California Stem Cell Agency Approves $27 Million To Hasten Stem Cell Therapies

Efforts to speed development of stem cell therapies received a $27 million boost today from directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

They approved two initiatives that grew out of recommendations from a blue-ribbon panel that CIRM organized last year to review its operations.

One element in the plan is a $12 million "bridging fund" that would apply only to current CIRM-funded projects in three areas: disease team grants, some early translational projects and clinical development projects. The bridging fund would provide up to $3 million for up to one year for each recipient.

As originally proposed by CIRM staff, CIRM President Alan Trounson would have been authorized to approve each project. However, the board altered that process to require board approval with "peer review input."

Director Shlomo Melmed, a senior vice president at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, argued that leaving the decision to Trounson and staff could place Trounson in an "untenable" position and lead to second-guessing. Melmed and others also said that process could open the agency to public criticism.

Trounson and other staff members said that biotech firms often need speedier action than can be provided by a more extended process. Director Jonathan Shestack, a Hollywood producer, agreed, but he was the lone vote to oppose removing the authority from Trounson.

No biotech companies spoke out at the meeting concerning the proposal (see here for an earlier version of the plan).

The second part of the response to the review panel's finding is a $15 million "external innovation initiative" to support collaborative efforts of CIRM grantees to work with teams that CIRM said are "making extraordinary progress outside California."

The $15 million program would provide awards as often as two times a year. The maximum amount on each award was not specified. The program was approved on a unanimous voice vote.

Ellen Feigal, CIRM's vice president of research and development, said in a memo to directors that examples of potential projects included collaborative efforts with the NIH and work with the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and its disease-focused programs. CIRM is planning to spend $300,000 over two years in work with the NIH.

Some of the latest CIRM initiatives are open to biotech businesses. Others are open only to non-profit or academic researchers.

Researcher Alert: CIRM Readying $57 Million in New Opportunities

The California stem cell agency is proposing to pump $30 million into new research involving reprogrammed adult stem cells and another $27 million into fresh efforts to speed development of clinical therapies.

In a memo prepared for the CIRM directors meeting next week in Los Angeles, the agency's staff said the $30 million effort could generate "disease-in-a-dish models" that "have the potential to make drug discovery faster, more efficient and more personalized to individual patients."

The "disease-in-a-dish" plan was dubbed a "human pluripotent stem cell (hPSC) initiative" by the staff. The goal is to generate high quality stem cell-based tools for use by the researchers and drug developers.

The proposal includes four elements, one of which is collaboration with the NIH to develop cell lines from patients with Huntington’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. No cost was specified on that effort. Also recommended to directors was a $4 million disease line award round, a $16 million core hiPSC derivation round and a $10 million stem cell bank round. The RFAs would go out in May of next year with funding expected early in 2013.

The staff memo on the initiative did not mention human embryonic stem cells, but a spokeswoman for the agency said they were not excluded from the effort.

The other new grant proposals up next week grew out of a recommendations from a blue-ribbon panel that CIRM organized last year to examine its operations. One element in the plan is a $12 million "bridging fund" that would apply only to current CIRM-funded projects in three areas: disease team grants, some early translational projects and clinical development projects. The bridging fund would provide up to $3 million for up to one year for each recipient, if CIRM President Alan Trounson approves the project. Trounson would be assisted in his evaluation by staff and external consultants, if necessary.

The second part of the response to the review panel's finding is an "external innovation initiative" to support collaborative efforts of CIRM grantees to work with teams that CIRM said are "making extraordinary progress outside California."

The $15 million program would provide awards as often as two times a year. The maximum amount on each award was not specified.

Ellen Feigal, CIRM's vice president of research and development, said in a memo to directors that examples of potential projects included collaborative efforts with the NIH and work with the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and its disease-focused programs.

Some of the latest CIRM initiatives are open to biotech businesses. Others are open only to non-profit or academic researchers.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item did not include the sentence dealing with human embryonic stem cells.)

Researcher Alert: New Industry-Oriented Stem Cell Fund, Major Changes in Assessing Some Grant Applications

The California stem cell agency is proposing far-reaching changes in how it reviews its highest profile grant applications along with creation of a new, industry-friendly "opportunity fund" that would be kickstarted with $25 million.

Unfortunately, details of proposals were revealed too late publicly for meaningful comments from the scientists and businesses that would be most likely affected. The CIRM directors' Science Subcommittee will consider the proposals on Monday. The agency's plans were not laid out fully on its web site until Friday, in the case of the grant review changes, and yesterday for the new fund.

The grant review proposal involves major disease team and clinical trial research rounds. The plan would depart radically from the current peer review process and bring CIRM and potential investigators together early to work out issues and smooth the way for better applications and better results from the research.

The CIRM proposal said,

"These are complex grants requiring multidisciplinary expertise for execution, and a multidisciplinary group of external experts to review the applications."

Under the plan, the agency would hold a Q & A session with investigators prior to the application deadline. Investigator questions would be addressed and key categories of needed information discussed.

Peer reviewers would provide their assessments of the applications 14 days prior to the meeting of the grant review group along with a list of key questions and issues. Applicants would receive the questions 10 days in advance of the review session and would be asked to provide written responses.

Applicants would have a chance to address "pivotal questions" by telephone on the actual day of the review, but apparently only at the discretion of the review group. Some applications could be deferred until additional information is gathered.

CIRM said it believes the changes – aimed principally at dealing with "pivotal questions" – will improve the research and also facilitate timely review.

