Implications of Stem Cell Therapy for Patients and Society - panel discussion

[Music] hi everybody my name's Adam Smith from noble media and it's my pleasure to be your moderator and guide to this discussion panel and audience Q&A a mixture the purpose of this session is for the panel to have a discussion with each other about some of the implications of stem-cell research for both patients and society at large and also for them to have a discussion with you so at various points during the coming 50 minutes or so I will be opening out to the audience for questions and we have circulating microphones I just want to check before we begin who was at Shinya Yamanaka is lecture please raise your hands ah wonderful okay everybody so you don't have to say quite as much as you would we have a great deal to discuss I should I mean I don't know whether I even need to introduce the panelists since this hopefully there's a there's a lovely poster behind me and if I do I'll just get the pronunciations right but I'll give it a go bigots scar stain and ice made or it's my don't smile you see I got went wrong already Morton Karstens Moore and Shinya Yamanaka welcome all thank you for being here so near you in your talk outlined really your vision for how stem cell research is going to help the lives of patients and your vision for the medicine of the futures for certain extent I thought it would be very nice to have you modern just as a as a practicing ophthalmologist somebody who's working with patients trying to implement these technologies just comment on what Shinya said in his lecture yes about that it was truly a really inspiring lecture I think all that were there really helped energized and inspired what what you're talking about and this is really what it's all about because we are getting now into a new area treatments we don't only see at the patient symptoms we don't just see at Russia's headache we can really truly study in the lab the the disease the cells or the deceased patient about cellular mechanisms of the different diseases and even more importantly now we don't need to only treat these symptoms we can actually heal and cure the patients so raisin is in diabetic instead of just giving these insulin injections many times a day we can transplant cells and heal the patients in in age-related macular degeneration as you talked a lot about today yes opthamologist we work evenings and you know Saturday's to treat these patients and they have to come in talk like every fourth week to get an injection into their eye in the future we might actually be able to cure these patients so they we get a better life and of course the patient gets much better life same with with Parkinson no no drugs maybe a cell transplantation so this is this is so inspiring and of course it will take a lot of time it will cost a lot of money but we really hope that this is the future thank you very much indeed well this there are so many things to explore we should we need to explore questions of cost and access and communication let's do as much as we can during our coming time but let me start with a rather fundamental ethical question she knew you in at the beginning of your lecture you said you you set out to create IPS cells because of your feeling that that might get around the ethical questions surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells do you feel that they have circumvented that problem are the ethical questions solved yes I hope it's on yes so okay good so yeah you're right my initial motivation was to overcome the usage of human embryos and now that we can make IPS cells out of your skin Brad sells I would say I - it's it's kind of difficult like 90% we overcome that issue the remaining 10% we still don't know how much exactly identical es cells and iPS cells are they're very similar that's for sure so I believe almost 90% of applications we can use IPS cells instead of ES cells but the remaining 10% we still don't know we still need to use ES cells in my ES cells hopefully in the very future we can depress yourselves with IPS cells so that's good but it's like every other science it's just like double-edged sword we have overcome the usage of my embryos 90% but I realized we are making new ESCO he shoots that's what I have been struggling with for example or in one of the questions I described how to make human organs in large animals like pigs that kind of research is going on it's very promising but it's very controversial some people are strongly against that kind of approach and also at least in theory we can make human egg / sperm from IPS cells that may that means we can make sperm or egg from your skin or blood cells so that's another even bigger ethical issue yeah so I I worked on IPS cells trying to dissolve one ESCO issue but I end up making new escalation that dilemma Anna as a philosopher would you want to comment on that yes I think it's it's sort of ironic that that science tries to solve an ethical problem as you say but it's like the Greek monster the Hydra you cut off one head and several more grow in its place and I think part of the reason for that is that science isn't that good at solving ethical problems it's quite good at solving scientific problems but the ethical problems need to be solved in some other way and I think one of the reasons why new developments in science tend to raise all of these new ethical problems it is often because we don't foresee what's ahead we don't foresee what's on the horizon and we're taken by surprise and the things that we can suddenly do now with with cells give us a whole range of new possibilities so we may not need to use embryos in order to create stem cells anymore in the majority of places but now we can do all these strange and unusual different things with cells and and just to pick up on that last point about sperm and egg cells and that's a really major new way of thinking about human reproduction where you could pick a skin cell off a chair or table and take it off and get it turned into a gamete so I think it's really important to try and think ahead about what the ethical issues are likely to be and maybe not so much expect scientists to be able to solve those ethical problems but to place more responsibility on