Csete Quits CIRM on Eve of Huge Grant Round

In an unsettling move, Marie Csete has resigned as the chief scientific officer for the $3 billion California stem cell agency, only 15 months after she joined CIRM in the $310,000-a-year post.

Csete's departure comes as the agency is about to embark on its most ambitious and largest round of research grants – a complex, $210 million “disease team” effort aimed at pushing research towards clinical trials.

CIRM Board Chairman Robert Klein has described the round as critical for CIRM, both in terms of producing results and in generating support for the private sale of state bonds to support the agency.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog, this afternoon disclosed Csete's departure on the blog on his organization's Web site.

In an email to members of the CIRM board, Csete(photo at left) said,

“I have decided to resign my position at CIRM as of August 1, 2009. I am sorry and disappointed that I was unable to say goodbye to you at the last ICOC (the CIRM board) meeting. I look forward to seeing your many successes! “

In response to a query, Simpson said,

"This is a sad day for CIRM. Dr Marie Csete, like Dr. Arlene Chiu before her, is the backbone of CIRM's scientific endeavors. It's particularly troubling that two top women scientists have left the agency after relatively short tenures. It raises serious questions about the agency's management under Chairman Bob Klein and President Alan Trounson. They owe the board a detailed explanation."

No successor appears to be in the wings. In a message to board members on behalf of Klein, Melissa King, executive director of the board, said,

“We will be working on a succession plan for Marie. Bob would like to talk to each of you to get your thoughts, and he and I will work on that in the coming days.”

On the surface, Klein's plan to call board members would appear to be a violation of the ban on serial meetings of public bodies such as the CIRM board. We suspect it will be justified on the basis that it deals with personnel matters, although it also overlaps into policy areas.

Csete's possible departure had been rumored for at least a month or more. She gave no reason for her resignation in the copies of the email messages that we have received. According to those we talked to, she was reportedly dissatisfied with CIRM's management and possibly with the reception afforded her scientific advice.

Simpson said the board should demand an explanation of her departure from Klein and Trounson.

Filling a high level post such as Csete's always takes a fair amount of time, but CIRM has been very slow in the past in filling top level positions, including that of president.

Prior to joining CIRM, Csete was John E. Steinhaus Professor of Anesthesiology at Emory University, with adjunct appointment in cell biology, and program faculty appointments in biochemistry, cell and developmental biology, neurosciences and the Emory/Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering Program. She was additionally the director of liver transplant anesthesiology at the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta and director of the Emory/Georgia Tech Human Embryonic Stem Cell Core, and co-director of the Emory MD/PhD program.

In announcing Csete's appointment in March 2008, Trounson said,

”Her training and experience as both a basic researcher and clinician is critical to our strategy of advancing discoveries into the translational pipeline. In addition, her expertise in the field of transplantation and understanding of immunology issues will be highly relevant to advancing new discoveries in the stem cell field toward therapies and cures. ”

The announcement also said,

"'No one knows more about or is more skilled at dealing with the intersecting worlds of real-life clinical transplantation and basic stem cell research than Dr. Csete,' commented David J Stone, MD, Adjunct Professor of Anesthesiology and Neurological Surgery at the University of Virginia School of Medicine."

In the item below, you can read CIRM email messages concerning Csete”s departure.

Csete Discloses Reasons for Resignation: Lack of Respect at CIRM

Nature magazine reported today that Marie Csete says she resigned as chief scientific officer of the $3 billion California stem cell agency because her advice was not respected.

Reporter Erika Check Hayden quoted Csete as saying,

"When it became clear to me that my considered clinical advice was not respected, I concluded that it made no sense for me to stay at CIRM."

Hayden also wrote,

“When Csete left Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, to join CIRM in March 2008, she gave up her lab and divorced her husband John Doyle. He is a professor at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, an institution she would be inviting to apply for research funding and so needed to avoid contravening state conflict-of-interest laws. 'We were willing to sacrifice a lot for me to be in a position to make a positive impact at CIRM,' she says. 'I wanted to see it to the end.'

Hayden continued,

“Csete says she hopes her leaving will mark 'a new start' for the agency. 'I had tried everything I could to change what I think needed to change from the inside, and that was not going to happen,' she says. 'I felt I would have more impact by stepping away and advising the leadership of the board on my way out about ways to revise the structure and management of the agency to make it more optimal.'"

Csete's departure is likely to come up a teleconference meeting of the full CIRM board early tomorrow evening. The board is scheduled to consider a plan, posted this evening, to bolster support for the CIRM board. The meeting was called following a contentious session in San Diego earlier this month during which a number of “festering” issues surfaced.

In a reaction earlier to Csete's announcement, CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said he planned to contact each board member to discuss the matter, raising the possibility that he would be engaged in an illegal serial meeting.

We queried James Harrison, outside counsel to CIRM, about the plan. He replied last week,

“There will be no serial meeting -- the discussion will occur at our next meeting.”

Harrison referred to tomorrow's teleconference meeting.

We also asked Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, whether Csete had a contract or was given severance from her $310,000-a-year job. He replied that she had neither. We asked Gibbons this evening whether CIRM has any comments on the Nature article today. He has not yet responded.

The public can take part in the tomorrow's meeting at teleconference locations in San Francisco (4), Los Angeles (4), Duarte, Sacramento, Elk Grove, La Jolla, Healdsburg, Irvine, Berkeley, Palo Alto, Stanford and Tucson, Ariz. See the agenda for specific addresses.

Emory Scientist Named to Key Post at California Stem Cell Agency

Emory University scientist Marie Csete today was named as the new chief scientific officer at California's $3 billion stem cell agency.