Creation of an opportunity fund was recommended by a blue-ribbon external review panel last fall. CIRM said its proposal would "attract industry participation through a funding mechanism that is more aligned with industry’s financing practices."

Under the the first phase of the fund, CIRM President Alan Trounson would have $25 million to help out select grant recipients: disease team and targeted clinical development projects and early translational projects that target a development candidate.

Called a bridge funding program, it would "enable uninterrupted funding of development activities (but not new patient enrollment) to occur until the next relevant RFA/review is offered," CIRM said.

The grants would limited to $5 million and one year. Recipients would be required to submit an application in the next applicable round.

The next phases of the opportunity fund would involve the following:

"...timely short-term one year funding to new projects where an external high impact research opportunity has been identified through an inventory of the research landscape, collaboratively partnered with a California researcher and the team is assembled and research is available for immediate implementation."

And

"...preclinical, first-in-man studies and Phase II studies for projects satisfying the accelerated review eligibility requirements and receiving GWG (grant review group) recommendation."

The public and interested parties can take part in tomorrow's discussions telephonically at locations in San Francisco, Healdsburg, Irvine(2), La Jolla and Stanford. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda. 

Monday's meeting calls for discussion of the grant review changes and the opportunity fund, which presumably means that they will be acted on at a later date by the committee. But if researchers or businesses want to help shape the proposals, they should listen in on Monday, make comments at the time or/and file written suggestions via email to CIRM following the meeting. Both written and oral comments are needed to have a maximum impact. 

Researcher Alert: Fresh Opportunities Looming for CIRM Cash

Drawing nearly all the attention nowadays at the California stem cell agency is selection of a new chairman, but real work is also going on.

That is not to underestimate the importance of the decision, but the trains still have to keep running at CIRM headquarters in San Francisco.

Next Monday, for example, the directors' Science Subcommittee will meet to consider matters that all potential grant applicants should be watching.

One involves a possible mechanism that could be used by some applicants to advance their cause with information not in the grant application. Its main purpose seems, however, to give reviewers a chance to dig deeper into a grant proposal. Another proposal before the committee would extend the more than $90 million "new faculty" grant program into another round. A third would create an "opportunity" fund controlled by the CIRM president. A blue-ribbon panel last fall recommended the idea.

No details were available on any of this on the CIRM web site as of Monday night, only four business days before the subcommittee meeting.

The agenda item on the grant application information was the most fulsome, but only said,

"Discussion of process for obtaining supplemental information from applicants for Clinical Trial and Disease Team grant rounds, including an opportunity to obtain information during Peer Review, subject to later staff confirmation, of additional information not presented in the application."

Even less information was offered up concerning the faculty program and the opportunity fund. However, in March , CIRM President Alan Trounson told CIRM directors,

"The Governing Board could create an 'Opportunity Fund' to be used by the President to rapidly provide continuation funds for projects identified by VP, R & D and members of the Clinical Advisory Panel as having been highly successful and their plan to move forward is compelling and competitive as assessed against defined criteria. This process would accelerate existing promising and competitive CIRM projects and reduce the amount of time spent writing proposals and in review. CIRM already has mechanisms to discontinue or cut back projects that are not making progress. This additional tool would allow CIRM to accelerate projects that are beating expectations."

Interested parties can participate in the discussion at telephonic locations in San Francisco, Irvine(2), La Jolla, Healdsburg and Stanford. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

CIRM Schedules Action on New Directions for May

Directors of the California stem cell agency last week curtailed discussion of recommendations for changes in the agency's direction, including stronger ties with the biotech industry, putting off the matters until their May meeting.

At last Thursday's meeting, CIRM President Alan Trounson quickly ran through his agency's response to the proposals last fall from a blue-ribbon panel commissioned by the agency. But other matters, including selection of a new chair, occupied the board's time.

CIRM's staff response to the commission did not contain specific implementation plans and was vague on some of the matters.

Art Torres, co-vice chair of the CIRM board, told directors that he would like to see directors vote specifically on the staff proposals regarding CIRM's international leadership role, improvement of communications and PR and movement away from traditional funding models (responses 3, 5 and 7 in the CIRM memo).

Director Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager at UC San Francisco, asked the CIRM staff to provide in May a "clear implementation path" for its proposals, including specific actions that the staff would like the board to take.

The recommendations will affect how CIRM allocates its remaining cash, including support for basic research versus grants and loans for efforts more focused on producing clinical therapies. The proposals could mean putting more cash behind research before the results have been "written up," in Trounson's words. The staff recommendations also could mean more cash for biotech firms, including grant rounds that would be limited to business applicants.

Commenting on involvement of biotech companies with CIRM, Trounson said,

"Companies sometimes don't know we are in this space. They all don't read our web site avidly."

He added,

"Clearly we're not meeting their needs."

CIRM Directors Moving on New Chairman and New Directions for Stem Cell Agency

Directors of the California stem cell agency are likely to settle this May on a new chairman of the $3 billion enterprise, replacing the man who has been the spirit behind the effort even before it was a gleam in voters' eyes.

The proposed timetable for election of a successor to Robert Klein, the first and only chair of CIRM, will come before directors at their meeting in Burlingame on Thursday.

Also on the agenda are far-reaching recommendations from CIRM management for new directions for the six-year-old, unprecedented state research program.