members of the public and on philosophers too to try to participate in the direction of scientific research and not get taken by surprise by these kind of things but given that the pace of science is actually taking the scientists by surprise it's almost impossible to imagine that society could be fast enough to sort of keep pace I mean Shinya mentioned that there was this change in the legislation in in Japan which slowed everything up because people had to do redo their paperwork and that's one way society responds just to say hey like I am but that's not the most helpful response I mean does it open to all but how do you how do you structure a societal debate that can keep pace with this extraordinary pace of science well I would say one thing that we have to acknowledge and this is probably going to be unpopular is that to slow things down is not necessarily bad if there are ethical problems we need to understand them we we need to understand the implications of the science if we always have the default setting whatever social and ethical parameters we set have to facilitate the scientists that is no ethical engagement at all we're just being handmaidens of the progress of science so I think we do need to think ahead it is very difficult science moves quickly but if we forestall the idea that there might sometimes be grounds for delaying scientific progress we might as well throw our hands up and say let's just wait and see what happens so it's you know ethics isn't always about steaming ahead in the right direction it might be about trying to work out what the right direction is and not moving until we know bigoted you wanted to comment on this I would say that well I'm here from the Norwegian bio old Norwegian border biotechnology and I would say that is exactly why we have these kind of boards national boards that can look into the Cinci okay we have a new technology here what is the power of this technology what will this not maybe not today but in the future what will be the consequences or the possible consequences of this technology and then do an ethical discussion on that and see what kind of society do we want and what kind of society do we not want and by having those kind of national boards of biotechnology you have a fora who can actually be updated to science as of today what is going on out there and see oh sure something's going on let's let's grab this and see Oh what is this gonna be and what is it today what can it be tomorrow what can it be in five years see what is the ethical aspects of that that we have to discuss and then it's up to us in the boards and as more people with ethical perspectives perspective some medicine to take that debate into society and make sure that people who don't read magazines or don't read about the progression going on can be updated on what's happening so that we can actually get a debate that hits people and do things like you guys are doing now we're at the university where people read where people are interested in learning and tell them see and then it's up to you guys to actually take this discussion further in this room yeah i partly agree and partly disagree that we have to slow down and I think as we as doctors we we have these patients every day I think all felt it was a special moment in the room when we're seeing this kid racing is one finger and I'm helping for fast fast route science to cure his disease but then it's it's a ethical dilemma because then we have to ask clinicians also to slow down a little bit our kind of main goal that they have learned at medical school is premium on not Shara first of all not and not make any harm so the patients are also pushing here to get these treatment and then it's extremely important that we know that we do not do any harm it not no harmful for a patient I think that has to come very very early but the escalations we are feeling these tries to help them and this is why we're also trying to push harder Shinya let's come back to that finger and throughout your lecture you stressed the importance of moving fast so with particular reference to this point of Anna's and the idea of working with governmental organizations what do you feel about slowing things down well you know I think you were right you know we have those patients eagerly waiting for new therapies any therapies so just slowing down is very tough almost scientists also on patients waiting for any new development it's the hope regardless the result of clinical trial just knowing someone is working on their own disease makes them a huge difference previously they felt they were kind of abandoned normally is doing any research on their diseases but now with IPS cells many researches are going on once again it would take many years so most likely we cannot make it for the present in front of us but still it's it's it's a hope all them it makes a huge difference to the patients and the patient's family I want to come to you both of this okay and I go go and then I want to come to vehicle yes yes I think that's a really significant aspect of what drives the momentum of scientific progress both of course the the interest of the scientists to discover new things the clinicians who want to help their patients and the patients who don't want to feel abandoned so you say and I just want to clarify wasn't saying research should always be slowed down and preferably stopped I just think that has to be an option on the table if we're genuinely thinking about ethics but to come back to the the point about the the patients and their and their need to feel that something is being done I think that's a really epic ly problematic environment to be working in I I'm not sure how one could get out of it but there's a kind of symbolic value that the science has that is separate from its capacity to actually benefit those patients medically and so we're pushing science forward trying to speed it up for the sake of a kind of symbol to show these patients that they're not abandoned and I think that's something that is is worth thinking about carefully and whether they're whether it's worth separating those two things out is that symbolic value of scientific advance something that we should be acknowledging maybe more explicitly and maybe there are