California Stem Cell Agency Opens Live Internet Access to Key Subcommittee Meetings for First Time in 12 Years

Highlights
Move Opens Door to More Public Participation
Major Policy Sessions to be Available
Tuesday Meeting Involves Hundreds of Millions in Grants

With no fanfare, California's $3 billion stem cell agency is making a significant step forward in openness and transparency regarding the dealings of its governing board, which operates outside of the control of the governor and legislature.

Next Tuesday’s meeting of the directors’ Science Subcommittee will be available live for the first time -- for all practical purposes -- on the Internet and as an audiocast, including access to presentations that are used at the meeting. The agency intends to allow public access for other directors' subcommittee meetings as well.

The move appears to be patterned after action by state Treasurer John Chiang, whose office holds many public meetings involving sometimes billions of dollars.  Last summer he added an audiocast feature to treasurer’s meetings.

A spokesman for the treasurer told the California Stem Cell Report last summer that Chiang wanted to enhance public access and to “increase public participation in and increase awareness of the many boards, commissions and authorities" that he chairs. The treasurer’s office said the cost was much less than $100 a session.

Tuesday’s stem cell audiocast follows procedures of the full board but never applied to other meetings of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, as the agency is formally known.

Last month, the stem cell agency attempted to provide an audiocast, which are also available for later listening, of a subcommittee meeting. However, the audiocast was not accessible for subsequent public use. The problem seemed to be a technical glitch because the agency said that it could be heard when CIRM staffers logged in.

Generally subcommittee meetings of the board rarely attract attendees from the public or the scientific community. However, major policy and scientific initiatives are discussed in more detail than at full board meetings. Suggestions for changes in proposals are more likely to be accepted in a subcommittee than at full board meetings, where proposals are ratified, usually without much discussion.

At next Tuesday’s meeting, for example, the Science Subcommittee is scheduled to act on new rules that will involve hundreds of millions of dollars in grants. Hundreds of California scientists engaged in basic and translational research as well as the progress of their efforts are likely to be affected. Educational training awards will also see new rules.

A memo to the subcommittee from Gabriel Thompson, director of grants management, said that the proposed rules are “designed to attract more high quality applications, reduce the cycle time from application to project start, accelerate progression of funded projects and provide for more efficient administration of the projects.”

One of the proposed changes appears to give the agency more power to pull the plug on research when it is not progressing satisfactorily by agency standards. The new rules would affect use of grant funds that are not spent by the end of the research. Past performance of grantees would also be established as a criteria for future funding.

Interested parties can find directions for logging into the Internet and audiocast on the meeting agenda. Some set-up may be required so it is best to check in advance the instructions on the agenda. 

The meeting will be based at the agency’s new headquarters in Oakland and is open to the public there. Teleconference locations where the public can speak to the committee as well as listen are available in Los Angeles and La Jolla. Addresses can be found on the agenda.

Two Additional Appeals Rejected in Disease Team Round

The governing board of the California stem cell agency last night rejected appeals by two applicants -- OncoMed Pharmaceuticals of Redwood City and Albert Wong of Stanford -- in the $200 million disease team round.

Both petitions generated little discussion. You can find more on their petitions here and here.

The board also approved changes in its intellectual property and grant administration rules. Both proposals will now enter the state's official administrative law process for more comment and possible change.

Researcher Alert: Grant Rule Changes at Stem Cell Agency

The $3 billion California stem cell agency is changing the rules for how it handles its grants, ranging from research milestones and budgets to training programs and unspent funds.

A CIRM staff memo, prepared for this Thursday's CIRM board meeting, said,

“Some of the proposed amendments are clarifying amendments and others are more substantive.”

The memo said that the changes are intended to improve the 45-page grant administration policy and remove provisions that are hard for the staff or grantees to “understand and follow.” The memo said the changes were developed after input from grantees and others.

Grant recipients and others seeking CIRM cash would be well-advised to examine the proposed changes, which are scheduled to be approved on Thursday at the board meeting in Burlingame.

The modifications will then go into the state's administrative law process and are scheduled to go into effect in October.

Researcher Alert: California Stem Cell Agency To Alter How It Administers Grants

Stem cell researchers and institutions throughout the state are likely to be affected by proposed changes – to be discussed online publicly Tuesday – dealing with how the California stem cell agency will handle its $3 billion in grants.

An important online session – open to all interested parties – comes up then, but advance registration is required.