However, most attention is likely to be focused on the selection of Klein's replacement in a process that is proceeding more openly and orderly than last year's closed-door attempt by Klein to engineer the selection of his successor.

This week Klein offered his own view of the role of the chair in a new memo to board members, arguing for a person who would work on an 80 percent to 100 percent basis, presumably at a salary that could run to $500,000 a year. Klein, a real estate investment banker and lawyer, has worked without salary for most of his six-year term. In December 2008, the board designated his position as 50 percent with a $150,000 salary.

The directors' Governance Subcommittee last month recommended that the new chair work on an 50 to 80 percent basis, which could mean a salary in the range of $137,500 to $400,000. The subcommittee also recommended additional criteria for the new chair, which will come before the board on Thursday. Director Joan Samuelson added her additional thoughts for a global role for CIRM in a memo to the board.

The subcommittee backed away from making an immediate decision on delineation of responsibilities of the chair and president. Under Prop. 71, which created the stem cell research effort, the chair and president have overlapping responsibilities that have created friction in the past and generated criticism from the state's good government agency, the Little Hoover Commission.

Under the proposed timetable for selection of Klein's replacement, the board would provide the nominating state officials (governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer and controller) with recommended criteria, anticipated time commitment and salary range. The officials would be asked to make nominations by April 11. An evaluation subcommittee of directors would then conduct closed-door sessions with candidates. At the May 3-4 board meeting, candidates would make public presentations to directors with a possible final vote following. Klein has said he will serve only until the end of June.

Selection of the new chair will also be influenced by board decisions on implementation of the recommendations of last fall's external review report. Prepared by a blue-ribbon panel, the report recommended improved ties with the biotech industry, expansion of CIRM's international links and a more active role in seeking out promising research areas.

Some industry executives have been been critical of CIRM. Biotech businesses have received a tiny fraction of the $1.1 billion handed out so far by the agency.

CIRM management's response to the external report called for closer ties with industry, including formation of a special advisory panel and possibly twice-a-year RFAs specifically targeting industry. Management also proposed that some translational RFAs could require partnerships between academia and industry.

The management response additionally recommended reaching out to involve research elsewhere in the country. The 12-page memo said,

"When entities with promising new developments outside California are identified, CIRM will encourage them to partner with California institutions and apply to general or specific RFAs. The challenge is to find ways to pull projects under CIRM’s umbrella while staying within the spirit and regulations that govern the Institute."

Some of the management language in its memo is tentative, rather than flatly declaring that this or that task should be done, and does not require up or down votes by the board, if any votes are required at all. How the board responds to those suggestions will be critical in shaping future CIRM action.

The external review report also recommended clearer delineation of the responsibilities of the chair and president. The management memo appeared to agree but made no specific suggestions.

The blue-ribbon report recommended improvement in public awareness of the agency and its work. In response, the management memo, among other things, recommended hiring a public communications officer in the office of the chair, who would presumably operate independently from the current communications staff, which is under the president. CIRM already has a large public relations/communications effort, including outside consultants.

The management memo mentioned an "office of science education and communication" within CIRM that would enhance its public relations efforts. The memo said,

"The amount of effort required to produce continually renewed content cannot be under estimated."

In addition to the Burlingame location, the public can participate in the directors meeting at locations in Irvine and Los Angeles. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda. The meeting is also expected to be audiocast on the Internet.

Feeding the Well-fed: Will It Produce the Results CIRM Wants?

Knoepfler Lab Graphic

It's pretty easy to tell where the sweet stuff is going when it comes to the California stem cell agency.

Take a quick look at CIRM's list of grants and their recipients. Stanford, UCLA and UC San Francisco top the list with $437 million out of the $1.2 billion the agency has handed out so far.

The agency has not blessed its fans yet with a list of individual scientists and their totals, but it would be a fair guess to say that the already shining stars of stem cell research are taking home most of the cash. Of course, there are notable exceptions to the magnetic attraction of the big guys and their academic homes.

The question arises, however: Is this really the best way to produce cures and develop breakthrough science? It is also a question that can be raised in connection with the NIH and other sources of funding for scientific research.

Feeding the already well-fed can mean starvation or least malnourishment of challengers who have fresh ideas that may not fit with the prejudices of the mainstream. And some of those challengers are likely to crack difficult issues and find solutions that have eluded those who may appear to be frontrunners.

This subject – sometimes called a positive feedback loop, otherwise known as "Them That Has Gets" – popped up in an item yesterday on the blog of UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler, a beneficiary of CIRM largess. The title of his item is "Stem cell monopoly: do not pass go, do not collect $200,000."

Without mentioning names of funding agencies, he dissects the general grant-making process and comes up with a recommendation for a change to create more bang for the taxpayer dollar, whether it comes from California or the NIH. Knoepfler wrote that the current system

"...is inherently biased to reward scientists who already have funding with more funding. It also rewards institutions that already have a lot of funding with even more funding.

"Any given grant application as a whole is viewed through the filter of who the applicant scientist is and where they are doing the research. This bias tends to concentrate research funding, giving certain people and places a disproportionate share of funding. 

"So one might ask 'if these scientists and institutions are the best, doesn’t it make sense that they should get more funding?'  The simple answer might be 'yes,' but if you dig deeper you realize that for the stem cell research field as a whole, the answer is 'no.'"

