines to other universities. But Georgia is in a unique position because the cell lines are here, and one of the biggest difficulties with stem cell research is just being able to grow them. Having a lab here—just down the hall from my office—is a great advantage for UGA versus Harvard, which would have to send off for a cell line and a recipe of how to grow them. They'd have to reinvent a lot of the wheel themselves. Also, when NIH looks to fund a university, they will fund the one that has access to the technology.

GM: There are 64 stem cell lines in the world. Is that enough?
Stice: It is and it isn't. One line of embryonic stem cells can be grown forever, as opposed to a skin cell that will eventually die off. But at some point, we will need more than 64 lines because the way we culture them today may not be the most beneficial way of culturing them for eventual clinical trials. We currently use animal cells (mouse) to help maintain stem cells, and, because of the cross contamination between mouse and human, that would not be the most beneficial way. We'll need lines that have never touched a mouse cell. We're fine till we get to the point of clinical trials, and then there will be a major push to derive new cell lines. All this is about two years away.

GM: What's your stance on the morality of using human embryonic tissue for research and treatment of disease?
Stice: I think it's more morally acceptable to use those embryos to produce embryonic stem cells than to throw them down the drain. The issue is where people believe human life begins and ends. That's where people have problems when you use embryos to produce a cell line. George Annas, from Boston University, made a good point that put the subject into perspective to me. He asked a group of scientists to imagine a tank of frozen embryos in one corner of a room and a five-year-old child in the other corner. When a fire breaks out, who or what do you save first? The answer is obvious—we don't view embryos in the same light as a five-year-old child.

GM: What's your stance on cloning human beings?
Stice: If a human is cloned, the world wouldn't end—but I am not an advocate because I see no benefits in doing it. There is great potential in cloning cows, for instance, for producing pharmaceuticals in their milk. But I see no benefits for people. First, the expectations of little Johnny being the same as the original would be too high. Next, what of the medical questions if the baby is born with an abnormality? And, as with cows, only one of seven fertilized eggs goes all the way to birth, and we lose some late-term. Bottom line: People who think they can bring back a son or daughter are missing the point—the clone is not going to be the same as the original.

GM: Why are people both fascinated and repulsed by the idea of human cloning?
Stice: A lot of the fascination exists because of science fiction and the movies, which make us look like mad scientists—much different than what we really are. People are scared of human cloning because it brings up the thought of cloning an army of Hitlers.

GM: Are scientists like Severino Antinori and Panayiotis Zavo, both advocates of human cloning, just quacks?
Stice: Regardless of who attempts it, between the money and time needed, cloning a human would be a daunting task. I am in no way encouraging it, but the science is there—it could happen. But I believe the people mentioned don't have a firm footing in the science. They are more about how they can get on the CBS Evening News.

Back to Top . Up Front . Features . Alumni Profiles . Class Notes . Back to Current Issue