California's New Task: A $155 Million Drive to Make Stem Cell Therapies Affordable and Accessible

The enormous cost of stem cell therapies is 
a fresh target for CIRM. 

Proposition 14, California's $5.5 billion stem cell ballot initiative, is coming home to roost, so to speak. 

Next Monday, the governing board of the state stem cell agency is scheduled to begin to settle in under the new measure, which does much more than save the agency's financial life. 

One of the agency's biggest, new challenges involves the accessibility and affordability of the staggering expense of potential stem cell therapies. On the agenda is the creation of a legally mandated "working group" to deal with the treatment cost issues. 

Details of the proposed appointments to the group and its initial steps are not yet available from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known. But the 17,000-word Proposition 14 has plenty to say about the new program. Here is a rundown drawn from my new book, "California's Great Stem Cell Experiment," which deals with the first 16 years of the agency's life, policies and financial times. 

"The new playing field for CIRM encompasses particularly critical areas of costs to patients and profits for companies. Stem cell therapies are expected to be enormously expensive — $1 million or more in many cases. That’s a figure that makes health insurance companies balk and Medicare blanch.

"Proposition 14 would launch a hefty effort to make stem cell therapies more affordable and accessible. The cash behind that drive could run as high as $155 million. And that’s not necessarily going for patients.

"The intent is to create and build support for financial models for health insurance companies. CIRM would also be charged with helping to implement them. Such models would justify the cost of the theoretically one-time cures by demonstrating that they would actually save money — ending the need to treat patients in what currently seems to be an endless and expensive cycle.

"Proposition 14 speaks of covering patients and, importantly, their caregivers for medical expenses, lodging, meals and travel. That would help provide access to clinical trials that are located in prohibitively expensive urban areas, which poses financial barriers for persons who live some distance away. The added coverage would additionally help researchers and companies recruit enough trial participants, which can be a problem in some disease areas.

"The affordability panel would be permitted to operate behind closed doors as it considers the problems and weighs the solutions.

"The extraordinary cost of stem cell treatments involves something called 'reimbursement,' a biomedical industry euphemism for how companies cover the high costs of the research and still make a profit. If money is not to be made, businesses are not likely to be motivated to turn CIRM research into cures.

"Proposition 14 creates a 17-member, CIRM affordability committee to drive all this. It would work with industry and the federal government to win their support. The committee would be backed by as many as 15 CIRM staffers. The ballot allows as much as $55 million for their compensation over 10 or so years.

"But if 15 is not enough, more employees could be hired beyond the nominal cap on CIRM employees of 70 if they are compensated through the use of private cash.

"The measure additionally allows the new affordability panel to hire consultants, capping that expense at about $105 million.

"The affordability effort involves important public policy, industry and research issues that concern patient groups and industry. However, the affordability panel would be permitted to operate behind closed doors as it considers the problems and weighs the solutions.

"Votes by the committee, however, would have to be taken in public.

"Members of the panel would not be required to disclose publicly their economic or professional interests. The committee would be exempt from the state public records act except for material specifically submitted to the CIRM board."

The day-long meeting is open to the public, including scientists, who can also comment and ask questions. Comments are limited to three minutes. Lengthier comments should be emailed to the board via this address: kmccormack@cirm.ca.gov

Complete details on accessing the online meeting can be found on the agenda. 

(See here for a discussion of the $182 million awards program scheduled to be approved on Monday for the first six months of the next year.)

Five Public Sites Set for Thursday's Board Meeting of the California Stem Cell Agency

For those who want to participate in this Thursday's meeting of the governing board of the California stem cell agency, five public locations are available.

The actual meeting will be in Berkeley beginning at 9 a.m. PDT. Oher public locations will be in San Diego and Danbury, Conn., and at UC Irvine and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles.

Specific addresses can be found on the agenda for the meeting along with instructions on how to listen in on an audiocast. However, the audiocast does not provide the opportunity to comment.

Written comments to the board for the meeting can be emailed to mbonneville@cirm.ca.gov.

Consumer Watchdog: Affordable Access to CIRM -Financed Therapies Threatened

The California stem cell agency is proposing a “tremendous loophole” that will allow biotech companies to escape requirements to ensure affordable access to stem cell therapies generated by taxpayer dollars, the Consumer Watchdog group said today.