Knoepfler continued,

"Someone once said 'there is no monopoly on good ideas.' This is certainly true in the stem cell field and there is no monopoly on good science either. Well-funded people and places may have the best grantsmanship, but do not necessarily have the best ideas and are not necessarily the best equipped to do the science. Even so, funding agencies create an environment where certain institutions are rewarded with so much funding that virtual monopolies are created. In so doing the funding agencies end up with less diverse portfolios and lower their impact on the field."

Knoepfler argued that the first dollars make the biggest impact and that their effect drops sharply as a grant moves into its later years, a position that one scientist agreed with in a comment on the blog using himself as a case in point.

Knoepfler suggested a funding philosophy that would tilt towards greater "funding impact" as opposed to continuing to stuff the coffers of the already well-off.

Knoepfler's piece drew some interesting reaction on his blog. One person said Harvard and Stanford receive all the cash because they "are simply better and deserve more funding. Period." One reader, "WTF," went to the CIRM list that shows Stanford, UCLA and UC San Francisco at the top. But WTF went further and noted the next 11 institutions altogether have not received as much funding as the top three.

In the next few months, directors of the California stem cell agency will take up suggestions from the agency's external review panel that called for greater risk-taking and movement away from the traditional funding models. The issues raised by Knoepfler – who certainly reflects the thinking of many others in the field – deserve some careful examination during that process.

Two State Agencies Looking Into CIRM Tomorrow and Friday

This is a busy week for the California stem cell agency, but not all the action is in Burlingame where CIRM board convenes tonight for a preliminary round, followed by the main event tomorrow.

Two other state bodies will be looking at CIRM at meetings in Los Angeles and Sacramento. One of the panels is the only entity specifically charged with oversight of the $3 billion agency's finances. That is the Citizens Financial Accountability Oversight Committee(CFAOC), which convenes in Los Angeles on Friday. The second group is the state's good government agency, the Little Hoover Commission, which recommended in 2009 a number of changes at CIRM to improve its operations and transparency.

On tap for the CFAOC is a look at implementation of the first-ever law passed dealing with the Golden State's unprecedented $3 billion research effort. The measure, SB1064, removes a 50-person cap on the agency's staff, allows for compensation of up to $15,000 a year for some patient advocates serving on the CIRM board and requires the agency to commission the first-ever performance audit of its program.

The CFAOC is chaired by the state's top fiscal officer, Controller John Chiang. An early version of SB1064 contained a provision, supported by Chiang, that would have had the CFAOC commission the performance audit. But CIRM successfully lobbied to take the audit out of the hands of the CFAOC. You can expect questions to be raised during the Friday meeting about the progress of CIRM on setting up its audit.

Also likely to come up is the subject of staffing, particularly in connection with sweeping recommendations by CIRM's external review that would seem to require substantial additional staff.

A new member of the CFAOC, Jim Kovach, former head of the Buck Institute, is expected to be sworn in. Kovach was appointed by CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, whose last appointee to the panel attended one meeting last January and then quit. Kovach is a physician, a lawyer and former professional football player with the San Francisco 49ers and the New Orleans Saints.

You can find a host of budget and other financial documents related to the meeting on the CFAOC website.

The agenda for the Little Hoover Commission says only that a "scoping memo" involving CIRM will be presented to the full commission tomorrow afternoon in Sacramento. The commission staff has not elaborated on just exactly what that means although it comes under the subject of "schedule/project selection."

As for tonight's meeting of the CIRM directors' Governance Subcommittee, you can read about that here. The full board meeting that begins tomorrow morning was subject as well of a number of earlier piecesl on the California Stem Cell Report. (See here, here, here, here and here.) For those of you following those items, the agency still has not posted any information about the cost or scope of its proposal to pay for the attendance of perhaps hundreds of persons at an international stem cell conference in Toronto in June.

California Stem Cell Agency Expanding Staff, Looking for a Few New Hires

Beginning Jan. 1, the California stem cell agency is expected to start bringing aboard a number of new employees as the 50-person cap on staff is lifted by a new state law.

One of those persons is expected to be a special projects coordinator who reports directly to CIRM President Alan Trounson. The post has a salary that that tops out at $224,536.

The new position has a wide range of duties including: development of new initiatives for CIRM, meetings with the biotech industry, academia and government officials, writing strategic documents and white papers on key initiatives, negotiations on critical projects, preparation of documents for the public and monitoring scientific developments.

One of the specific projects mentioned in the job description seems to be linked to a recommendation this fall from a blue-ribbon panel that called for CIRM to reach out to find promising, out-of-state endeavors that could be lured to California. The description described one project for the new hire like this:

“Identification of international new and rapidly evolving basic and applied research programs that may be linked to or introduced into the CIRM Californian biotech and academic research environment.”

Trounson is looking for someone with a Ph.D. in a biomedical science with a preference for some who also has a law degree and/or an MBA.

CIRM has additionally posted openings for science officers and grants management specialists. Still open is the new position of vice president for research and development, although that job description is not posted on CIRM's Web site. The job has been vacant for about 18 months.

Trounson on Recommendations of Blue-ribbon Reviewers

CIRM President Alan Trounson was generally pleased today with the report and recommendations of a  blue-ribbon panel that reviewed the $3 billion stem agency's effort.

He made a presentation to the board at its meeting today in Irvine that was a bit truncated in the Internet audiocast. However, you can find a summary of his remarks (Power Point style) here. The bulleted points are his response.

Trounson was principally responsible for the selection of the members of the panel and orchestrated the three-day October review, which was conducted almost entirely behind closed doors.