other ways of making these people these patients not feel abandoned without driving science forward so I think being clear about where the medical benefit is or whether symbolic benefit is might be an important thing to think about in that context thank you so big it let me come to you there because you're here in with two hats if you like partly from the biotechnology advisory board but also as somebody who has been if you like the recipient beneficiary of that hopeful message you you yourself suffered a paralyzing injury and so have experienced what it is to hear the message that there is research going on that could help can you talk about it a little bit well I could say it goes both ways the day I were back in the hospital you know because I had a spinal cord injury when I was 20 and we didn't know the outcome yet so I was back into the hospital and I remember it really well because I was sitting together with my mom opposite of the two doctors and my mom she looked at them straight to them and of course everyone was wondering what's going on and my mom looked him in the eyes and she said it's big it's big never gonna walk again and it goes all quiet in the room and then one of them in the end said well there is a lot of really interesting work going on on on stem cell therapy in China right now and that's eight years ago and obviously you beat China but getting that kind of a message as you say well in one way it is so no probably not another way it's well maybe and for people that cling to that hope it could slow down the progress of accepting it could be clinging on to hope which is non-realistic it could also be clinging out onto hope which is realistic anyways that hope is a great power very very great power and it means a lot to people in their lives like you're saying people are dying and they're saying one day earlier but the way you communicate it that's the really tricky part about it because well I'm actually wondering what all you guys are thinking about it because in one way you need to get it out that it's going on but still make sure that the effects and how far we've come and and as you said yourself time cost all those things are actually passed on so people can understand it it's a general problem in science research that expectations through communication become greater than than reality in this case it's a there's a particular man particularly strong link how does one cope with that that you want the you want people to support want people to be excited by what's going on and yes you want people also to understand that it's going to take a lot longer then the excitement might indicate well I would say the the lecture like the one we've seen today is one of those that is really reality oriented which is on the one side saying this is happening and we're making something come true which has people have never thought it was possible just some years ago we would think it was impossible to do what you've got you're doing now it's happening and you're thinking outside of the box and you're going new directions and suddenly a whole new world open suddenly you're talking about a cure for ALS it's extraordinary on the other side actually saying it's going to take time and we need support over time and maybe that's maybe people should not put their hopes today on the medicine of tomorrow except that knowing that steady state working might make it happen and I do want to comment do you want to continue on this because there does seem to be a danger in over expectation yes and I certainly think if you look back to the Human Genome Project and the early days of embryonic stem cell research you can see in both of those areas that there were huge expectations that the newspapers were full of stories about how patients would be able to grow new organs for transplant and they were going to find the gene for absolutely anything you can think of and in both those areas the the actual scientific basis for the claims that were being made I think were much more shaky than people realized but people were very optimistic and I think especially in the context of embryonic stem cell research part of the reason for that is certainly in the UK where I'm where I come from there was a kind of fight between the scientists and some of the public about whether it's okay to use embryos and the scientists and the media started to say we have to because of these great things that we're going to achieve and ultimately of course you know not that much time has gone by since then in terms of you know the length of time it takes to get from laboratory to clinic but it seems clear that embryonic stem cell research is not going to deliver those promises as quickly as it said or as effectively maybe not at all so I think there was a kind of mismatch between the science communication and the public expectation which arose actually because of an ethical dispute about the the use of embryos so I think it is absolutely vital to to think carefully and sensibly about what the science can achieve what the goals of the science are and not to try to oversell it to the public and to have a public that is educated and critical and able to to think about the information that they're being given and also what they want how they want to to have it so those are very important considerations I think thank you thank you very much yes big and Morton and then we'll give a question well I'd say that everyone should take their responsibility the public opinion your people should read about it they should think about it what do we want what is going on they should be well educated well when they expect something or discuss to figure out what is this scientists should be really sober when they talk about it and talk about the expectations and of course the hopes but still what can go wrong and I think the media definitely should take their responsibility to not go for the temptation of putting on the front page this is gonna cure cancer forever don't do it don't it's like be responsible don't community things communicate things which is false but and just a question to you Yamanaka what do you think about media when they cover your field so they're doing very difficult job they have to sell newspapers so they tend to say either