The proposals are wide-ranging and detailed. The nearly 500 recipients of CIRM grants should examine them closely in addition to any persons seriously interested in California stem cell affairs. The changes deal with such subjects as milestones for research grants, indirect costs, travel costs, withholding payments for failure to file a progress report and much, much more.

Here is a link to the main page for all this, which has instructions on how to register for the online session along with links to the changes and their rationale.

(Editor's note: This item was filed from the Rio Sabana in the Darien in Panama when we found a weak Internet cellular link. We are still underway so postings are unlikely between now and later this month.)

CIRM Beefs Up Technology: More Info and Better Service for Applicants, Grantees Promised

The California stem cell agency is reporting technology improvements that they will hope will aid researchers and the public as well.

Amy Adams, CIRM communications manager and who deals with the agency's web site, wrote last Friday on the CIRM research blog:

"As of our most recently posted RFA (Disease Team Therapy Development Awards) we’re all electronic. Grantees fill out an application online. If their application gets funded, the grantee can manage that grant online. Progress reports? Well, they still have to pull together the data, but it can be submitted online. Publications? Report them online. New applications? They go into your user account and you can manage all those grants from the same place. Time to submit a new form? No problem, CIRM makes sure there’s a notice in your account. Less time battling forms means more time doing research, which is good news for all people eager for new stem cell therapies.

"I’m not a grantee, so these miracles are all a bit abstract. However, I do know people inside CIRM are looking forward to not taking angry calls from grantees who are frustrated with our forms. And they are looking forward to having that data automatically in our database rather than needing to import it from PDF.

"The public will start seeing the benefit of these electronic developments over the next few months. Information that’s in our database can also be displayed on our website. I’m excited to start posting progress information and publications as part of our grant summaries. Stay tuned."

Competing for Dollars: CIRM Examining Grant Ground Rules

The words are mind-numbingly dull: grant administration, programmatic score, appeals, pre-application. But they go to the lifeblood of scientific research – money.

And they are the topics of concern at a meeting next Wednesday of a key panel of the directors of California's $3 billion stem cell agency.

The directors' Science Subcommittee will then examine a substantial portion of the process in which directors decide which California scientists receive millions of dollars and others receive none. On the agenda are:

• Longstanding concerns about dealing with researcher appeals on applications for stem cell research grants. 
• The pre-application process, which weeds out proposals even before they get to the grant review group.
• And a new concept that would create a “programmatic” grant application score from patient advocates sitting on the grant review panel.

It is not the first time CIRM directors have tackled these sorts of issues. Directors have long been troubled by attempts to reverse negative decisions by reviewers, who examine the requests for cash behind closed doors. The directors have final say on the applications but rarely overturn reviewer decisions.

However, in June, a record nine researchers filed extraordinary petitions to reverse reviewer actions. That amounted to about one-third of the rejected grants. Four of the petitions were successful. The directors were not entirely pleased at having to deal with the renewed pitches from researchers.

Freshly before CIRM directors is the concept of a programmatic score on applications in addition to the scientific score. The new score would be provided by the seven patient advocates on the 23-member grant review group.

CIRM directors sometimes refers to programmatic considerations in approving grants. The term is usually used in connection with the programs that the agency is trying to push. A specific definition of the term may exist on the CIRM Web site, but we have not been able to find it.

In response to a query, Jeff Sheehy, a patient advocate member of the board and chair of the Science Subcommittee, said the programmatic score proposal is only an idea at this point. No details have been worked out, which is the task of the subcommittee and staff. Noting that the concept did not originate with him, he said he did not expect the panel to act on the item at the meeting.

Sheehy, who also serves on the grant review group, said,

“There is no programmatic score right now. Grants receive a numerical scientific score, which is the average of the individual scores of the 15 scientist members of the Grants Working(review) Group.

“During programmatic review, a baseline 'quality' score is established, usually somewhere around 70. Then the group decides whether to move grants up or down based on programmatic considerations, which vary from RFA to RFA--although they are often based on disease representation. For example, zero Alzheimer's applications in the fundable range could lead to a motion to move an Alzheimer application up (usually this happens for application with a near fundable score) into the recommended for funding category.”

We have written more than once on the appeals and pre-application issues and have prepared a reading list for those who really want to dig into them. You can find the list here.