CIRM Press Release on External Review Report

The California stem cell agency today posted a press release on the report and recommendations  by a blue-ribbon review panel that were discussed today at an Irvine meeting of its board of directors. The release contains quotes from both reviewers and board members. You can find it here.

CIRM Directors Probe New Directions for Stem Cell Agency

Directors of the California stem cell agency have just finished hearing the formal presentation of the report from the blue-ribbon review panel that recommended a strong push towards developing therapies and engaging the biotech industry, which has complained about its treatment by CIRM.

The directors took a short break and are scheduled to reconvene shortly. Some members of the public are expected to present statements.

CIRM directors this morning questioned the panel about engaging industry, improving communications  and proposals by the panel to reach out to find research any place in the world that could lead to therapies. Board members indicated that sort of "proactive" effort could be difficult given that CIRM funding is restricted to California. Review panelists said various kinds of collaborative efforts could be used without running afoul of the funding restrictions.

On relations with the biotechindustry, Alan Bernstein, head of HIV Global Vaccine Enterprise of New York and chairman of the review panel, said the group had "heard a lot of things from industry about things not working." He said,

"CIRM's management has to start talking with industry in a meaningful two-way dialogue."

CIRM Director Leeza Gibbons, a Hollywood entertainment figure and patient advocate, had a suggestion on improving recognition of CIRM among the California public. "We all want and need heroes," she said. Creating emotional connections is the way to win the hearts of the people, she said.

During its three-day review in October, members of the panel had wondered why the stem cell agency attracted so little attention in the mainstream media in California, a problem that relates as much, if not more,  to the nature of the state of the media as it does to CIRM.

Bernstein said greater use of patient advocates was important in communicating with the public, a suggestion that dovetailed into Gibbons' comment.

The panel reiterated its recommendation that the board should focus on strategic matters and clarify the conflicting roles of chairman and president, a longstanding problem created by the language of Prop. 71. 

Scientist George Daley of Harvard, one of the review panel members, said, "CIRM is in unique position" in the world "...because it has a bully pulpit, because it has tremendous influence."
He suggested that CIRM might want to assemble a "rapid strike force" to review outstanding research opportunities in the world to figure out how California can play a role.

Stem Cell Chairmanship Flap Draws Major Media Coverage

The ruckus over selection of a new chairman for the California stem cell agency this morning drew the rare attention of the Los Angeles Times, the state's largest circulation newspaper.

And it wasn't the kind of attention that CIRM is looking for.

Reporter Jack Dolan mentioned a “possible conflict of interest” involving Alan Bernstein, a candidate backed by outgoing chairman Robert Klein, and said Bernstein could become “one of the highest paid employees in state government.” The position of CIRM chairman carries a salary with a top range of $529,000.

Dolan reported that state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a longtime colleague and friend of another candidate for chair, Art Torres, has decided not to nominate anyone because of misgivings about Bernstein.

Dolan quoted Tom Dresslar, Lockyer's spokesman, as saying,

"He just doesn't have enough information to alleviate his concern about Mr. Bernstein's role in crafting the (recent external review) report.”

Dolan's article raised the conflict question in connection with completion of the report, which Dolan described as “glowing.” Bernstein chaired the panel, which included seven other persons. Presumably the conflict would arise if some sort of quid pro quo existed for generating a favorable report.

Dolan quoted Klein, a strong supporter of Bernstein, as saying,

"It would be quite a compliment to the agency if someone who has done such a thorough review of the agency, and has talked to everyone involved, would accept the nomination to be chair."

Dolan did not include in his story Klein's Portola Valley plan to install Bernstein as an executive chair.

The board is expected to take up the chairmanship election later this month, although it doesn't have to vote on any of the candidates. It has a variety of options: One would be to pass on all the candidates, choose an interim chairman, let the dust settle and make a final choice in a month or two.

The Los Angeles Times has rarely reported about activities of the California stem cell agency over the last six years. Dolan recently wrote an overview assessment of the agency that has attracted national attention. His article has ricocheted around the Internet as fodder for critics of hESC research and persons concerned about what they perceive to be unnecessary government spending.

Nature Reports on CIRM External Review and Industry Reaction

“Positive review for California stem cell agency” – that's the headline on the Nature magazine's Web site concerning the assessment of CIRM by a blue-ribbon panel.

The piece by Alla Katsnelson began:

"The first comprehensive external review of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) has come to overwhelmingly positive conclusions about the state stem cell agency’s progress. But some in the biotech community continue to grumble that the agency, which began operations in 2006(sic), is focusing too much on basic research rather than fulfilling its mandate of taking stem cell therapies from bench to bedside."

The Nature article noted that the report recommended more engagement with industry. Katsnelson then wrote,

"But some say that many of these things should already have been done. 'You’ve got to remember, their whole mandate is commercialization,' says Bill Caldwell, CEO of Massachusetts-based(sic) stem cell company Advanced Cell Technology (ACT). What the agency should have done, he says, is identified 3-5 potential therapies that were “low-hanging fruit' in terms of clinical development. 'Let’s get those through and into the clinic so that we can demonstrate to the world that the [human embryonic stem cell] platform has value,' he says.

"Also, Caldwell notes, the agency should already have called for project proposals that tackle some technical areas that need work, such as techniques for the cryoprotection of cells, as well as methods to coax cells into dividing more rapidly. 'These are commercial issues that can help these products move into the market,' he says."

Nature also quoted an item from this Web site.