black or white it's a hope or hype right but we have been spending a lot of time we in our own state own Institute we have a group of so-called science communicator they used to be scientists but now they try to be communicators professional speaker so the point is we scientists need to be as transparent as possible and also as accurate as possible how much what kind of research we are doing what how much hope we can expect but how much risk risks we are facing so that kind of transparency is very important but at the same time we scientists are competing with each other sometimes we need to hide our data prior to publication so we scientists are having a hard time between being transparent and being competitive we have that problem so scientific many people or [Music] they I can imagine they have an even harder time because we cannot give them on 100% of the information we have because we need to we want to be transparent that we really need to hide to some extent so that that's the dilemma we have and media people have so it's it's it's a very difficult task you're facing Martin you wanted to comment quickly yeah I think the patients are very well educated they read a lot in the Internet these days this word user involvement that has been all applications and people will ask me what you are writing this chapter user involvement go talk to the patients they are very well educated about their disease and this interaction with the patient talking to the patient and they can inform you and you can inform them it's very dynamic so so and and if the patients say to us I don't want no information about one another gene I want you to develop therapy we are kind of obliged to listen to that and at least try to speed up the process towards clinical treatment okay so much to discuss but let's let's go for some questions please here in the front thank you thank you for visiting this interesting debate and actually I want to I want to add I'm stem cell scientist and a Clinical Immunology working in the field of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and I have as much experience in in true stem cells of patients themselves rather than IPS cells however were currently working with IPS cells so in addition to what Professor Yamanaka said regarding the internal scientific debate transparency and competition this also belief there's lack of publication of side effects you always publish the positive effects hardly you find publications regarding other side effects in addition to the the internal scientific belief we regardless the the transparency that people working with original cells are biased words I'm one of the model currently working in IPS by Stewarts original cells rather than IPS and that was my question regarding the trial with the with the patient one that you're using missing common stem cell derived from IPS rather than original mesenchymal stem cells it's IPS though derived MSAD yes rather than rather than mesenchymal stem cell region I mean derived from the patient not IPS derived oh I say so yes those patients even minor very minor injury can trigger ectopic bone formation so even when we try to generate IPS cells we were very worried because we did skin biopsy very small skin biopsy we may thought that small procedure may activate ectopic bone formation but fortunately it didn't cause so trying to maintain all stem cells out of the patient directory is a bigger damage to the patient so I don't think we can do that my point actually I'm sure that there was an answer but my point was is there's also an internal scientific debate and I'm a bit disagree with the patient's are well very well educated because it's really very deep science so patients read the general public and scientists are still not settled yet so maybe I disagree whether they are very well educated I mean that is a it is a general problem in in in all fields of life not just science but in certainly in all fields of science that if you tell a story and you say yeah but we're not so sure then people are going to stop you know start losing faith in you and your funders are going to start worrying so there's a there's a whole Machine around generating stories that hang together and keeping them so yeah I don't know if that's a big topic to tackle for the panel but it's it's it's very very germane to this issue does anybody want to comment no there you can please Donna yeah I think the the point about scientists being in competition with each other is is a big problem for you know if we think that the aim of science should be human benefit then it may not serve that goal to have scientists in competition which then leads to this need for secrecy and I just also wanted to comment on the structure of academic life which I think has many inbuilt ethical problems associated with it so when you'll you seek funding you have to make very optimistic claims so you have to make claims about the big effects that your research is going to have for society and I think there so the comment about negative publications there's a sort of compulsion to publish things that that are good that are success stories of course but actually the whole scientific picture includes that the negatives as well but the academic system tends to encourage people to favor one side of the argument and I think that is a problem both for patience education and for the for the broader public understanding so there's a sort of inbuilt question here about whether we can change these systems be very challenging to try and overcome some of these problems I think that's probably a subject for a second session here other publication public policy and academia and I could have a structure but more questions anyone else want to raise a question well while you're thinking I'd like to ask a question about access to this to these therapies because I mean throughout your talk again you knew you were stressing the expense and you were trying to finding ways to bring down expense but everything we're talking about is fabulously expensive so who who is this therapy for ultimately well of course we want to do this for all the patients but in reality initially at least initially many of new circuits we will generate we scientists will generate will be very expensive