Csete (see photo) is only the second person to fill the key position, which has been vacant since last fall. Arlene Chiu resigned at that time after filling the position since 2005.

Alan O. Trounson, president of CIRM, said in a news release:

"Her training and experience as both a basic researcher and clinician is critical to our strategy of advancing discoveries into the translational pipeline. In addition, her expertise in the field of transplantation and understanding of immunology issues will be highly relevant to advancing new discoveries in the stem cell field toward therapies and cures."

CIRM also quoted Harvard's Stuart H. Orkin, who is also chair of the group at CIRM that performs scientific reviews of grants, as saying,

"I am very pleased that Dr. Marie Csete will assume the Chief Scientific Officer position at CIRM. She was an active and insightful member of the Scientific Working Group. Her leadership will ensure that CIRM meets its potential for the state of California."

CIRM's news release, which is not yet available on its website, also said,

"Prior to joining the CIRM, Dr. Csete was John E. Steinhaus Professor of Anesthesiology at Emory University, with adjunct appointment in Cell Biology, and program faculty appointments in Biochemistry, Cell and Developmental Biology, Neurosciences, and the Emory/Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering Program. She was also the director of Liver Transplant Anesthesiology at the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta and director of the Emory/Georgia Tech Human Embryonic Stem Cell Core, and co-Director of the Emory MD/PhD Program.

"Dr. Csete graduated from Princeton University with a degree in Music and received her M.D. from Columbia University’s College of Physicians & Surgeons. After residency and fellowship training at the Massachusetts General Hospital and St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, she was Assistant Professor in Residence at the University of California, San Francisco where she directed the liver transplant anesthesiology team."

Brief comments from Csete appeared on this website last October in defense of secrecy of the names of applicants for stem cell lab construction grants. The agency refused to release the names at that time, but in December decided that they should be public so that they could raise matching funds for their grant applications.

She will earn $310,000 a year at CIRM and will receive $20,000 in moving expenses.

CIRM Scrutinizes Grantee Performance: The Tale of Three Terminations

Playing the rich uncle to California stem cell researchers is unquestionably satisfying, but the folks at the state's $3 billion stem cell agency sometimes bear messages for scientists that may be less than warmly received.

That's when they become regulators and stewards of the public's money. Particularly when they exercise that responsibility in a more rigorous way than is the practice at the NIH.

CIRM is not making much of the fact that it has revoked three grants because of a lack of progress. It took us more than a month to secure the identities of the researchers who fell under CIRM's scrutiny. The agency, however, should take pride in its oversight. It enhances the credibility of the $3 billion agency and serves notice to all grantees that CIRM is more than a sugar daddy and takes its responsibilities seriously.

Only four months ago, CIRM directors heard a report on monitoring of grants that merits attention following approval of the largest research grant round in the agency's five-year history. The $230 million in disease team grants pose special challenges for the tiny agency. Its staff, currently without a chief scientific officer, will be called on to make go, no-go decisions on continued funding as researchers hit or miss bench marks in projects involving as much as $20 million.

One can only imagine the ruckus if CIRM staff recommends that funding be halted on a $20 million, four-year grant involving such high-profile and respected institutions as UC San Francisco, UCLA, Stanford, Salk and City of Hope, among others.

CIRM opened the window a bit on its oversight of grants at the board meeting in San Diego last June. Marie Csete, then chief scientific officer for CIRM, described in a positive fashion her office's monitoring of the $45 million SEED program, the first ever research grants by CIRM. She said CIRM's efforts saved some grants that would have perished. But it took a question from director Ricardo Azziz, chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Cedars-Sinai Medicial Center, to bring out the information that three grants had been terminated.

As for the issues raised during the monitoring, Csete said,

“In general, I have to say it was slow progress. It wasn't bad progress. And it allowed us to identify some issues that are, I think, endemic with a new agency and new ideas. Institutions had trouble getting lines for their investigators. People had trouble hiring post docs who were able to do the work. We had trouble getting some of the (grants) out the door for various reasons.”

CIRM director Floyd Bloom, former editor of Science magazine and executive director, science communication, at Scripps, praised Csete and her staff's work. He said,

“This kind of nurturing, interactive relationship with the PIs's is absolutely unique in the grant world. And so I think it's a wonderful thing that you've instituted. It's going to be a tremendous amount of additional work on your staff to be able to do that, but it's highly commendable, and it's going to make the difference between success or failure, particularly for these intermediate level of successful early experiments where they have to be encouraged to go on and push.”

We spoke by telephone with two scientists whose grants were revoked and exchanged email with the third, who was out of the country. None are particularly pleased about losing their grants, but their comments offer insight into the process. We are not identifying them in this piece. To do so would place an unnecessary onus on them, given the current practices in the scientific grant community and the different monitoring procedures at the NIH. None of the issues with the grants appear to involve malfeasance.

One of the researchers said he was “bitter” about CIRM's action, declaring it caused a “huge uproar” at his institution. (Prior to our conversation, we had heard unconfirmed reports about significant unhappiness on the part of recipient institutions.) This researcher said CIRM's monitoring practices were a departure from those of the NIH, which allows “the liberty to take the research where it leads you.” Nonetheless, he continues to support CIRM.

Another scientist said he parted “amicably” with CIRM but confirmed that its practices are different than the those of the NIH. (The NIH has not responded to our queries concerning how many grants it has revoked for lack of progress.)

This researcher told us,

“I think that it is very important for CIRM to closely monitor its grantees. As a California taxpayer, I want to know that state revenues supporting the CIRM effort are well utilized. Furthermore, CIRM (and its grantees) need to make good on the promise of translating the science of stem cell biology into novel therapies.”