"A commenter to the California Stem Cell Report blog, identified as 'an executive/scientist from a California biotech firm who must remain anonymous,' echoed Caldwell’s sentiments. 'If CIRM was to hold true to its promise to deliver products in 10 years, then it needed to start translational activities immediately and not building infrastructure for already rich universities like Stanford, who enjoy $10B plus endowments,' the commenter wrote."

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly carried Caldwell's first name as Bob not Bill.)

Biotech Exec Says CIRM Review Misguided, Biased and Disservice to Public

Last week the blue-ribbon panel reviewing the programs at the $3 billion California stem cell agency released its report. We carried an item on the group's recommendations and asked for comment from our readers, promising to carry them verbatim. The following was submitted by an exective/scientist from a California biotech firm who must remain anonymous.

“The review by the external panel is nothing short of froth and it is disingenuous in its honesty towards Californian citizens, who are funding CIRM. The review board was composed of academics and lacked industry experts. The review board continued to suggest focusing on basic research, which is what led to CIRM's current disastrous state in the first place. If the architects of CIRM initially sold the public on the idea that stem cells will deliver products that reduce the healthcare burden within 10 years, and the average drug development process from entry into IND-enabling phase to completion of phase III takes 10 years, then the focus on CIRM from the start should have been on funding game changing translational projects as well as programs that are entering the IND phase. The board is completely misguided in its recommendations and this is not at all a surprise considering its bias. Moreover the board is asking CIRM to fund outside of California research, and this is ridiculous. CIRM is not NIH, and even NIH is perceived to mismanage public dollars and has been scrutinized for its extremely poor translational output to date. Why would we the public of California wish to adopt a broken model and subsidize non-California research with California dollars?

“The external review board should be filled with industry leaders, all of which should come from within the state. California is the birthplace of the greatest biotechs in the world (Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, amongst many others), and yet CIRM refuses to leverage this asset and instead recruits unqualified (in the business realm) academics who have generated very few if any commercial products in their lifetime of work. This is disgraceful and has been a complete waste of $3B of taxpayer dollars. If CIRM was to hold true to its promise to deliver products in 10 years, then it needed to start translational activities immediately and not building infrastructure for already rich universities like Stanford, who enjoy $10B plus endowments. Let Stanford spend from their endowment to build its infrastructure goals, not California's public dollars. This is a complete fraud architected by CIRM insiders, and it will all implode under this failed strategy of making CIRM serve as a funding buffer for drying NIH dollars.

“CIRM’s job is not become a global stem cell leader. Its job is to fund commercialization of stem cell-based technologies that can reduce suffering of Californians. Its job is not to fund basic science. Its job is to focus on translation. Its job is not look to fund research outside of California, as this is 100% California dollars.

“Moreover, the board told an executive attending the meeting during an exchange, that CIRM will not be able to deliver on its promises and it is in trouble. The board shared that it should forget about ever reaching that goal, as there will not be any products coming in 5 years as originally promised to California citizens. Yet, this alarming reality is not reflected in the comments, showing how dishonest and filtered this review report truly is. It is a disservice to the public to lie to them. I am appalled and disgusted by the whole thing to be quite frank, and feel the entire CIRM body needs to be completely overhauled.

“The public would better be served if we treated CIRM as an early stage regenerative medicine focused venture capital firm, since the limited partners (LPs) are the public citizens, and they expect the same return on investment in the same horizon (10 yrs) as what is expected by LPs that invest in venture capital, and have to endure the same risks. Life science VCs do not invest in infrastructure, they do not invest in university programs at the clip of 97%, if at all. They invest in people within corporate structures that have the intellect and talent and experience to bring products to market that solve unmet medical needs, and deliver value over current products. This is not rocket science.”

New Directions for CIRM? Closer Links with Industry, Aggressive Search for Innovation, Better Communication

The $3 billion California stem cell agency has done an “extraordinary” job so far, a blue-ribbon review panel said today, and should expand its efforts internationally, create closer ties with the biotech industry and perform triage on its existing portfolio of research grants.

The panel's 19-page report said that the agency now stands at a critical point as its first and only chairman, Robert Klein, is departing, and as it moves more aggressively into development of clinical applications.

The panel encouraged CIRM to seek out innovative projects, even from out-of-state and bring them to California, instead of merely posting requests for grant applications. Industry needs to play a much larger role in funding, the panel said, and it urged changing grant review processes to meet industry needs. “Considerable obstacles to industry engagement remain,” echoing a view stated by biotech firms for past several years. (See here and here.)

The eight-member panel was recruited by CIRM and conducted three days of mostly closed door hearings orchestrated by the agency in San Francisco in October. It was convened as part of the agency's strategic planning process. The panel was not asked to measure CIRM's current results against the campaign promises made in 2004 when voters created the program.

The 29-member CIRM board will discuss the report at its meeting Dec. 8 in Irvine. The subject could come up as early as next Wednesday at a meeting of the directors' Governance Committee.

One recommendation dealt directly with the board itself and the overlapping responsibilities of the chairman and president of the agency, which have been troublesome in the past. Noting that the board has had a “very hands-on approach” during the past six years, the panel's report said.