The group also complained that the regulations are being rushed through a meeting this week of the CIRM board in San Francisco.

The comments were filed by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Santa Monica, Ca., group, who has been deeply involved in the development of CIRM IP regulations. The changes, however, caught him by surprise.

In remarks filed as part of the official regulatory process, he said the proposed alteration in the definition of exclusive licensee is “a substantive change that fundamentally alters the IP regulations.”

Simpson wrote,

“This proposed new definition creates a tremendous loophole that potentially allows companies to escape the IP regulation’s access requirements for products developed with CIRM funds. This was never the intent of the IP task force during its thorough, deliberative process in developing the IP regulations.”

Simpson said,

“It merits a full hearing and thoughtful discussion. Sadly it now appears that there is, for what reason I do not know, an effort to sneak this major change in policy through virtually unnoticed. If that is allowed to happen, it would be truly sad. Developing the IP policies had been one of CIRM’s most inclusive and transparent processes with all stakeholders represented at the table. This change would completely undermine all of those efforts.”

Here is how Simpson described the proposed change:

“The access requirements for products developed by CIRM grantees apply only to grantees, collaborators and exclusive licensees. Under the new proposed definition an entity that purchased a company holding a license would not be obligated to meet the modest access requirements because they would not have received the 'license directly from a Grantee, Grantee Personnel, or Collaborator.' Presumably a licensee could also assign rights to another entity and that entity would not be held to the access requirements, again because it would not have received the 'license directly from a Grantee, Grantee Personnel, or Collaborator.'”

Simpson asked that the proposed changes be referred back to the CIRM IP Task Force before they are acted on by the full board.

We have asked CIRM if it has any comments on Simpson's letter. We will carry the full text of the agency's comments if it responds.

You can read the full text of Simpson's remarks below.

Text of Consumer Watchdog's Therapy Access Letter

Here is the full text of the letter by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., concerning the loophole proposed in CIRM IP regulations. His letter was filed today as part of the official regulatory process.

Re: Comment on “Proposed IP Regulations: Third Round”
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to protest the proposed change in the definition of Exclusive Licensee contained in the third iteration of proposed IP regulations. The proposed definition,

§ 100601. Intellectual Property Regulations
- Definitions. (k), now reads:
Exclusive Licensee. Any individual or entity receiving by license directly from a Grantee, Grantee Personnel, or Collaborator all rights to make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import in one or more fields of use or territories a CIRM-Funded Technology or a CIRM-Funded Invention.

In the earlier second iteration the comparable definition, § 100601. Intellectual Property Regulations -
Definitions. (j), read:
Exclusive Licensee. Any individual or entity receiving all rights to make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import in one or more fields of use or territories a CIRM-Funded Technology or a CIRM-Funded Invention, whether by assignment, license, or other mechanism.

The access requirements for products developed by CIRM grantees apply only to grantees, collaborators and exclusive licensees. Under the new proposed definition an entity that purchased a company holding a license would not be obligated to meet the modest access requirements because they would not have received the “license directly from a Grantee, Grantee Personnel, or Collaborator.” Presumably a licensee could also assign rights to another entity and that entity would not be held to the access requirements, again because it would not have received the “license directly from a Grantee, Grantee Personnel, or Collaborator.”

This proposed new definition creates a tremendous loophole that potentially allows companies to escape the IP regulation’s access requirements for products developed with CIRM funds. This was never the intent of the IP task force during its thorough, deliberative process in developing the IP regulations. I cannot understand why this language has been proposed.

Could you please provide me with the written record of the public comments made on Round Two of the proposed regulations that prompted this change, which subverts the original intent of the IP regulations?

For the record, I note that the public comment period on these regulations closes at 5 pm Aug. 18, the day before the August ICOC meeting where they are already on the agenda for consideration. I am hard pressed to understand how such scheduling provides adequate time for staff to analyze any comments and provide meaningful commentary so that the board can consider the proposed regulations in a thoughtful way.

I urge you to refer these proposed regulations to the IP Task Force for discussion and thorough consideration before they come before the full ICOC. The Task Force has not met since November of 2008. Most of us who have been deeply involved in the here-to-fore exemplary public process that developed the IP regulations were under the impression that the consolidation effort was largely a technical exercise.