so that that's the problem we have so we're hoping by many ways we can lower the cost as much as possible but that that's a challenge you're facing and I think that's is an ethical issue actually because then you get the risk that this is a treatment for the rich people that can access to these treatments and go abroad and get the treatment and this is something we as clinicians also and all of us actually need to be very aware of the cost rises it could be a price the patient population that get access to it and that we have to prevent it and of course I mean this isn't a problem that is part of stem cell research only it's a general problem of all therapy development but but with reference to this I mean that there are certain aspects of it which make it perhaps more centralized and that creates its own infrastructure and expense what do you feel about this bigot well I in general I think that healthcare should be given to those who are in the biggest need I I think this is really interesting because as I see it can challenge the infrastructure of healthcare as you're saying maybe especially making it more global instead of national and I that's actually something I would really like to ask you about is do you think that this way of thinking medicine and use in medicine do you think that's going to create a bigger global healthcare system which is not as national yesterday where they will move patients or move cells around the world well hopefully any new therapies will be as global as possible not only for you countries but also for all the patients like you know iPhone everyone in developing countries even developed countries many people are using iPhones because the price is not too expensive so that's a good model you know they spent the Apple spend lot of human resources lot of money in developing new iPhones so they could make the new product even more expensive but the price is just good enough so that many people around the world can access to it so I think that's a very good model for new medicine or new medical therapies if it costs like 0.5 medium u.s. tires it won't be global just for rich people or rich country so I have been thinking how we can go at a cost that's no it's challenging okay but and then yeah and this is why we're particularly interested in also hearing about this auto-transplantation versus a low transportation for if we call the auto transmutation kind of the mercedes-benz which is very expensive than the Toyota model with the allergenic transplantation might be a little bit less costly so so I think to go for both these YC is very fascinating and it's just one technical question for myself if you go for the for the super donor route is that country specific or can japanese super donors so for each country or for each ethnic group the distribution of HLA haplotype it's different so our super donors in japanese population is only four Japan maybe Korea that area UK has different distribution but we are now trying to generate international collaboration so that we can facilitate more that kind of super Doudna identification thank you sorry yeah I think the analogy if the iPhone is is very persuasive and I've used it myself on occasion but I think there's a problem with expecting stem cell therapies to to sort of globalize in that same way because some of the biggest problems that we see health-wise arise from systemic and infrastructural problems now those problems don't necessarily stop someone from getting an iPhone but there might well stop someone from accessing hospital from having laboratories that have the the right facilities to enable access to this kind of medicine so I think it is a really appealing idea that if you just create these things there will be a trickle-down effect but somehow in healthcare that just hasn't happened and so we have huge health disparities across the globe which I I can't see anytime soon there's this kind of therapy being rolled out across Africa for example and I you know that raises a big question of well what should we do about that should we should we go ahead anyway is does it matter that we may be actually widening the health disparities that exist in the world so I think we we need to be skeptical about the idea that there's a sort of even spreading out of these innovations in medicine that will eventually benefit everyone and we should bear in mind that the diseases on the whole that these therapies are going to address all the diseases of affluence with the exception of the spinal cord injuries Parkinson's disease the diseases that you get if you live to a ripe old age in a well-fed environment age-related macular degeneration type 2 diabetes so I I think there are huge global ethical problems it's in that context certainly you must be right but on the other hand there is trickle-down isn't there always is trickle-down so that you can't have a perfect system I mean it there will be benefit even if you develop medicines for only that population I know that a lot of people think that's the case I have recently read things that made me think it may not be so I mean this is a very ideologically loaded sort of argument and it's very difficult to prove empirically but it there seems reason to think that the disparities between different economic groups or growing and the associated health disparities also grow so we can't just make the assumption that these developments necessarily benefit everyone we have to be open to the question that they may not and I think that is an open question I'm not satisfied that that we can sit back and wait wait for these things to happen there are there are these big problems that exists in parts of the world that aren't going to be solved by stem cell therapies but need huge amounts of economic and political input before we even start thinking about that kind of thing but this I mean this applies very much to any sort of medical innovation but it it is you know it's there and we have to recognize it Morton I have hard to disagree with that but I think it's very interesting comments but for instance diabetic isn't like epidemia all over the world and also very much in the poorer population so if you can come in with you using this technology to make this little step probably this