Persons interested in commenting on the proposals can email their comments to CIRM at info@cirm.ca.gov. Or they can listen in and comment live during the meeting at seven locations throughout California, including San Francisco, Palo Alto, Healdsburg, Pleasanton, Duarte and two in Irvine. You can find the specific locations on the meeting agenda.
.

CSCR Reading List: Grant Appeals at the California Stem Cell Agency

Here is a list of articles from the California Stem Cell Report and CIRM documents dealing with the grant appeal process at the California stem cell agency. The list was prepared on Sept. 20, 2010. To read the entire articles, click on the links.

Articles from the California Stem Cell Report

Aug. 10, 2010
Emotionalism and Potential Favoritism Cited as Need for Changes in CIRM Grant Appeals
Passion and favoritism, democracy and gamesmanship – all are part of the ongoing discussion among directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency as they try to fix what some of them call a “broken” grant appeal process.

July 19, 2010
UC Davis Scientist Praises CIRM Appeals Change
A stem cell researcher at UC Davis today said a change in the CIRM grant appeals procedure makes “a lot of sense.” Writing on his blog in regard to "extraordinary petitions," Paul Knoepfler said, “I think the proposed change makes a lot of sense and would greatly improve the process. Sometimes the reasons in the petitions are clearly not meritorious and as it now stands, they end up wasting CIRM's time. The last time CIRM received 9 petitions as well, which represented a remarkably large fraction of the total applications. A stricter process would discourage the submission of large numbers of petitions, an important issue given that the number of petitions received by CIRM continues to grow.”

CIRM Finally Discloses Grant Appeal Proposals
The California stem cell agency early today belatedly posted a two-page memo on proposed changes in how it will deal with appeals by scientists whose grant applications have been rejected by reviewers.

July 18, 2010
Sticky, Troubling Appeals by Rejected Researchers Targeted by Stem Cell Agency
A key step in the process for awarding billions of dollars in research grants is “broken,” according to many directors of the California stem cell agency, and major changes are looming that will affect hundreds of scientists.

June 22, 2010
Immunology Grants: CIRM Gives $25 Million to 19 Researchers
Directors of the California stem cell agency today approved $25 million for immunology research, overturning four negative decisions by its grant reviewers. Directors faced a record nine public petitions to reverse its reviewers. After some grumbling, the directors, who see only a summary of the application and reviewer comments, okayed the four.

June 19, 2010
More Grant Appeals Filed: Yamanaka Invoked
The California stem cell agency has set another benchmark, although this is one that it may not want to trot out at international stem cell gatherings. Eight scientists whose applications were rejected for funding by the CIRM grants working group and scientific reviewers are seeking to overturn those decisions at the agency's board meeting in San Diego on Tuesday. It is the largest number of “extraordinary petitions” ever filed and amounts to more than one out of every four applications that were turned down. The total number of applications received was 44. Fifteen were approved. Some of the researchers are likely to appear at the board meeting and make a personal pitch.

May 18, 2010
Competing for California Stem Cell Cash: Rules of the Game Coming Under Scrutiny
Every California stem cell scientist and researcher looking to join the field – be they from academia or business – should pay very close attention to a meeting next week of a key group of directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency. They plan to discuss possible changes in how scientists compete for stem cell cash, which is no small matter since CIRM has another $2 billion to hand out over the next several years.

CIRM documents

Pre-application review – CIRM report (Jan. 2010) on the process

Extraordinary petition policy – Version as of 5/25/10

Appeal policy – Version as of 5/25/2010

Transcript of July 20, 2010, meeting of CIRM directors Science Subcommittee. Discussion of petitions begins on page 40.

Transcript of the June 22, 2010, CIRM directors meeting. Discussions of extraordinary petitions begin on pages 24 and 67.

Transcript of 5/25/10 Science Subcommittee meeting dealing with appeals issue. Discussion begins on page 99.

A Look at Tucson's Calimmune and $20 Milllion

The global headquarters of Calimmune, Inc., which shares in a $20 million grant from the California stem cell agency, stands on one of the more unlovely thoroughfares in Arizona.

The three-year-old firm is only a short walk on East Broadway in Tucson from O'Reilly Chevrolet and a Burger King. While Calimmune's address may not electrify folks on Wall Street, it has a pedigree that it is hard to quibble with.

By one account, Calimmune was founded by David Baltimore (see photo), a former member of the board of directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency. Baltimore also is a Nobel Prize winner and former president of Caltech. Other accounts state that Irvin Chen, director of the UCLA AIDS Institute, was a co-founder.