However, this proposed definition of Exclusive Licensee is a substantive change that fundamentally alters the IP regulations. It merits a full hearing and thoughtful discussion. Sadly it now appears that there is, for what reason I do not know, an effort to sneak this major change in policy through virtually unnoticed. If that is allowed to happen, it would be truly sad. Developing the IP policies had been one of CIRM’s most inclusive and transparent processes with all stakeholders represented at the table. This change would completely undermine all of those efforts.

Support for Public Health Care Option, but "Nyet" to Hoover

SACRAMENTO – The California stem cell agency appears to be on track to reject nearly all of the recommendations for improvements in its operations made by the state's good government agency, the Little Hoover Commission.

Meeting yesterday in a teleconference session, the directors' Legislative Subcommittee concluded its discussion of the Hoover report with a consensus “nyet” to the commission.

The panel earlier last month rejected the most sweeping recommendations, including reducing the size of the board of directors from 29 to 15 and trimming the powers of its chairman. The action was taken based on an opinion from the CIRM's outside counsel that the legislature could not make those changes.

Yesterday, the subcommittee went along (no vote was taken) with the CIRM staff response, which can be found here and here. The panel did agree to poll its scientific grant reviewers on whether they would resign if their statements of economic interests were made public. It also agreed to post vote tallies in the future by the board of directors on grant applications.

Art Torres, chairman of the subcommittee and a former state legislator, will prepare a report on the group's discussion and present it to the full board at its meeting Aug. 19-20 for ratification.

The Legislative Subcommittee, on a 6-3 vote, also expressed support for a public option in the national health care reform legislation. Director Jeff Sheehy, a UC San Francisco communications manager and AIDs activist, and Torres backed the effort.

Sheehy said access to health care and future stem cell therapies is critical to CIRM's mission. Duane Roth, co-vice chairman of the board of directors, opposed the endorsement, citing problems elsewhere in the world with government-run health care plans.

The endorsement will come before the full board at its meeting later this month.

Also meeting yesterday was the full CIRM board, again in a teleconference session, to discuss a proposal by President Alan Trounson connected to finding a replacement for Chief Scientific Officer Marie Csete, who has resigned.

Trounson plans to create a new vice president for research and development to enhance CIRM's engagement with industry. The title and additional responsibilities could also make it more appealing to possible job candidates.

Trounson's proposal does not require board approval but he is obviously taking care to ensure support from the CIRM board.

The plan hit a bump when Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, raised questions about reporting ambiguities in Trounson's organizational chart, which seemed to conflict with the reporting lines in the job description dealing with basic science research.

Sherry Lansing, chairperson of the Governance Subcommittee and former head of a Hollywood film studio, indicated that the plan seemed to justify the creation of a third VP. In that case, the executive director of scientific activities would be designated as a vice president.

In other action, the board added Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine, and Ted Love, a Bay Area biomedical businessman, to the newly created Evaluation Subcommittee. Levey was then elected chairman of the committee and Francisco Prieto, a Sacramento physician, vice chairman.

The full list of committee members can be found here, minus the Levey and Love additions.

For the record, we should note that some of the material for yesterday's two meetings was posted extremely late on the CIRM web site. One memo dealing with the Hoover report was not available at teleconference location in Sacramento, although it may have been posted on the Web at the time of the meeting. The staff's discussion draft of the Hoover report did not appear until the day before the meeting. Likewise for the organizational chart.

Lawmakers: CIRM Proposal for Affordable Access Not Good Enough

Thirteen California state lawmakers are calling on the California stem cell agency to tighten its proposed requirements for grants to business to ensure affordable access to state-financed therapies.

The lead authors on the letter are the influential chairs of the Health Committees in their respective chambers, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, D-Los Angeles. They criticized the intellectual property policy to be considered by CIRM directors Wednesday for having a "a weak and vague standard that is unlikely to result in any meaningful access for the uninsured to new stem cell drugs and therapies."

In a letter to CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, they urged that any access plans require CIRM approval and that CIRM regulations spell out specific access standards.

The lawmakers also said that the mechanism for affordable pricing should not be linked to a state law that can be repealed, "leaving no pricing requirement whatsoever in place."

The full text of the Dymally-Kuehl letter is below.