The third told us in an email that his grant had been “prematurely terminated.” He said the work has been completed without the CIRM support and the research accepted for publication in a prestigious journal next year. He also called CIRM a “great organization” and expressed the hope that it will lead to “great cures.”

The round of grants that Csete reported on involved only $45 million, substantially less than the $230 million in the disease team round. The stakes are now much larger. Powerful teams, some international, will be at work. Impending clinical trials will also create a vision of handsome profits, in addition to hoped-for prestige and accolades. CIRM directors have indicated they expect some of the disease team grants to fail. But revoking funds for one of those grants or loans will require a lot of steel on the part of the CIRM staff.

Csete abruptly resigned from CIRM after the June meeting. Her departure and the workload at CIRM likely meant that some of the monitoring efforts were pushed back. Most of the work is done by science officers, but at crucial points, it requires the intervention of CIRM's highest level scientist.

In the wake of Csete's departure, CIRM President Alan Trounson created a new position, vice president for research and development. A search firm has been hired for $100,000 to help recruit a candidate who will make go, no-go decisions on the disease team round along with other grants. Trounson is hoping to find someone with substantial experience in the biotech industry.

Whoever fills the job should not only be something of a scientific diplomat but also be able to face the big dogs of stem cell science and tell them no. CIRM's first responsibility is to generate results for the people of California and to serve as ardent stewards of the public's money.

(Below is a transcript of the entire discussion by the CIRM board in June concerning Csete's monitoring effort. Also below is a piece concerning our decision not to publish the names of the scientists whose grants were revoked as well as another item dealing with CIRM's efforts to ensure compliance with its ethical and research standards.)

Editor's note: The California Stem Cell Report first published an item on the termination of CIRM grants last April. Here is a rundown on all the stories published on this site as of Nov. 9, 2009, concerning grant termination.

Text of Csete's Description of CIRM Grant Monitoring

On June 17, 2009, Marie Csete, then chief scientific officer for the $3 billion California stem cell agency, briefed its directors in San Diego on how CIRM monitors the progress of its grantees. Following her presentation, one director asked her how many grants had been terminated because of lack of progress. Three, she replied.

Here is the transcript of her remarks and the discussion by directors. Here is a link to the slides that she used. They begin on p. 22 of the file.

Csete: I guess the last thing I'm supposed to speak about is our mechanism for looking at progress reports. And the first opportunity we had to aggregate data on this was for the SEED grants, which are now more or less in their second year of funding for most of the investigators. And as a reminder, I think all the way back a few years, this was a grant program designed to develop human embryonic stem cell biology in the state. And since it was early, it was more idea based rather than preliminary data-based, and we really hoped to attract nonstem cell biologists to the field as well as cell and developmental biologists who were working perhaps on other stem cells, but had not done human embryonic stem cell work.

As such, the seed grants were acknowledged to be rather high risk, high gain. And I was involved in the SEED grants as a reviewer. So I have insight into the process from the beginning even before I came here to CIRM. I have to say that the overwhelming message I want to leave you with here is that despite a slow start, that was the bump in the road, that the SEEDs are really overwhelmingly successful. And we looked this week to find that there are already 64 papers coming out of the SEED program even though, again, these were new investigators in this field.

So it is important also, thanks to Bettina (Stephen, a CIRM science officer), to remind you that progress reports are not just progress reports -- and this has been an education for both the science office and for our scientists – that they really serve as a focus of a way that the science officers and our grantees can have a point of communication. It also allows us to get a heads up on where the data is, on what papers are being submitted, on potential patents that are coming out. Also when we discuss the progress reports in the science office meeting, it allows us to match scientists from our individual portfolios with other scientists whose progress we're hearing about in the meeting. In general, I have to say that I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from our PI's about the interactions with our science officers and our grantees.

So this is the process that we've sort of come to. And I've condensed a very complex diagram that has arrows going out every which way. On the right(on a slide she presented), you have a lot of gold stars. And the gold stars is what usually happens. On the left I put symbols showing how much communication happens at each one of these steps. So for the vast majority of the progress reports, things look good, and we generate an NGAs(notice of grant approval) with the next year's funding on the SEED grants.

But what I'm showing you in the middle is what happens when we receive a progress report that's not satisfactory. So we did receive some where we saw that the projects were not advancing. They were slow. The vast majority were those gold stars that, you know, went right back for the second year of funding.

In general, I have to say it was slow progress. It wasn't bad progress. And it allowed us to identify some issues that are, I think, endemic with a new agency and new ideas. institutions had trouble getting lines for their investigators. People had trouble hiring post docs who were able to do the work. We had trouble getting some of the NGAs out the door for various reasons. So right away, by having a communication with the PI after the progress report was in, we could help them. We could intervene and make the right calls to try to get and kick start these programs.

When there was insufficient data for us to judge how much work had been done, the science officer would request supplemental data. That often required a couple of phone calls and a couple of exchanges of e-mail because, again, we were interested in hearing what people would normally not send in as a progress report: difficulty getting cell lines grown, difficulty doing certain kinds of experiments so that we could see common features across our SEED grantees and allow them to help each other.

When the supplemental data suggested that there was still insufficient progress, I would look at the report, and we also had discussions with the entire science office. At that point, if we couldn't come to a way to jump start a project, we would have a conference call with the PI, and at this point we'd bring in the institutional official as well, the science officer who has this PI in their portfolio, and I, and we would have another call to try to get this program back on track. And very often what that meant was that we made a plan with the investigator to give them some more time so that they could generate some data and try to pick up where the progress was slow. So the time differed depending on the problems that were there, hiring problems, for example. If after this time period another supplemental progress report comes in and there was inadequate progress, we decided that we would notify the investigator that the project just didn't seem to be going anywhere, that there was no real plan to get it back on track and that there was a potential for termination.

