Wednesday, November 04, 2020

Prop. 14 Campaign Says Race Still Too Close to Raise Victory Flag for $5.5 Billion Measure

California voters have apparently approved spending $5.5 billion more on stem cell research over the next 10 to 15 years and significantly broadening the scope of its state stem cell agency, according to unofficial figures this morning. 

The refinancing of the agency, officially known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), was approved by 51.1 percent of the voters compared to 48.9 percent against, with 99 percent of the votes in, state election officials reported. 

(However, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 14 campaign said following publication of this item that the vote is too close to call. "There are at least 4 or 5 million votes that still need to be counted, she said.) 

CIRM was created by voters in 2004 who also provided it with $3 billion in borrowed money. However, the cash began to run out last year, and staffers were leaving. The Oakland-based agency was planning to begin closing its doors this winter in the event that Proposition 14 was not approved. 

Approval of Proposition 14 means the revival of an enterprise that is unique in California history and in the nation. No other state has mounted a stem cell program on the scale of CIRM. Voters 16 years ago endorsed it with 59 percent of the vote following a campaign that raised optimistic expectations that stem cell cures were right around the corner. 

However, CIRM has not financed a stem cell therapy that is widely available to the general public. It is helping, however, to finance 64 clinical trials.  

In addition to providing $5.5 billion in state bonds, Proposition 14 authorizes CIRM to expand its operations into such areas as mental health, therapy delivery and "aging as a pathology." Its 29-member board will be expanded to 35, raising the likelihood of more conflicts of interests involving the board. 

An analysis this summer by the California Stem Cell Report showed that 79 percent of the agency's awards have gone to institutions with links to members of the CIRM board. The board members cannot vote on awards to their specific institutions. But they vote on and can change award "concept" programs that can benefit their institutions. 

In 2012, a $700,000 evaluation of CIRM, commissioned by the agency itself, recommended a major restructuring of CIRM and was critical of the conflict of interest issues posed by its structure. Proposition 14 does little to address those recommendations from the prestigious Insitute of Medicine

The 2004 ballot initiative also deliberately structured CIRM to avoid oversight by the governor and legislature. Funds flow directly to CIRM without requiring legislative approval. 

The immediate task now facing the agency is to adopt a new strategic plan for spending the $5.5 billion and hiring additional staff. The number of its employees dwindled to 33 this summer, down from a high of 56. 

The CIRM board yesterday scheduled a public, online meeting for Nov. 12. Its agenda currently does not include approval of the new strategic plan that its CEO Maria Millan and CIRM staff have been devising. 

Proposition 14 also could mean the removal of some board members whose terms are 50 percent expired. But that would depend on the pleasure of the appointing authorities. 

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:14 AM

    I thought it requires 55% approval David?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:01 AM

    Stem cell research started with transgenic and knockout mice decades ago. Some of what is out in the public domain is considered "prior art" for the purposes of patenting. Very much an issue in trying to commercialize a treatment as the development for the technology for use in people will run out the patent clock with flimsily constructed utility patents. If this passed (?) and nothing actionable comes out in terms of clinical treatment with what is nowadays priced at around $1B/drug to develop, it will slam the door shut on any other direct to public fund raising of this type. Lobbyists will ask to see where those 8 approved drugs are after almost 2 decades on injecting money into the system. Furthermore given that $3B did not yield any drugs or diagnostics while a pandemic is raging is a very poor public image and likely to hurt science endeavors such as these especially when there are other means of funding. Investors will look overseas for the research. It's perhaps wise to see how much of the $5B is slated for clinical development and what sort of partnerships have been developed for that. Academics do not have the expertise nor the wherewithal to do the scale-up required for clinical development.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re the 55 percent question, only 50 percent, plus one additional vote is needed.

    ReplyDelete

Search This Blog