Text of Lawmakers Letter

Here is the full text of the letter from Sen. Sheila Kuehl and Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally and 11 other state lawmakers concerning affordable access to state-financed stem cell therapies.

Dear Mr. Klein:

Recent proposed regulations pertaining to intellectual property and revenue sharing requirements for for-profit grantees, dated November 24, 2007, contain some notable improvements over previous versions of the regulations but still have a number of troublesome provisions that we urge you to correct before these regulations are finalized.

We are pleased that the most recent regulations propose to require grantees to share 25 percent of the net licensing royalties they receive, the same percentage as is applied to grantees that are non-profit organizations. We are also pleased that the regulations have broadened the definition of “drugs,” for which grantees or their licensees would be required to meet benchmark pricing requirements, to include articles intended for use in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of disease or components thereof, including products such as blood, blood products, cells, and cell therapies. We are also encouraged that provisions dealing with blockbuster revenue sharing requirements for for-profit grantees have been made more flexible, to include cases where either prior or current CIRM funding and CIRM-funded patented inventions contribute to the creation of net commercial revenue in excess of $500 million.

We are disappointed, however, that the access requirements continue to require that access plans for uninsured Californians meet “industry standards at the time of commercialization.” This is a weak and vague standard that is unlikely to result in any meaningful access for the uninsured to new stem cell drugs and therapies. The proposed regulations actually take a step backwards from previous iterations, by allowing the access plans, themselves, to account for the “resources of the grantee or licensee”, an undefined phrase that will encourage grantees and licensees to limit access to these vital, but expensive new drugs and therapies.

Related to this, we see no provisions in the regulations requiring CIRM or the ICOC to actually approve the proposed access plans that are submitted, meaning that there would be no effective enforcement of the access requirements, vague and weak as they are. We think the regulations must spell out specific access standards, taking into account the best industry practices that currently exist, and to require CIRM and the ICOC to approve the access plans, with opportunity for public comment.

In addition, while we would prefer the benchmark pricing requirement for grantees and licensees to be the Medicaid price, we understand the desire of the CIRM and ICOC to link the pricing requirement to a California-based standard. While requiring that prices for stem cell drugs and therapies purchased with public funds must meet one of the three benchmark prices required by the California Discount Prescription Drug Program (Cal Rx) fulfills this, there is no guarantee that this particular program will exist in the future. As you know, the Governor blue-penciled start-up funding for the program in signing the 2007-08 budget. If the program were to be repealed, there would be no pricing requirement whatsoever in place. We strongly urge that the regulations deal with this potentiality by stating the benchmark prices will be those required by Cal Rx, or if it is no longer in effect, on the last day it was in effect.

We wish to commend you on the work the CIRM and ICOC have done to date on this important policy, and we strongly urge you to go further to ensure that the state, and the public, broadly, benefit from the patents, licenses, and royalties created as a result of the state’s funding, while at the same time promoting the development of stem cell therapies.

Sincerely,

SHEILA J. KUEHL
Chair, Senate Health Committee
MERVYN DYMALLY
Chair, Assembly Health Committee

Assemblymember Karen Bass
Senator Negrete McLeod
Assemblymember Patty Berg
Senator Darrell Steinberg
Assemblymember De La Torre
Senator Leland Yee
Assemblymember Noreen Evans
Assemblymember Mary Hayashi
Assemblymember Hernandez
Assemblymember Dave Jones
Assemblymember Sally Lieber

Looming Compromise on CIRM Legislation?

The California stem cell agency seems to be heading towards something of a partial compromise concerning legislation aimed at ensuring a fair return to the state on its $3 billion stem cell research effort.

The bill – SB771 –is now in the Assembly after passing the Senate on a whopping 38-0 vote. Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, chair of the Health Committee, and Sen. George Runner of Antelope Valley, one of the Republican leaders, are co-authors.

The legislation came up for discussion at a meeting late last month of CIRM's Intellectual Property Task Force. Duane Roth, a San Diego pharmaceutical company executive and member of the CIRM Oversight Committee, suggested a modification in sharing net license revenues from CIRM-funded inventions.

According to one Senate analysis:

"The proposed commercial regulations by CIRM require that 17 percent of licensing fees in excess of $500,000 be paid to the state, that three times the grant amount be paid for patented products supported by CIRM, and that the state be entitled to 1% of all revenues in excess of $500,000 for the life of a patent if CIRM provided support over $5 million.