Again, the AOOs were all involved in this as well. and if there was no response within two weeks to that potential termination letter, then the grant was terminated and the second year's funding was not advanced.

So what did we learn from this process? We learned that it's critical for us to be working with the PIs to keep the grants on track and how appreciative the PIs are when we do work with them to keep them on track. By the way, we also found several grants that would not have gone on because the investigator was interested in not pursuing the original goal of the research and was going to drop the work. We felt that these areas were so critical for the ideas that were part of the seed program, that we found other investigators who were co-PIs or related to the grant to take over and worked with these new investigators and found mentorship to keep that work going. So it went in both directions. We saw adequate progress where the grants would not have gone on had we not intervened. And I think that this is a very interim report for you because the final success of the SEEDs will be seen over the next year when the final reports come back. We know that papers are going out. We know that research is proceeding apace now; I think much to the effort of each of the individual science officers who worked very closely with the grantees. But it will be important to evaluate how many new labs were brought into human embryonic stem cell and pluripotent stem cell research. And I should also say that a lot of the investigators left to their own devices would have stopped what they were doing with their SEED grants and simply gone on to derive ips cells, and we would have had no portfolio had we (not) been actively managing the grants. But most importantly, the success of this program will be determined on how these investigators go into others of our programs and other large-scale funded grants with the work that was developed from the SEED. And we already have success in that area. We're seeing that one SEED grantee continued on and got an early translation award from CIRM last month.

So overall we've had enormous success, I think, with the SEED program, and we're still in the middle of it. And we've learned a lot about process that will help us to be managing larger scale projects and to work with our investigators in a really positive way.

CIRM Chairman Robert Klein: So, Dr. Csete, will you remind us the number of SEED grants originally awarded?

Csete: Seventy-four.

Klein: So 74 grants, and we've seen 62 or 63 papers at this point.

Dr. Csete: Sixty-four papers.

Klein: So a very high level of productivity. Thank you very much.
Dr. Bloom?

Director Floyd Bloom: This kind of nurturing interactive relationship with the PIs is absolutely unique in the grant world. And so I think it's a wonderful thing that you've instituted. It's going to be a tremendous amount of additional work on your staff to be able to do that, but it's highly commendable, and it's going to make the difference between success or failure, particularly for these intermediate level of successful early experiments where they have to be encouraged to go on and push. So it's a wonderful thing you've done.

Director Ricardo Azziz: I just want to echo that, for starters. I think it takes a tremendous amount of work to help these investigators forward. Again, presumably, they are also very appreciative of your efforts. of the 74 applications, how many – you spoke about the process that you are going through -- how many have been terminated for nonproductivity?

Csete: Three.

Azziz: Three of the 74. Thank you.

Klein: Okay. any additional board comment? Thank you very much, Dr. Csete.

Csete Resignation: Researcher Calls it Tragic

Here is a comment on Marie Csete's resignation from a well-respected researcher who must remain anonymous. Comments from other readers are welcome. They can be posted anonymously, if desired, via the “comment” function at the end of this item. Or they can be sent to me for posting at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.

“CIRM's inability to retain Dr. Csete is tragic. Her scientific stature worldwide and her knowledge and relationships with the FDA made her the most valuable member of CIRM's scientific team. She was the one who scientific and medical leaders respected and trusted. With Dr. Csete's departure, CIRM immediately loses much of its credibility as an organization that puts good science, not politics, first. CIRM needs to pull itself together, decide that high ethical standards and strong scientific leadership are its highest priories, and clean house quickly.  

“They need to bring in a strong COO and respected scientific leadership. Otherwise, Bob Klein's legacy, his remarkable vision, will be crushed under the weight of foolish egotism and political favoritism. Taking a page from American politics, CIRM needs an Obama, not a Bush, as its scientific leader. Dr. Csete provided the no-drama Obama leadership that CIRM so desperately needs. She should have been promoted, not allowed to resign.”

CIRM Seeking More Industry Experience in Top Science Officer; New Post Proposed

The California stem cell agency wants to put more sizzle into its search for a replacement for Marie Csete, who resigned as its chief scientific officer recently and subsequently said her advice was not respected.

Alan Trounson, president of CIRM, is asking its directors to create a new post called vice president, research and development that will be attractive to scientists with commercial experience. The search comes just as the agency is about to award its critical disease team grants, which, at $210 million, are the largest research grant round in CIRM history.

Csete's resignation and her complaints about the organization have received international attention and raised questions about CIRM's management, which the agency has not responded to publicly.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., said Csete's position was the second most important at CIRM. He said,

“Before this new position is created, I think there needs to be a full, public explanation of why the former chief scientific officer, Dr. Marie Csete, resigned after a little more than a year on the job.”

In a memo to CIRM directors, Trounson said the new position would provide an opportunity to “find someone with the skill base to have more of a focus in their role with biotech/pharma – translation – clinical applications, which is where we are moving with our translational, disease teams and clinical grants and where we are thin in capacity.”

The new vice president would report to Trounson and apparently rank at the same level as the vice president for operations, John Robson. The new person would be the third in four years to fill the post or its equivalent.

Trounson's proposal, which will come before CIRM directors Aug. 6 in a special teleconference meeting, did not specify a salary range. Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, did not respond to questions about pay. Currently the salary range for Robson and the chief scientific officer tops out at $332,000. Csete was paid $310,000.

Trounson's memo said that the new position is designed to attract applicants with “academic-commercial R&D experience.” Trounson said,

“Pharma is now wishing to engage with us and we need some experience at this interface which we haven’t had to date. The biotech firms had been a bit put off due to a lack of success in granting but are now very keen to re-engage if we can solve some of the issues that have arisen.“

Trounson said the new VP would have primary responsibility for relations with the FDA and the NIH. He said the person would “oversee the basic science and translational to clinical program and partner with the executive director of scientific activities to support and empower the science team.”