“We believe this is an appropriate time for the Governing Board to examine its role and composition, mindful of the legal reporting, fiduciary and accountability requirements of the state of California. With the imminent stepping down of the founding Governing Board Chair and CIRM visionary Mr. Robert Klein, it is imperative that the roles and responsibilities of the Governing Board Chair and CEO positions remain distinct but complementary to ensure the continued positive, collaborative partnership between these two key individuals. There should be clarity of the roles and responsibilities of the Governing Board Chair and CEO as it pertains to CIRM’s strategic directions, its policies, international partnerships, funding decisions, public communications and oversight.”

The panel also recommended improvements in CIRM's public relations and education efforts. The panel said,

"(It) strongly encourages CIRM to significantly increase both the quality and breadth of its community outreach and education programs. The objective should be to ensure state-wide visibility and awareness of the contributions that California is making to the global research effort and to create opportunities for Californians to be informed about advances in the research, and to engage in dialogue with the scientific and clinical community about the benefits, limits and resulting guidelines for this exciting area of biomedicine."

Such an effort is all the more important if CIRM is to win approval of the  new, multibillion dollar bond measure that Klein is touting.

The panel had strong praise for CIRM's program so far, particularly since the agency was operating with a staff of less than 50. “Remarkable” and “extraordinary” were a couple of the adjectives. The report said,

“CIRM has built significant additional research capacity in the state, has attracted scores of talented young people to stem cell research, and has catalyzed large and important stem cell projects across the state. The (panel) was most impressed with this rapid start up, the overall quality of the scientists and projects that have been funded, the development of major buildings and other facilities for stem cell research, the forging of several important international partnerships and the innovative training programs that are in place.”

The panel warned that some patient advocate groups might have to lower their expectations as the result of the grant triage, which it called “portfolio prioritization.” The report said,

“While the (the panel) appreciates the natural wishes of disease groups to move forward on particular diseases or conditions, CIRM’s Governing Board, guided by management and external advisors, must begin the difficult process of focusing the number of disease areas to those that it believes have the greatest chance of development progress and clinical success, given reasonable timelines and budget. Attempting to move forward across too broad a front might compromise moving forward on any disease. Undoubtedly, these will be difficult decisions....”

Backers of basic science might also find some reason to be concerned about the emphasis on funding development of clinical applications. However, the report said,

"We strongly encourage CIRM to continue to invest in the research programs, intellectual infrastructure, training and development necessary to advance the understanding of stem cells."

On the international front, the panel said CIRM's efforts should be expanded into non-stem cell areas that could support CIRM's mandate. The agency should "sharpen the focus on meaningful, targeted excellence required for global leadership in the development of innovative treatments based on regenerative medicine."

You can find a list of all the reports recommendations here.

The California Stem Cell Report is interested in hearing from readers about their views on the panel's recommendations and conclusions. You can post them directly by clicking on the word “comments” or you can email them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. We will post them verbatim. We encourage writers to identify themselves but anonymous comments are permitted.

Recommendations for CIRM from Blue-ribbon Panel

Here is a list of the recommendations of the blue-ribbon panel concerning the California stem cell agency.

• Build on CIRM’s previous and ongoing investments
• Sharpen the focus on meaningful, targeted excellence required for global leadership in
the development of innovative treatments based on regenerative medicine
• Sustain a vigorous program of fundamental discovery while, at the same time, make
critical choices in translating results from the laboratory to the clinic
• Transition to a much more proactive strategy of funding that aligns CIRM’s peer review
and other processes with its mandate of delivering new treatments to the clinic
• Adopt a porous approach to strategic opportunities, scanning the global environment for
scientific advances that have the potential to enrich CIRM’s portfolio
• Prioritize the investment portfolio, with input from CIRM’s diverse stakeholders
• Build on and expand CIRM’s current international strategy, continuing to develop strategic
international partnerships that will create both scientific and financial synergies
• Assume a global leadership role in addressing not just the scientific, but also the
economic, regulatory, ethical and health delivery issues associated with stem cell
research and regenerative medicine
• Expand engagement with the healthcare industry and explore innovative partnerships that
will catalyze the movement of research from the laboratory to the clinic
• Increase greatly public awareness within the state and internationally of CIRM’s progress
on all fronts of regenerative medicine and the potential and realized health and economic
benefits , through outreach via patient advocacy groups, grantees and their host
institutions, conferences and the internet
• Clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Governing Board and senior management and
specifically between the Governing Board Chair and President in order to maximize the
likelihood of success of CIRM’s mission

How Fast Should the Stem Cell Agency Spend its Remaining $1.6 Billion?

Directors of the California stem cell agency will give away more than $80 million this week and wrestle with the question of what to do with their remaining $1.6 billion and how fast to spend it.

The $1.6 billion is a new figure for the public. Previously it was assumed the agency had $2 billion left, having committed $1 billion in awards. However, $2 billion figure did not include operational expenses, such as interest, legal costs and $180 million for administration through 2016.

The CIRM board is not likely to make a final decision on its strategic spending plan at the meeting Wednesday and Thursday in Los Angeles and at UCLA. Directors will have more information to work with in December when they consider the report of CIRM's external review panel, which conducted three days of hearings last week. The public was barred from most of those proceedings, and there are few clues concerning the direction of the blue-ribbon panel's recommendations.

Here are links to key documents on CIRM's future spending scenarios: Projected cash flow, memo on cash flow and more projections.

Also before the board are applications for $80 million for early translational research. Three applicants whose proposals were rejected by reviewers have filed petitions seeking to reverse the decisions. They are Sophie Deng of the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA, Leif Havton, also of UCLA and Frederick Meyers and Kit Lam of UC Davis. (You can find their appeals by clicking on their names.)