This bill would, instead, require the CIRM regulations provide the state 25% of net licensing revenues resulting from supported research; grant exclusive licenses to firms intending to provide access to resulting therapies to uninsured Californians."

Roth proposed changing CIRM's commercial regulations, which are still being drafted, to 25 percent as in the bill instead of the previous 17.

Roth told the IP task force, according to the transcript:

"I don't think it matters that much to industry that's going to take CIRM money, have an invention, and then license to a third party, whether they keep 83 percent of the revenue or 75 percent. And the reason I'm bringing it up is...it's difficult to explain. It can be explained, but it's difficult. And I think the rationale behind it is the hardest part of the explanation."

Roth also said a change would indicate that CIRM is willing to meet Kuehl halfway on the bill.
A quorum was not present at the IP Task Force meeting, so the group did not take an official vote. But no opposition to the change was expressed. An official policy change would require a vote of the full Oversight Committee, which opposes SB771.

The IP meeting occurred before the measure passed the Senate on the 38-0 vote.

Also discussed at the Task Force meeting was another issue related to SB 771 – affordable access. CIRM has moved away from language linking access to Medicaid prices.

Scott Tocher, a CIRM attorney, outlined problems with the Medicaid price and the rationale for linking access to the California RX Discount program, whose regulations are being formulated by the California Department of Health Services.

Kuehl's bill would require licensees of CIRM-funded therapies to provide access at Medicaid prices to patients whose care is provided with public funds.

The Task Force transcript is expected to available online soon on the CIRM web site.

Kuehl to Lay Out CIRM Regulation

Details are scheduled to be disclosed on Friday concerning the latest California legislative foray involving the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

The bill will be carried by State Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Sacramento, chair of the Health Committee. Here is a legislative synopsis that was circulated on Thursday. It said the measure would:

"modify and strengthen current and proposed regulations that have been adopted by the ICOC by:

"Codifying requirements that grantees share 25 percent of net licensing revenues on inventions they develop, beyond a reasonable threshold that the CIRM may establish;

"Providing that grantees may only enter into exclusive licensing agreements with uentities that have plans the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) determines will provide significant access to resulting therapies, drugs, and diagnostics for uninsured Californians, rather than plans that merely meet 'industry standards.' 'Industry standards' could arguably include patient assistance plans currently utilized by most drug manufacturers, which have been shown to be inadequate in encouraging access to free or reduced price drugs by uninsured patients;

"Providing that grantees may only enter into exclusive licensing agreements with entities that agree to provide resulting therapies, drugs, and diagnostics to publicly funded health care programs in California at the best available prices, such as the federal Medicaid price;

"Ensuring that the state’s return from its grants to commercial entities for research or therapy development projects is commensurate with its level of investment and is not capped, as recently proposed by the ICOC. This is accomplished by requiring grantees to share 2 – 5 percent of revenues over the life of the product, depending on the level of state funds provided and the contribution made by state-funded patented inventions to the development of the product. An economic analysis commissioned during the campaign for Proposition 71 estimated that, based on the experience of universities and research institutions, the state could receive 2 – 4 percent of revenues on successful therapies and products developed with state funds, without any cap. Using these assumptions, the analysis concluded the state could receive $537 million to $1.1 billion in royalty revenues under Proposition 71.

"As you know, the ICOC has struggled since its inception with the development of standards to ensure a fair return to the state. A report commissioned by the ICOC in 2005 and completed in 2006 actually recommended that grantees not be required to share any revenues with the state. As a result of the introduction of legislation in 2006, the ICOC abandoned that recommendation."

Reporter Steve Johnson of the San Jose Mercury News prepared a story that said the measure by Kuehl and Sen.George Runner, R-Lancaster,

"would require firms that make products based on the institute's stem-cell grants to pay the state up to 5 percent of the product's lifetime revenues.
"Under a policy tentatively adopted on Dec. 7 by the institute, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the most a company would pay the state would be 1 percent of its product's revenue, plus 9 times the amount of the grant.

"Another provision of the bill is intended to insure that poor Californians can afford treatments developed from the institute's stem-cell grants. It would require that uninsured Californians have 'significant access' to the treatments and that any treatments purchased with public money be provided at federal Medicaid prices, which are typically discounted.