The designation of an “executive” director of scientific activities also appears to be new. The current CIRM organizational chart refers only to a “director of scientific activities.”

The CIRM president's memo said a “number of very good people” have indicated an interest in the new VP post.

The Aug. 6 meeting is open to the public and is available at teleconference locations throughout the state, including San Francisco(3), Los Angeles(3), Sacramento, La Jolla(3), Pleasanton, Healdsburg, Duarte, Stanford, Berkeley, Irvine and Palo Alto. The specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

Scientist Says Csete Resignation is Regrettable

Here is another comment from a California scientist on the resignation of Marie Csete from CIRM. The researcher must remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

“It is indeed regrettable that Dr. Csete has chosen to leave CIRM. Given CIRM's mandate to move stem cells into the clinic, a Chief Scientific Officer with Dr. Csete's clinical and research credentials, especially as they apply to human transplantation, is absolutely essential. It is perhaps telling that of the over 300 grants issued by CIRM only about 10% (by my accounting) are focused on actual preclinical or clinical studies. Although CIRM was established as a way to bolster the perceived inadequacies of the NIH, that rationale has now, in now small measure, evaporated. The advantage that CIRM has, compared to the NIH, is that they are in a position to fund, almost exclusively if they wish, preclinical studies, especially high risk studies that would not get funded by the NIH. It is these studies that will help determine whether or not a given idea about how stem cells might be used clinically actually has a chance of working. If CIRM and the ICOC are continuing to focus on basic biology studies, at the expense of preclinical work, even as it might apply to the upcoming Disease Team Grants, then I, were I in Dr. Csete's shoes, would also leave.”

Fomer Top Exec at CIRM Hired by San Diego Firm

The former chief scientific officer for the California stem cell agency, Marie Csete, has landed at a San Diego firm, where she has been named executive vice president for research and development.

Csete resigned from her state government post last June, creating a bit of a stir. She told Nature magazine that her advice was not respected at the $3 billion stem cell agency.

Csete has joined Organovo, Inc., a privately held regenerative medicine company that is focused on creating tissue on demand for research and surgical applications.

The company's news release yesterday quoted the company's president, Keith Murphy, as saying,

"She has extensive experience in clinical transplant and is a leader in the understanding of stem cell behavior. In her previous role, Marie was instrumental in fostering translation of early technologies to practical results. Marie is an excellent fit to lead the company's efforts to move our therapeutic pipeline rapidly to the clinic."

Instead of filling Csete's position as chief scientific officer, CIRM President Alan Trounson created the new post of vice president of research and development. That job is not yet filled.

The only media coverage of Csete's appointment that we could find was in the San Diego Business Journal, a brief story by Heather Chambers.

Minimal Media Coverage of Csete's Resignation

They didn't stop the presses at the San Francisco Chronicle this week for news of the resignation of the chief scientific officer at the $3 billion California stem cell agency, although it is a bit of a local story for the newspaper.

No mainstream media have covered Marie Csete's pending departure as far as we can tell. But it surfaced in a couple places on the Internet that have international audiences, which this blog has as well. The news was also, we understand, the subject of some discussion at a meeting of CIRM grant reviewers in San Francisco the last two days. No information has been posted concerning Csete's resignation on CIRM's own Web site.

Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times wrote two pieces, one a straight-forward news story and the other something of a reaction piece.

Monya Baker at The Niche, Nature magazine's stem cell blog, wrote that she was “impressed with (Csete's) very practical approach to the unglamorous parts of helping move stem cells into human testing.”

Jim Till put up an item on the blog of the Canadian stem cell consortium. And Peter Jamison of the San Francisco Weekly also posted a piece.

Former Top Exec at Stem Cell Agency Appointed President of Huntington Medical

The former chief scientific officer of the California stem cell agency, Marie Csete, yesterday was named the president of the $53 million Huntington Medical Research Institutes in Pasadena, Ca.

Marie Csete, Huntington photo

Csete left the stem cell agency in 2009, after serving for a little more than a year. Her departure involved tension between her and former agency President Alan Trounson.  She told the journal Nature,

"When it became clear to me that my considered clinical advice was not respected, I concluded that it made no sense for me to stay at CIRM.”

Csete was the last person to hold the position of chief scientific officer at the agency. Trounson left the agency in July last year.

Huntington reported assets of $53 million in late 2013 and funds a wide variety of research. 

More Coverage on the New Research VP Position at CIRM

For more on creation of the new VP of research and development at CIRM, see a posting by Monya Baker on The Niche, Nature magazine's stem cell blog.

Among other things, Baker wrote,

“In the last organizational plan, (former chief scientific officer Marie) Csete had reported to (CIRM President Alan) Trounson, and Patricia Olson, director of scientific activities, had reported to Csete. Science officers, who decide what kinds of grant programs will be offered, reported to Olson. Under the new organizational chart, Olson will report directly to President Trounson, as will the vice president of R&D. (The general counsel and the vice president of operations already report to Trounson).”

In a related development, seven executive search firms have responded to CIRM's RFP to help in finding a Csete replacement.

In response to a question from the California Stem Cell Report, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer, said the firms are: Korn/Ferry International, McCormack & Farrow, Levin and Company, Caliber Associates, Russell Reynolds Associates, Spencer Stuart and The A-list.

CIRM paid Spencer Stuart about $500,000 previously for two presidential searches. In neither case did Spencer Stuart produce a candidate who would accept the job.