Late last month, California's stem cell agency approved a $20 million grant to Chen and Geoff Symonds, chief scientific officer of Calimmune, a little-known company with no Web site but a laboratory in Australia, lab space in Pasadena, Ca., and more facilities soon to come at UCLA.

CIRM said the grant was aimed at generating an FDA application in four years for a clinical trial “to treat HIV/AIDS using an RNA interference approach to modify the patient’s blood-forming stem cells. When transplanted back, those cells will produce T cells that are resistant to HIV infection.”

The proposal echoes Calimmune goals articulated earlier on the Web site of Grayhawk Capital, a private equity investment company in Phoenix, Az., that has cash in Calimunne. Some initial research involving Symonds and UCLA was published last February with partial funding from Johnson & Johnson in Australia.

In response to email queries, Calimmune's CEO, Louis Breton, told the California Stem Cell Report that Symonds will perform his CIRM-funded work in California. He said the closely held firm is aware that CIRM is barred from funding out-of-state grants. Breton did not respond to questions about the number of Calimmune employees and their locations, although he said he anticipated more hiring for the CIRM grant. He said the Tucson location houses a small administrative staff. The company is incorporated in Delaware.

As for Calimmune's funding, we asked Breton whether any originated with Johnson & Johnson. Until the last year or so, Symonds was senior research director at Johnson & Johnson Research Pty Ltd. in Sydney, Australia, where the Calimmune lab is located. According to one report earlier this year, he holds more than $10,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock. At least one of the other Calimmune scientists in Australia worked as well for Johnson & Johnson until February. Breton, however, said none of the company's funding originated with Johnson & Johnson. Grayhawk did not respond our email query.

A Johnson & Johnson company document said in 2008 that the purpose of the Johnson & Johnson research operation involving Symonds was “to identify new medical discoveries in Australia and facilitate their commercial development into new products for Johnson & Johnson.”

CIRM reviewers were enthusiastic about Chen and Symonds disease team project. A CIRM summary of the application said,

“Reviewers stated that the resources and investigators are outstanding and the team is superb, both scientifically and in therapy development. The Disease Team comprises a collaboration between two complementary groups, one academic and one corporate. Each brings unique expertise to the project, with the academic group providing scientific know-how and proof of concept and the corporate group providing expertise in biologics development and commercialization. The team leaders are accomplished, highly productive investigators with a demonstrated track record in the field of HIV research, gene therapy, and/or clinical drug development. Key members of this team made the initial scientific observations leading to their hypothesis and demonstrated proof of concept in tissue culture and relevant models. A subset of the team has direct experience with a gene therapy trial in humans.”

CIRM Scrutinizes Grantee Performance: The Tale of Three Terminations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This researcher told us,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSCR Withholds Names of Terminated Grantees to Avoid Unnecessary Harm

The California Stem Cell Report is not naming the three scientists whose grants were terminated by the state's stem cell agency because doing so would unnecessarily damage their reputations.

It is our understanding that none of the issues involved malfeasance. Additionally, CIRM's progress monitoring appears to be more rigorous than the standards applied by the NIH, whose practices have set benchmarks in the scientific community.

Publication of the names could create erroneous, negative perceptions about the individuals involved.

We made the decision not to publish their identifies after discussions with a number of individuals, including two of the researchers. In our past occupation as an editor at a mainstream newspaper, publication of their identities would have been pretty much of a foregone conclusion. But given that we are no longer constrained by newspaper standards, some of which are very good and some not so good, we did not want to mindlessly do something that would unnecessarily harm the three.

We also asked CIRM director Floyd Bloom, former editor of Science magazine and executive director, science communication at Scripps, for his thoughts on publication of the names. Here is how he responded.

“For NIH grants, after the grant is awarded, one writes a 'progress report' annually in what is termed a 'non-competitive' renewal. For the duration of the award, the investigator is free to follow leads, change directions, convert personnel into equipment funds, and essentially re-program the proposed project. Only if the PI seeks to renew that grant must the changes be justified.

“In process described to us in June by Marie Csete, the scientific staff are in frequent contact with our CIRM-supported PIs, assessing their progress towards the goals they were approved to pursue, and for several of our competitions with stated milestones, assessing whether that progress will get them to their milestones. Lack of progress can be sufficient grounds to terminate the funding, and apparently those are the 3 cases you mention. Since we are kept blind to the PI names and institutions when we decide to award funding, I don't see that it is constructive to CIRM or those PIs to disclose names after termination.”