The appeal process itself, which has troubled the board for several years, may also be modified this week. A proposal that would formalize a process for sending grants back to reviewers for additional examination is on the table. The staff information on the plan said,

“When a material dispute of fact exists and the Board is unable to resolve the issue at the meeting at which the application is considered, the Board may conditionally deny funding for the application, subject to a limited analysis of the factual issue or issues identified by the Board. The option for additional analysis is not a reconsideration of the application as a whole, but is limited to consideration of the issue or issues identified by the Board. This option should be reserved only for those circumstances in which the Board is unable to reach a decision at meeting at which the application is presented because of the factual dispute or question. Programmatic issues, such as whether the agency’s portfolio is well-balanced among diseases, should not be a justification for additional analysis, nor should clear errors in the review of an application that have been identified by staff and presented to the Board during the meeting at which the application is considered.”

Also before the board is CIRM's second recruiting grant to a scientist, as yet unidentified. It would provide $4.9 million to the “mid-career neuroscientist” in addition to incentives provided by the recruiting institution. The reviewer summary said,

“Reviewers characterized the PI’s research vision and plans as truly innovative, novel, ambitious, and important. The research focus on devastating and currently incurable blinding diseases was viewed as highly significant, with a potential to revolutionize the field. Reviewers were confident that the PI’s research would contribute to both the critical basic science and preclinical advances that will underlie novel therapies.”

Other items before the board include a proposal to spend $600,000 to provide seed money for an online, open-access journal for translational stem cell research, and changes in the loan administration policy. Most of the changes appear to be a straight-forward clarification of language that removes questions by business, which is the target of the loan program that was once described as a $500 million effort.

Missing from the proposed changes is one dealing with automatic forgiveness of loans to businesses under specified conditions. It appears to be connected to an application from iPierian, Inc., in the early translational round. However, the changes would apply to all loans to businesses and remove financial ambiguity that could be a stumbling block for some enterprises.

The changes came before the Finance Subcommittee last week, but some board members raised questions about them. Plus the panel did not have a quorum and could not legally act. The Finance Subcommittee has scheduled a meeting for Oct. 26 to consider the proposal again. It would then go to a special teleconference meeting in the board, if necessary.

CIRM has not provided a link to the loan forgiveness changes in the Oct. 26 agenda, but they can be found in a document here.

The public will be able to participate in the CIRM board meeting this week at teleconference locations in Washington, D.C., and Pleasanton in Northern California. The meeting can be heard on the Internet as well, but that audiocast does not permit participation.

Specific locations and instructions for the audiocast can be found on the agenda.

CIRM Poetry Kerfuffle Attracts More Publicity

The flap over the California stem cell agency's poetry contest continues to draw attention with the most recent coming yesterday on the widely read Huffington Post blog.

An item by John Lundberg, who describes himself as a poet, teacher and a former Wallace Stegner Fellow at Stanford, said the use of “language considered sacred by most opponents of stem cell research in order to promote the research is, well, provocative.”

Lundberg's item drew a wide range of comments from readers. One said the $3 billion stem cell agency was “cowardly” for pulling the offending poem and apologizing. Another said,

“Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of a human embryo - a living being that, if not destroyed, becomes a human being. Fact, not opinion.”

Last week, The Associated Press also picked up the story. The news service reaches into news outlets internationally, although it is not clear whether the story was distributed that widely. Accounts of the flap have also appeared elsewhere on the Internet, mainly on sites devoted to opposition to hESC rsearch.

Is this affair a plus or minus for the stem cell agency? The controversy has raised somewhat the visibility of the stem cell agency. However, generally the agency is more inclined to seek favorable mention of its research efforts, which this poem and subsequent publicity do not. The agency's action actually energizes opponents, who see it as a validation of their hostile views of CIRM. If the agency has slipped below the horizon of some opponents, it reminds them they still have a significant foe lurking out there who needs to be dealt with. The pluses, if any, are neglible.

Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM and one of the judges of the poetry contest, took issue last week with our characterization that the poetry contest was not worth the effort under any circumstances. He pointed to articles on the Los Angeles Times and USA Today Web site that were published prior to the controversy as worthwhile mentions of CIRM. Gibbons faulted us for not mentioning them.

Last week, the public sessions of the external review of CIRM highlighted, however, the need for the agency to focus on its higher priorities. Reviewers said more than once that they were concerned about the “bandwidth” and size of staff at CIRM compared to its ambitious goals.

Our take: Handing out prizes for poetry probably is not one of the essential tasks for CIRM's small staff.

Final Wrap-up for Blue Ribbon Review of California Stem Cell Agency

SAN FRANCISCO – The blue-ribbon panel reviewing the operations of the $3 billion California stem cell agency is wrapping up its on-site sessions today and framing the general outlines of what it wants to say.

The panel conducted a final, one-hour public comment session that attracted only one person – yours truly. The bulk of this week's hearings were conducted behind closed-doors and were orchestrated by CIRM.

I presented a statement which can be found below and answered questions for about 20 minutes.

The panel plans to have a report ready for the December meeting of the CIRM board, where the public will have an opportunity to respond. Hopefully, the stem cell agency will post the report at least two business weeks prior to the board meeting. That will provide ample time for all interested parties to prepare thoughtful comments and plan to attend the meeting, if they so desire.

Here's the statement.

Statement to CIRM External Review Panel Oct. 15, 2010