Also at yesterday's meeting, Trounson left open the possibility that CIRM might have to pay more than $332,000 to fill the position. That is the top of the current salary range at CIRM for the post. Csete earned $310,000. Trounson, however, said yesterday he hopes to fill the position without boosting the salary range.

Candidates Reportedly On Line for CIRM Chief Scientific Officer Slot

The California stem cell agency reports that “several highly respected candidates” have approached the agency to fill the vacancy created when Marie Csete resigned as chief scientific officer.

In response to a query, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, said last week that the scientists have come forward since Csete disclosed that she was leaving.

Gibbons also said that no decision has been made on whether to hire a search firm to assist in finding a replacement.

CIRM has sometimes been slow in finding top-level executives, particularly for the president’s slot. However, the salary for the chief scientific officer might help speed the process. The top of the range is $332,000 annually. Csete made $310,000.

Applicants should take note that CIRM is not suffering the same financial woes as the rest of California state government because of the nature of the agency’s protected funding.

CIRM Seeks Help in Search for Csete Replacement

The California stem cell agency wants to hire an executive search firm – its third such arrangement in the last four years – to recruit a successor to Marie Csete to lead the organization's scientific research efforts.

CIRM contracted with a search firm, Spencer Stuart, on two different occasions in the past in an effort to find a president for the $3 billion enterprise. Despite spending about $500,000, the searches never turned up a candidate who would accept the job.

In both cases, the two men who ultimately accepted the presidency surfaced by other means.

CIRM's latest effort calls for a timetable of no more than six months to find a vice president for research and development, a new position at the agency. The post would cover the responsibilities of CIRM chief scientific officer, the title that Csete carried.

Alan Trounson, CIRM president, said the new position is aimed at attracting candidates with more commercial research backgrounds.

The RFP said the salary is likely to be $180,000 to $332,000, although it left the door open to going higher. CIRM asked search firms to provide advice on salary levels based on “industry trends and best practices.”

The CIRM board has yet to approve creation of the new vice presidency although the RFP was posted 11 days ago. Bids from search firms must be in by Monday. The board takes up consideration of the new post on Thursday.

Here are links to funding for Spencer Stuart: 2005, 2008.

Text of Email on Csete Resignation

Here are copies of CIRM email messages regarding the resignation of Marie Csete.


Subject: Marie Csete

Dear ICOC Members,

Bob wanted you to have these messages (below), from Marie and Alan. We will be working on a succession plan for Marie. Bob would like to talk to each of you to get your thoughts, and he and I will work on that in the coming days.

Best,
Melissa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MESSAGE FROM MARIE:

To ICOC Members:
I have decided to resign my position at CIRM as of August 1, 2009. I am sorry and disappointed that I was unable to say goodbye to you at the last ICOC meeting. I look forward to seeing your many successes!
Best
Marie


MESSAGE FROM ALAN TO CIRM STAFF:

As you have heard from Marie, she plans to leave CIRM at the end of July. In just a little more than a year she has made highly valuable contributions to our science operations coalescing a new set of core grants and organizing a number of workshops that have invigorated our scientific discourse and changed the direction of many of our programs. She has been a highly respected representative of CIRM at countless meetings nationally and internationally. I think you all would agree that our mission has been advanced by her efforts. Please join me in thanking her and wishing her luck going forward.

Alan

CIRM Director Love Wades into the Trenches at CIRM

It is not exactly an internship, but one of the directors of the California stem cell agency is working as a volunteer at CIRM during the next few months.

The director is Ted Love, a physician and businessman, who until recently was CEO of Nuvelo, Inc., of San Carlos, Ca. He has served on the CIRM board since its first meeting in December 2005.

Earlier this month, CIRM announced that Love will be assisting the agency's management one to two days a week until CIRM appoints a new chief scientific officer. The agency noted that Love has “extensive experience bringing medical therapies to the market.” CIRM said Love will be of “considerable value” in connection with the $210 million disease team grant round scheduled for approval later this year.

Love sits on the board of directors of Arca biopharma, Inc., of Broomfield, Colo., Affymax, Inc., of Palo Alto, Ca., and Santarus, Inc., of San Diego, Ca. Arca is the biopharmaceutical company that absorbed Nuvelo earlier this year. Affymax is another biopharmaceutical business, and Santarus acquires and develops products dealing with gastrointestinal problems.

Given ongoing issues about conflicts of interest at CIRM and more recent questions about micromanagement by CIRM directors, we posed several questions to the agency about Love's involvement.

Amy Adams, CIRM communications manager, responded. She said Love will not be acting chief scientific officer in the absence of Marie Csete, who has announced her resignation. Adams said,

“Ted Love is acting as a part time advisor to the president on the overall architecture of our grants programs.”

We asked,

“Does any of his work involve potential conflicts of interest considering his involvement in Arca and potential future employment in the biotech industry? “

Adams' response:

“No. To the extent that any potential conflicts arise, Ted will recuse himself from participating in the decision.”

She said none of his work will involve applications from any company that has applied for a grant or that is expected to apply for a grant. Adams said that it is “uncertain at this time” what role he will play in the review of the disease team applications by the grants working group.

We also asked,

“How can Love fulfill his oversight responsibilities as a CIRM board member when he is actually performing the tasks that could come under board scrutiny?”

Adams replied,

“He will be assisting the science office on an interim basis and does not expect that his brief tenure at CIRM will interfere with his oversight responsibilities. Indeed, he thinks it will give him a better understanding of CIRM's internal operations.”

She said that Love will receive no compensation for his work, including the per diem granted board members for meetings.