Text of Csete's Description of CIRM Grant Monitoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Csete: Seventy-four.

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

Dr. Csete: Sixty-four papers.

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

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

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

Csete: Three.

Azziz: Three of the 74. Thank you.

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

CIRM Pulls Three Grants from Researchers

SAN DIEGO -- The California stem cell agency tonight said it has terminated three research grants for lack of progress, but declined to release immediately the names of the researchers or the institutions involved.

James Harrison, outside counsel to the CIRM board, acknowledged that the names were public record but said the agency wanted time to work out a well-considered way of releasing the information.

Marie Csete, CIRM's chief scientific officer, disclosed the terminations during a report on the progress of CIRM grants. The information came in response to a question from board member Ricardo Azziz, chairman of the department of obstetrics at Cedars-Sinai Hospital n Los Angeles.

She said efforts to monitor the progress of grants were generally well-received by investigators. She said that they discovered several grants that would have been abandoned without the progress monitoring effort by her staff.

Board member Floyd Bloom, executive director of science communication at the Scripps Institute, said the monitoring effort is a “wonderful thing.” He said CIRM's “nuturing relations with PIs is absolutely unique in the grant world.”

CIRM Pulls a Grant, Aggressive Monitoring Reported

In what appears to be a first, the California stem cell agency has pulled at least one grant from one of its researchers, apparently because of a lack of progress.

Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, confirmed the action in response to a query from the California Stem Cell Report.

Gibbons refused to disclose the identity of the researcher or the institution, declaring that more details would be forthcoming in a report to the CIRM board of directors from President Alan Trounson at its meeting in San Diego on Wednesday and Thursday.

We asked CIRM about the withdrawal after we were told by another source that one grant had, in fact, been been pulled and some “push-back” was coming from institutions. At the last CIRM board meeting in April, a report on grant monitoring was on the agenda but was removed with no explanation.

Here are the questions we directed to Gibbons last week.

“Can you confirm or deny that a grant has been pulled?
“Are institutions pushing back in any form whatsoever?
“Are any of the board members involved in any way whatsoever in reactions to monitoring of grantees' progress?
“What was the reason for removal of the monitoring item from the agenda last month?
“Will it be rescheduled?
“Do you have any other comments on this general subject? “

Gibbons replied,

“Yes, we have pulled at least one grant, but the leadership of the science office uniformly reports they are not getting push back from the institutions. No board members were involved in the process. The last board agenda was jammed so plans were made to include the progress reports in the President’s Report for the upcoming meeting. You can hear the details then.”

(The last board meeting ended at 1:24 p.m. on April 29, which is early for most board meetings.)

Gibbons has not responded to an additonal question on June 10 seeking the identity of the researcher and the grant number, both of which are public record.

Marie Csete, chief scientific officer for CIRM, and her staff have been aggressive in checking progress on CIRM grants, we have been told. Some grantees have been surprised and have complained that the NIH does not follow the same practice.

CIRM is to be lauded for monitoring the grants carefully. While strong oversight of grants may be bothersome to some researchers, institutions and perhaps some CIRM directors, it is a healthy practice that should stand CIRM in good stead when it faces its skeptics.

CIRM Grants: Checks Not in the Mail, Squeaky Clean Review Underway

Directors of the California stem cell agency have approved $170 million in grants so far this year, but none of the money has yet reached researchers, universities or other recipients.

In early June, directors were told that the first wave of the funds -- $45 million approved five months ago -- was likely to receive the administrative go-ahead before the beginning of July. But that schedule has gone by the boards, and it is not clear exactly when the checks will ultimately be sent.

At the heart of the issue is the review of the details of the grants that occurs following their approval by the Oversight Committee.

Arlene Chiu, interim chief scientific officer for CIRM, told the committee last month, "We strive to be good stewards of the public's money."

Each one of the 117 proposals is examined by CIRM staff for compliance with its rules and state law. Slowing the process are the newness of the procedures, the small size of the CIRM staff(about 25)and even the speed at which the recipient institutions respond to requests for additional information. It is fair to say that universities do not necessarily act speedily even when millions of revenue are on the line.

