document

10 NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 6 • NUMBER 1 • JANUARY 2000

NEWS

Opposition to new marijuanaresearch rulesDozens of scientists, lawmakers, enter-tainers and patients have protested tothe Clinton administration that its newguidelines for medical research involv-ing marijuana are too cumbersome, andwill only delay studies seeking to findout whether the illegal drug is valuablefor pain relief, nausea and other thera-peutic uses.

The administration announced lastMay that it would ease the restrictionson “research grade” marijuana, makingit available to research scientists (NatureMed. 5, 721; 1999). Research protocolsrequire the oversight of the NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), theFood and Drug Administration and theDrug Enforcement Administration—which the complainants argue is a com-plicated and bureaucratic procedurethat will keep the research from movingforward “as expeditiously as possible.”

Thus, in a letter to Health and HumanServices Secretary Donna Shalala, nearlythree dozen members of Congress, ac-tress Susan Sarandon, comedian RichardPryor, scientist Stephen Jay Gould andformer Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders,among others, calling themselves theMarijuana Policy Project, complainedthat the new rules, which came into ef-fect on 1 December 1999, “place amuch greater burden on medicinal mar-ijuana researchers than on drug compa-nies that develop and study newlysynthesized pharmaceuticals.”

But NIDA Director Alan Leshner toldNature Medicine that the new rules weredesigned to streamline the process—not hamper it—and described the pol-icy as “nothing compared to trying toget a [typical] grant from NIH.” Headds, ”The policy decision was made toexpand research opportunities. Somemight find the process cumbersome.Do I think it’s cumbersome? No. Do Ithink we haven’t got it smoothly oper-ating yet? Absolutely. There is no ques-tion we will smooth out the process as itgoes.”

Leshner admits that since changingthe policy there have only been two seri-ous research inquiries: “We expectedsubstantially more interest, but it seemsclear there is relatively little interest inthe scientific community.”

Marlene Cimons, Washington, D.C.

Biomedical research in Australia is char-acterized by poor job security, lowsalaries and a gloomy outlook, a newsurvey has found. The Australian Societyfor Medical Research (ASMR) WorkplaceSurvey, which attracted 266 responses,including 32 from Australians basedoverseas, revealed concern over lack ofresearch funds and poor career prospects.

The study showed that more than one-third of Australia’s biomedical re-searchers were planning to change posi-tions in the next year, at home or abroad,in quest of more stable employment andfunding.

Most Australian researchers seekingoverseas work said they wanted tobroaden their scientific experience, find acareer path and learn new researchtechniques—priorities ahead of boostingtheir pay packet. But once a positionoverseas has been secured, the higher for-eign salaries make it difficult to leave, ac-cording to the convenor of the annualASMR conference, Jason Smythe: that iswhy one-quarter of those overseas havebeen away from home for five years ormore.

Most overseas researchers are based ineither the UK or the US, with a smallnumber in Canada and Germany. Thesurvey revealed that nearly half theresearchers within Australia had an an-nual salary range of A$40,000–60,000(US$25,000–40,000) and only 28%exceeded A$60,000. The opposite is trueof those overseas: 53% are earningA$60,000 or more.

Not only is the money better overseas,but also there is a better prospect of itscontinuing to flow. According toSmythe, security in research is diminish-ing in Australia, with tenured positionsbecoming hard to come by as universitiesswitch to agreements that require ratifi-cation every few years.

Most researchers in Australia are ongovernment-funded grants of three orfewer years, with no guarantee of re-newal, compared with the more com-monplace five-year grants in the US andUK. The ASMR hopes that the AustralianGovernment’s promise to double med-ical research spending over the next fiveyears will stop the ‘brain drain’.

Rada Rouse, Brisbane

Survey shows Australian scientists’ discontent

Investigators wishing to carry out clini-cal trials of xenotransplantation in theUK will have to wait until after June this year to receive approval fromUKXIRA (the United KingdomXenotransplantation Interim RegulatoryAuthority), George Griffin, professor ofinfectious diseases at St GeorgesHospital, London, and head of theUKXIRA’s Infection Surveillance sub-committee, told attendees last month ata press conference to launch the group’ssecond annual report.

Furthermore, Griffin advised inter-ested parties to submit any applicationsbefore this time, in order to engage indiscussions with the UKXIRA panel. Butbecause some aspects of the approvalsystem remain unresolved—namely, theinvolvement of the Public HealthLaboratory Service (PHSL) in disease sur-veillance—many believe that theUKXIRA will not be ready even by mid-year. Griffin was less than forthcomingwhen one researcher, eager to begin tri-als, pressed him on how likely it is thatthe necessary monitoring systems willbe in place by then, and would onlycomment that “discussions are under-

way” with the PHSL on whether theycan take on the responsibility.

The subcommittee’s draft documenton surveillance attracted media atten-tion recently, since it contains the pro-posal that women xenotransplantrecipients must agree not to have chil-dren. The final report is due out in June,and Griffin made it clear that anypatients chosen for trials will be care-fully selected. He told Nature Medicinethat the first ideal candidates are likelyto be young healthy males, unlikely tohave children, with a desire to complywith surveillance programs and therebyadvance the knowledge of medicalscience.

The UKXIRA is the first level of regula-tion that must be passed before a trialapplication is handed to the MedicinesControl Agency and then to local ethicalreview boards. So far, the UKXIRA has re-ceived three trial applications; the firstwas withdrawn and the other two werereturned to the investigators because of“insufficient supporting evidence.” Acopy of the annual report is available athttp://www.doh.gov.uk/ukxira.htm

Karen Birmingham, London

UKXIRA delays potential xenotransplant trial approvals

© 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://medicine.nature.com©

200

0 N

atu

re A

mer

ica

Inc.

• h

ttp

://m

edic

ine.

nat

ure

.co

m