We also queried longtime CIRM observer John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., about his thoughts on Love's volunteer work. Simpson replied,

“Ted Love has been a substantial and important contributor to the ICOC. He is a talented executive who brings the perspective of the bio-medical industry to the table. That’s a necessary perspective, but by no means the only important perspective. If he can briefly help CIRM after the departure of Chief Science Officer Marie Csete, that’s probably a good thing. I worry, however, that if this arrangement lasts too long and he becomes too involved in day-to-day operations, it will be difficult for him to fulfill his oversight responsibilities on the board.

“I also wonder what advising 'the president on the overall architecture of our grants programs' means. That phrase prompts me to wonder about the status of the revised strategic plan, which was first presented in a draft last December. It was the subject of hearings in February and March, but still hasn’t come back to the ICOC. If I were a board member, I would have wanted to approve that revised plan before I even considered the budget for 2009-2010. “

A footnote on all this: Prop. 71 has specific criteria for board members. Love was appointed to the board when he was CEO of Nuvelo, but he no longer is an “executive officer of a commercial life science entity.” He can continue to sit on the board because of his position as board member of a life science firm.

CIRM Hires Levin to Help Find New VP

The California stem cell agency has hired the self-styled “boutique” executive search firm of Levin & Company, Inc., to help find a vice president for research, a new position created in the wake of the sudden departure of Marie Csete as chief scientific officer earlier this year.

According to CIRM, Levin has signed a $100,000 contract with the agency. Levin beat out Korn/Ferry International, McCormack & Farrow, Caliber Associates, Russell Reynolds Associates, Spencer Stuart and The A-list.

Csete announced her resignation in June and subsequently told Nature magazine that her advice was not respected.

CIRM President Alan Trounson created the new research and development position with an eye to attracting candidates with more commercial research backgrounds. CIRM's salary range for the position tops out at $332,000.

In its proposal, the firm said,

“While we recognize that CIRM may have limitations on what it can offer (such as a bonus), we have had demonstrated experience in recruiting for clients with similar restrictions, such as early stage companies which are unable to offer bonuses, or international clients which cannot provide an equity package.”

Levin has a long history in the life sciences industry. In its proposal, it said it had completed search assignments for CEOs for the following stem cell-connected firms: Osiris Therapeutics, Cellerant Therapeutics, StemCells, Inc., and ViaCell.

The firm said its CEO, Christos Richards (see photo), would personally lead the search, personally interview each finalist and negotiate the final package.

Levin projected a timetable of four to six months from the beginning of the search (Aug. 24) to the start date of the vice president. It said the period could be shorter but said “a search taking longer than six months leaves the potential for a dissatsified client.”

Levin, which has its corporate office in Boston, also has offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Pennsylvania.

The California Stem Cell Story: Safety, Waste and Promises

The story was about CIRM, and the headline said,

"Stem-cell stalemate: The push for cures may produce only disappointment - or worse."

Written by Peter Jamison for the San Francisco Weekly, the lengthy and thorough-going article explored the promise of California's $3 billion stem cell research effort and how it measures up. Jamison focused on CIRM's move towards pushing therapies into the clinic and away from basic stem cell research.

The article appeared in a free newspaper that reports 100,000 weekly circulation with 500,000 monthly readers and 1.5 million page views (presumably weekly) on its Web site.

Jamison said that when Prop. 71 was passed in 2004, it was fueled "by promises of cures and therapies that appeared, to the layperson, little short of miracles." He wrote,

"Many in the medical community, while paying lip service to the optimism of 2004, acknowledge the very real possibility that people suffering from the incurable conditions typically associated with stem cells — not just Parkinson's or diabetes but Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, and HIV/AIDS, among others — will not see a therapy or cure from the state's $3 billion investment."

Jamison continued,

"In short, the question is whether CIRM should become an agency that pays tens of millions of dollars to alleviate arthritis while research languishes on Huntington's disease or multiple sclerosis. This approach could go a long way toward addressing the more serious safety concerns voiced by some scientists. It is also a remarkable detour, by any standard, from the ambitious medical goals that drove Prop. 71. It is difficult to overlook the irony of a situation in which state officials, seeking to deliver on the promises of a ballot initiative intended to overcome the Bush administration's supposed limits on the advance of science, turn for their salvation to research Bush never restricted in the first place. Will California voters accept such a momentous policy shift?"

Jamison interviewed a wide range of scientists including those at CIRM. He quoted Arnold Kriegstein, director of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UC San Francisco, on the risks of CIRM's turn towards the clinic.

"The likelihood of something going wrong is pretty high. Something like tumors are probably going to happen. This is an area where the risks are great. The public has to be prepared."

Marie Csete, chief scientific officer at CIRM, took another view. Jamison wrote that "she was quick to counter suggestions that the agency's new funding priorities would put patients in danger."

Csete said,

"'It's just a ridiculous idea that we're not putting safety first....This field is moving very quickly toward clinical application. There's no question in my mind, and it would be silly for us to say that we have to solve every single problem before we proceed to transplantation' of cells into humans."

Hans Keirstad of UC Irvine was quoted as saying,

"'You will always garner respect by saying, 'Slow down. More science is necessary....Somewhere out there there's got to be compassion for those patients who are dying. I would go so far as to say that inaction is killing people. The views of ultraconservative scientists are killing people.'"

Waste was another topic. Jamison quoted Bruce Conklin, a senior researcher in the Gladstone Institute's cardiovascular disease division, as saying,

"'We all want the same thing — we want to see regenerative medicine work....Although there's $2 billion [of CIRM money] left to give out, that's actually a very small amount of money. Now, if that's all spent on clinical trials that don't tell us anything because they don't work, that's a missed opportunity.'"

Warner Greene, director of the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology, said,

"There's no way to hop over this basic biology."