CIRM has also been without a permanent president since the beginning of May, raising the possibility that the process might be moving faster with a permanent CEO in place. However, Dale Carlson, chief communications officer for CIRM, said, "I’ll tell you categorically that’s not a factor."

We asked Carlson about the funding process. Here is his reply verbatim:

"The length of time reflects several factors. First, we are looking at a large number of approved grant applications, particularly relative to the staff available to conduct the administrative review.

"Second, the requested costs on every application need to be carefully reviewed to ensure that they are accurate and in keeping with our policies. Facilities and indirect cost reimbursement rates also need to be checked, verified, and may need to be adjusted to fall in line with prevailing rates from other national grant-making institutions.

"This too is proving more time-consuming than we'd originally estimated.

"Third, some institutions are more prompt than others in responding to requests for documentation.

"This is still a new exercise for us. We're being very careful and thorough to ensure we get it right. It should go faster in the future.

"Fortunately, the recipient institutions understand that we are working with a new and small staff, and are by and large being very patient with our process. I think they share our interest in seeing this exercise properly completed, as it should generate efficiencies down the road.

"We are making every effort to send out all the notices of grant award (NGAs) in the coming weeks. The release of funds by the State Controller's Office follows the return of signed certification statements, and we obviously have no control over how quickly institutions turn those around."

Caution and care are to be commended in the case of this review. CIRM is still an infant organization. Laying a good groundwork for the future remains paramount. Plus financial foulups are viewed harshly in the media. Witness the stories earlier this spring about expensive lunches by some CIRM directors, a trivial expense that some reporters focused on in their stories about a state audit of CIRM. Bigger numbers would generate bigger and more unfavorable stories with a negative impact on CIRM's reputation.

Fertility and Sterility Editor Retracts Comments About Cha

The editor of the Fertility and Sterility Journal has retracted and apologized for his remarks alleging plagiarism and perjury linked to Kwang-Yul Cha, a South Korean scientist whose organization includes a Los Angeles lab that was approved for a $2.6 million California stem cell grant.

The May 31 letter was written by Alan DeCherney to Cha following articles in the Los Angeles Times and The Scientist concerning DeCherney's allegations. The charges received additional attention after CHA RMI in Los Angeles successfully competed for the CIRM grant.

Following approval of the research funds, two organizations that monitor CIRM said the news reports raised troubling questions.

Here is the text of the DeCherney letter, written on the letterhead of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The letter was supplied to the California Stem Cell Report by a representative of the Cha organization.

"Dear Dr. Cha,

"I am writing to apologize for the distress and any reputational damage my statements to The Scientist (February 20, 2007) and the Los Angeles Times (February 18, 2007) have caused you and your organization. Considering the facts of the matter, I consider my references to 'plagiarism' and 'perjury' to be inaccurate and regrettable. I hereby retract them and give you permission to forward this letter to the authors of both articles, and to their editors, for their information. You may use this letter in full form publicly in any way that you wish.

"I regret that I did not contact you or the other authors earlier to determine the facts of the matter, since it was brought to my attention more than a year ago. Please accept my apology for my hasty remarks to the reporters.

"After checking our records, I acknowledge that Dr. Jeong-Hwan Kim's name was included as an author when the manuscript was originally submitted, though I am not aware of the circumstances that ultimately led to his exclusion from the list of authors. I also acknowledge the fact that two formal requests were made in 2006 (after publication of the article in F&S) asking that Dr. Kim be added to the article as an author and that I did not respond to either of them.

"I want to emphasize that we found no scientific fault with your paper: "Quantification of mitochondrial DNA using real-time polymerase chain reaction in patients with premature ovarian failure," published in Sterility and Fertility. In accordance with the press release issued by the Fertility & Sterility board in April, we determined that you were not responsible for the dual publication. While the Board did not consider the issue of authorship, I have no reason to believe that you should not receive credit as first author. This would be consistent with the customary practice in the United State of the Corresponding Author providing the appropriate authorship credits.

"We hope that this will not discourage you and your scientific colleagues from submitting original research articles to Fertility and Sterility in the future.

"Sincerely,

Alan DeCherney, MD"

Funding of all the grants approved in March, including CHA RMI, has not yet begun. CIRM is reviewing them all as part of its normal practice to assure that each grantee can comply with the terms of the grant.

If you are interested in a PDF copy of the DeCherney letter, please send a request to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. If you would like to read more on this subject, we have posted a number of items in March and April. You can find by using the search term CHA.