theory technology will them dissolve to other type of diseases so I I think it's extremely important to take the first steps and it will have global effects thank you but is there anybody else there must be somebody else be brave this is your chance just stemming from the current debate I was thinking what what how would super donors be generated in a multi-ethnic world like we have mixed gender multi ethnicity children now and a lot more with the globalized world right so how would how would super donors work in that and isn't autogenic a better solution in that sense and what really is causing it to be so expensive like how can we actually bring down the cost of autogenic IPS so in in Japan you know that to cover like 90% of all the Japanese population we need to have 140 super donors the first two super donors super super donnas can cover almost 30% but in order to cover the rest we need more so in total or 140 super donors would cover 90% one of the most diverse country is probably us they had occasion they have Hispanic they have Asian they have african-american at risk for major us any groups and to cover 80% of each ethnic group they would need to have like 200 super dollars for each ethnic group so in total it's much larger number but still it's durable instead of making tens of thousands of htere a prototype I guess or stocks it's still [Music] we're hoping lower cost and by combined by utilizing genome editing we may be able to generate super super super IPS cells which won't cause any immunological reaction so actually that's what many scientists and some companies have been working on to make just one global IPS so now I just very very briefly I'm just answering the second part of a question why is the autologous tree so expensive at the moment the efficacy of IPS cell generation is to roll so it takes too long and also we see a huge variation among IPs aligned from each individual even from the same individual if we generate like three IPS of lines they are different so we need to select the best one from each donor so if we go with autologous we need to do it many times so we we have been trying to overcome those practical or issues once we overcome such issues we can do what others like thank you there's a question there big you want to did you want to come in okay yes please there was a question back here oh there's a microphone I've arrived to them yes well I have a question regarding your super super donors and super donors and so forth oh yeah what do they earn no and what age are they I mean there must be some criteria and how you select your donors regarding for example telomere length and and also considering the treatment of the patient and these cells and how they're going to function for years on yeah that's a good point so we are now making IPL stocks from peripheral blood as well as called drug and cod blood is actually zero year old and we found cold blood is probably better origin because they don't have any acquired mutation whereas peripheral blood from the 15 year old healthy-looking donor they have acquired many mutations already so each of us are not free from mutations III became fifty five two days ago so unfortunately we have many mutations already so cold blood is probably the best way and you're joking question actually raised the cold the whole issue of rights to this this material which is something that we may not have time to cover which we wish we could but take it did you just do it now do you wanna make your appointment I can do it well that's not a point actually another question I was just wanting to ask you because your science has definitely opened a huge door into a new world and if you look 30 years ahead what field or what area do you think has been affected most by your search and your findings oh it's next to impossible to evade for addiction but at least so we really want to contribute to two areas one is cancer and one the other one is rare diseases so those are the two areas we really want to contribute together with many other applications but what I want to stress is that probably after 30 years we should have completely new technologies which we cannot even imagine 30 years ago nobody were able to imagine like IPS cells nobody liable to imagine genome editing or even sequencing of our genome yes 30 I was a medical student 30 years ago I didn't learn anything about iPS cells genome editing or even hepatitis C so after 30 years I I I hope I can survive such as so that I can watch by my eyes but that's very promising yes I after 30 years IPS cells may be already very old maybe a history probably it's it's going to be a history we should have some other better technologies of the 30 years that's sighs just a close that brings us back to the question of how society can possibly prepare itself for the unexpected developments if it doesn't I mean one solution as you said is simply for science to lead society wherever it's going how else can it be what do you think so well so I I think people should be flexible should be open-minded so that they can allow so-called crazy scientists can do their own science in order to make progress for example in vitro fertilization it's it's now just a common procedure nowadays but just 30 years ago they thought many people many media people thought it a crazy approach right but now it's just many many children born that way so we we should remember that history you know any new [Music] scientific technology may be regarded crazy or something invading God but we should be more open-minded every it's difficult kind of sometimes it's scary but that's what I think at the same time we scientist needs to be as transparent as possible even in this severe competition as you say a conversation like this is a step in the right direction and unfortunately we are out of time but I would like to thank you all for what has been I think a very engaging conversation between the four of you and the audience thank you very very much indeed [Applause] [Music] [Applause]

Channel: NobelPrizeII

Views: 3,648

Rating: 4.8730159 out of 5

Keywords: Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize winner, Nobel Laureate, Science, stem cells

Id: q7HsACieIak

Length: 52min 11sec (3131 seconds)

Published: Sun Sep 17 2017