Jamison additionally interviewed Jeff Sheehy, one of the 29 persons on the CIRM board of directors, who talked about an "identity issue" at CIRM. Jamison wrote,

"'If we are going to say that we're going to work with adult stem cells, we can be in the translational phase and the clinic now,' says Sheehy, who is communications director for UCSF's AIDS Research Institute and represents the interests of HIV patients to the board. 'While they're going to be of benefit to a great many people in California, these adult-stem-cell approaches are probably not going to have a big impact on these severe degenerative diseases that really motivated a great number of people to support Prop. 71, like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal-cord injuries.'"

Many of the issues addressed by Jamison are part of the current review of the CIRM strategic plan. The agency last month conducted two public hearings on plan and its proposed changes. You can find the transcripts here under the topic "interested persons meetings." The latest version of the plan may well surface at the CIRM directors meeting April 28-29 in Los Angeles.

But for many, Jamison wrote, CIRM's activities are more than a debate about strategy and basic research vs. translational research. He said,

"Whatever the voters who supported Prop. 71 think of the use of their money to support adult stem-cell cures for relatively pedestrian ailments, they would almost surely be angered if the ballot initiative's billions of dollars have bought, after a decade, only a sheaf of much-lauded studies in the journal Cell.

"Even angrier, no doubt, would be the people who suffer from the diseases stem cells might one day cure. Their voices, more than any others, persuaded a majority of the state electorate to support Prop. 71."

We asked Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, if the agency had a comment on the article for this item. He replied,

"I just hope you encourage your readers to read the entire article and not just the negative snippets you choose to use."

We certainly hope that you all take a look at Jamison's piece, which airs, in a very public way, some important scientific and policy questions that have not yet been widely examined in California.

Your comments are invited on this and any other topics. Click on the word "comments" below to send them in unmoderated. Anonymous comments are permitted.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly attributed the "hop-over" quotation to Bruce Conklin, not Warner Greene.)

Whopping Pay Hike Proposed for CIRM Grant Reviewers

The California stem cell agency, which constantly stews about recruiting and keeping enough top notch scientists to review its grant applications, is now proposing to pay them $750 a day, which could total as much as $10,000 per reviewer for each grant round.

If the compensation reaches that level, it would be a 500 percent increase in the flat $2,000 that was previously provided.

The pay hike comes before the CIRM board later this week. In a memo, the CIRM staff said it was needed in order for the agency to be “competitive” in securing reviewers, who are usually well-known and respected scientists.

CIRM offered no figures for the overall estimated cost of the increase in what it calls "honorarium." But at $750-a-day, which amounts to $195,000 if it were applied on annual basis, the amount is pay – not honorarium.

We based our cost estimates on information provided in 2007 by Richard Murphy, then interim president of CIRM. Murphy also had served as head of the Salk Institute and as a member of CIRM board.

Murphy told the California Stem Cell Report that when he did grant reviews it took him one to two weeks to review the grants and write them up, including meeting time and travel. Based on that, the proposed pay for reviewers – which covers days of service, not just actual meetings -- could run from $3,750 to $10,000 per grant ground for each reviewer. Of course, the amount depends on how fast a reviewer works and could be less or more.

The number of grant reviewers actually used varies, depending on the need for specialists. However, 13 sit as regular members of the grant review group and many, many more as alternates or ad hoc members.

Murphy spoke to us at a CIRM board meeting during which the compensation was boosted from $500 a day to the flat $2,000. The $500 only applied to meeting days. The compensation does not include travel expenses, which are also reimbursed by CIRM.

As CIRM indicated, retaining skilled reviewers appears to be getting tougher. Lifting of the federal ban on hESC grants would certainly would seem to create more demand from the NIH for scientific reviewers who might also be recruited by CIRM. And the stem field generally is much more active than it was in 2005, when CIRM got started, generating more demand for reviewers. All of those reviewers also have their own personal research projects to attend.

The need for increased CIRM incentives is also likely linked to the absence of a chief scientific officer (CSO) at CIRM. One of the “the most important and least appreciated aspects of the CSO's role has been to personally beg, harangue and plead” with other scientists to serve as reviewers, as one person told us.

The post is now vacant after the resignation of Marie Csete earlier this year. Csete had served as CIRM reviewer and was well-respected and well-known in her field, giving her the heft to bring in reviewers.

It is likely to be some months before her post is filled.

CIRM also cited as justification for the pay increase an increasing future workload as grant rounds become more complex.

No Support From CIRM Group on Public Disclosure on Lab Grants

A move to reveal the identities of the major universities and research institutions seeking $227 million in California taxpayer funds for stem cell lab construction was turned aside today by a key committee of the state's stem cell agency.

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica, Ca., and the California Stem Cell Report appealed to the Grants Working Group to make an expression of support for public disclosure of the names of institutions and for opening review of their applications to the public.

The group took no action on the requests. Only two members of the group responded. Marie Csete(see photo), a scientist from Emory University, said the most important elements of the review involve the work that is proposed at the facilities – not the labs themselves, which she described as "tools." She also noted that the reviewers are funding the work of their "competitors." California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein endorsed Csete's remarks in a brief comment.

Our comment. One of the stronger arguments for public disclosure and review is the fact that the scientific reviewers are dealing with the livelihoods of their professional competitors. While the reviewers are all from out-of-state, the stem cell world is truly global. It is also small and intensely competitive. We should also note that the reviewers are not eligible for funding from California. That contrasts with the NIH, whose grant reviewers are eligible for funding from that agency. At the California stem cell agency, scientific reviewers receive only a small stipend and expenses for the time they spend away from their own work. They basically do it for free with perhaps the major benefit coming from a chance to see interesting proposals from California scientists and meet with their peers at CIRM expense.

Below are the statements read to the grants group this morning.