"By contrast, the institute's current policy requires companies to provide their treatments to the state 'consistent with industry standards,' which Kuehl argued could allow companies to charge excessively for the treatments.

"Under Proposition 71, bills affecting the institute's operations can only be passed with a 70 percent majority, which could make it tough to get the measure enacted. Nonetheless, Kuehl said voters were promised the program would generate significant financial returns to the state when they passed Proposition 71 in 2004. The measure authorizes the institute to spend about $300 million a year for 10 years on stem-cell studies. Moreover, she noted that the institute last week awarded its first stem-cell research grants.

"'This is extremely important,' said Kuehl, who chairs the Senate Health Committee. 'We have to nail this down now, because the first grants have gone out the door.'

"'The voters believed they were going to get some royalty or benefit from their dollars,' added Runner's spokeswoman, Becky Warren. 'We just want to make sure that occurs.'

"Dale Carlson, spokesman for the stem-cell institute, declined to comment in detail about the bill until he has a chance to read its language. He also said the agency's policy governing the amount the state receives from companies that receive stem-cell grants is still being revised.

"But Carlson emphasized the institute wants to ensure Californians have reasonable access to therapies developed through its grants and added, 'we look forward to having a continuing conversation with the legislature about these and other issues.'"

Kuehl has scheduled a news conference on Friday to discuss her measure.

Rationale Behind Kuehl's Stem Cell Legislation

The new chair of the California State Senate Health Committee will "push the CIRM to live up to its promises," including insuring that all Californians will have access to any therapies developed as the result of state-funded stem cell research.

So says the January newsletter put out by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica. The newsletter carried a piece by Peter Hansel, staff director of the Senate Health Committee, that discussed the California stem cell agency at some length, including needed changes. Hansel, it should be noted, also served as a Health Committee analyst when it was chaired by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, who is now out of office.

Hansel wrote that Kuehl disagrees with arguments that CIRM should should go easy in terms of royalty requirements and affordable access to cures and therapies. He noted that CIRM has adopted some IP rules that respond to legislative concerns. Hansel continued:

"However, regulations governing the pricing of stem cell therapies in California run counter to assurances given to the Legislature. While at first proposing that grantees and licensees sell such therapies to publicly funded programs at the federal Medicaid price, the CIRM has recently reduced that to a requirement to sell at the same prices they offer them to the state’s new California Prescription Drug Discount Program, a significantly less favorable price. Similarly, the regulations for grants and loans to commercial entities propose to cap the amount of revenues coming back to the state associated with most products developed with Prop. 71 funds, as opposed to giving the state an open-ended return commensurate with its investment. By contrast, New Jersey, which also allows commercial entities to receive grants under its stem cell research program, requires such grantees to share a percentage of revenues—one percent—on an open-ended basis from licensing or commercialization of inventions (two other states that fund stem cell research, Illinois and Connecticut, do not allow for-profit entities to receive funding while another two, Maryland and Illinois have yet to develop policies for grants to for-profits). Capping returns from joint research ventures also appears to run counter to the practices of most universities who co-fund research with commercial entities and the venture capital industry.

"In addition, recent changes require grantees to grant exclusive licenses for inventions they develop to entities that agree to have plans at the time of commercialization to provide access to resultant therapies and diagnostics for uninsured patients, consistent with 'industry standards,' The current industry standard, the patient assistance programs that have been developed by the major drug companies, have been shown to be woefully inadequate in encouraging access to free or reduced price drugs for uninsured persons. Thus, it is incumbent on the CIRM to develop a more meaningful standard than this."

calif legislation, IP, affordability, access, skuehl, phansel

Replacing Zach: A Chance to Weigh in on the Next President

If you want to lobby the California stem cell agency concerning its search for a new president, you can do it this month from locations ranging from Washington, D.C., to Chico in Northern California.

Those are two of the locations listed for remote, telephone access to the meeting of the CIRM presidential subcommittee on Jan. 31. The group plans to discuss criteria for selection of the replacement for Zach Hall, as well as the time table and the likely hiring of a presidential search firm.

The most interesting stuff, however, is likely to be discussed during an executive session following the committee's public musings.

Other remote locations are in Berkeley, La Jolla, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The exact addresses are available on the agenda.