Eleven Top Stem Cell Researchers Back Klein for Re-election

A who's who of California – if not global – stem cell science is lobbying directors of the state's $3 billion stem cell agency to go along with Robert Klein as its chairman despite the disclosure of his now failed, closed-door efforts to hand pick his successor.

The letter may not necessarily have its desired impact. One CIRM board member, David Serrano Sewell, said,

"Honestly, I'm not sure anyone really cares what they think, they should focus on research and finding cures, not dwelling on board matters."

The 11 signatories to the letter include two Nobel Prize winners, one of whom, David Baltimore, is a former member of the governing board of CIRM. All but one of them have tens of millions of dollars at stake in grants from the stem cell agency and are heavily invested in basic research, as opposed to translational efforts to push research into the clinic.

Irv Weissman of Stanford, one of the signers, for example, has $23 million in grants from CIRM. Another, Larry Goldstein of UC San Diego, holds $14 million in grants. Most of the institutions employing the scientists also have representatives on the CIRM board of directors. (For additional information on Goldstein's grant, see here.)

CIRM is currently involved in assessing the future direction of its research. Should it move more strongly towards business and actual use of stem cell therapies on patients, it is likely to mean that basic research will have a smaller share of CIRM's remaining $2 billion.

In the letter, the 11 said,

“In this regard, we stress, that our collective experience with the discovery of new approaches to the treatment of disease is that new solutions to currently intractable problems will come primarily from research that gives rise to new understanding of disease itself. On occasion, significant progress can also come from thoughtful application of existing knowledge, but either on its own is insufficient. Hence, it is crucial for the next ICOC Chair to have a deep understanding of both scientific and medical principles in order to balance short and long-term investment in stem cell research and clinical application.”

The group plumped for the proposal by Klein, a real estate investment banker, that he be replaced with a nationally known scientist. They said,

“We also enthusiastically support Mr. Kleinʼs proposal to find a successor who has substantial scientific and medical experience as well as personal familiarity with the burdens of disease.”

That requirement is not part of the legal qualifications for chair, which do include a familiarity with bond financing, which is the only source of CIRM funding.

The board meets Wednesday afternoon at Stanford to consider action on nominations for its chair. It does not actually have to vote, however. If it does not do so, Klein, whose term is expiring, would automatically continue in office.

One of our readers refreshed us on that last week after we wrote that Klein appears to be a shoo-in for re-election after the only other nominee, vice chairman Art Torres, said he was stepping aside for the good of the agency. Klein has offered to serve for 12 months without salary until the board picks a new chair. His decision to decline a salary (he now earns $150,000 for half-time work) apparently removes a conflict of interest and enables him to participate in board discussions about chair selection that he would be otherwise barred from. However, removal of his salary would require board action, which would seem to be an ongoing conflict for him, whether he wants the salary or not.

There is a remote possibility that another candidate for chair could surface. The state treasurer has not yet made a nomination. The state controller nominated Torres but could withdraw that nomination in favor of someone else. The governor and lieutenant governor have nominated Klein. The board's choice is limited by Prop. 71 to those nominated by the four state officials, but it does not have to accept any.

LA Times on CIRM Plans to Remain 'Relevant'

The changing focus of the California stem cell agency – with its aggressive push towards fast, tangible and marketable results and presumably away from its original emphasis on human embryonic stem cell research – was the focus of a Los Angeles Times article early last month.

The Jan. 10, 2010, piece by Karen Kaplan said,

“Now the institute has a more immediate goal: boosting therapies that are much further along in development and more often rely on less glamorous adult stem cells. It is concentrating its vast financial resources on projects that could cure conditions such as age-related macular degeneration, AIDS, sickle cell disease and various types of cancer.

“In shifting its focus, the agency is moving to fill a void known as the 'valley of death' -- a point at which projects are typically too commercial to vie for federal funds, yet too risky to entice private investors.

“This is how the agency -- with its constitutional mandate to invest $3 billion in stem cell research over 10 years -- plans to stay relevant as the state slashes billions from education, public safety, health and welfare programs to close a gargantuan budget hole.”

Kaplan's piece was more oriented towards the science of stem cells than the column this morning by Michael Hiltzik, also in the Los Angeles Times, which is California's largest newspaper with a readership of roughly of 1 million. Kaplan provided a contrast to Hiltzik, who took a more critical view, focusing on the public policy questions at the agency. Hiltzik's article also was an opinion piece as opposed to Kaplan's article, which was a news feature.

Kaplan, however, also wrote,

“Some scientists who study basic stem cell biology say the new emphasis on clinical trials is premature. They say many fundamental questions about stem cells still need to be answered, and diverting money from basic science means that revolutionary therapies -- still many years away -- will take even longer to materialize.

(CIRM President Alan) Trounson acknowledged that the shift has elicited 'a bit of a reaction from scientists' despite the institute's commitment to continue steering millions of dollars to basic biology. But, he said, the investments will have to produce actual therapies 'if we're going to be relevant to the community.'"

Not said was the need to provide real results that will help CIRM peddle its story in a few years to raise additional cash -- perhaps from the legislature, perhaps from private sources or both – when its 10-year bonding capacity runs out, possibly in 2017.

Also not discussed was the fact that the Prop. 71 campaign was almost entirely based on the need to fund human embryonic stem cell research. It is probably fair to say that the measure that created CIRM would not have passed had not then President Bush already imposed restrictions on the federal funding of hESC research.

Kaplan's article led with an anecdote involving research by Karen Aboody of the City of Hope, who has an $18 million grant from CIRM. Michael Friedman, the CEO of the City Hope, serves on the CIRM board of directors. His institution has received $37 million from CIRM. Also mentioned was Martin Pera of USC, a former colleague of Trounson's in Australia. Pera has received $6.4 million from CIRM. The dean of the USC medical school, Carmen Puliafito, serves on the CIRM board of directors. USC has received $71 million from CIRM.

CIRM directors are barred from voting on grants involving their institutions or even discussing the merits of those applications when they come up for approval. However, they do approve the concepts for all grants and control procedures for grant-making.