Safety and Effectiveness Concerns Raised about $5.8 Million California Stem Cell Research Proposal for Parkinson's

A California stem cell scientist yesterday commented on an application before the state's stem cell agency for $5.8 million for research into a possible therapy for Parkinson's disease, which afflicts as many as 10 million persons worldwide.

Jeanne Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the Scripps Research Institute, made the remarks concerning a proposal that is likely to be approved June 28 by the governing board of the $3 billion agency.

Her comments came in an email to the California Stem Cell Report after it asked for her thoughts on the review summary of the application (CLIN1-11059), which has been already approved behind closed doors by the agency's scientific reviewers. The vote was 9-6-0 with nine reviewers voting to approve it and six reviewers saying it needed improvement and should be resubmitted. No reviewers voted outright against it. The summary of the review and application can be found here. 

The name of applicant is not known. The stem cell agency withholds the identity of applicants until an application is ratified by the full board in a public session.

As Loring notes in her email, she is also conducting research on Parkinson's and also has funding from the stem cell agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Here is the text of her email along with links to the two research papers that she cites.

“Researchers have explored many approaches to treatment of Parkinson’s disease over the last several decades. The tremors and freezing in PD are caused by the progressive loss a specific type of dopamine-producing neuron in a part of the brain called the substantia nigra. Half of these neurons have died by the time the disease is diagnosed.

“The only approach that has resulted in long-term reversal of the symptoms of PD is transplantation of human fetal tissue containing the precursors of that specific type of dopamine neuron. 

“The therapy that we are developing is based on the success of those fetal studies; our particular approach is to use patient-specific dopamine neurons produced from their own induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). The arguments in support of this therapy have been published (see below).

“We share this idea for neural replacement therapy with several other groups worldwide: Roger Barker in the UK, Malin Parmar in Sweden, Jun Takahashi in Japan, and Lorenz Studer in New York are using human embryonic stem cell-derived neurons or unmatched iPSCs. We are the only group among these that is using matched neurons so there will be no need for immunosuppression.

“These are my concerns about any therapy using undifferentiated neural stem cells and gene therapy:

“Safety concerns:

“Neural stem cells are dividing cells that have been known to make tumors; one patient in California had a tumor grow in his spine after receiving neural stem cells from a clinic that did not have FDA approval, to treat a stroke. A few years ago there was a proposed treatment for Alzheimer disease that used neural stem cells, and in that case there was clear evidence that those cells made tumors in animals; it was funded by CIRM. Our cells are not dividing, and we have done a one-year study in rats to make sure no tumors form.

“Addition of a transgene for a neural growth factor, GDNF, to the cells, will require thorough testing because transgenes can disrupt the genome, and the expansion of the cells increases the risk of other mutations arising, such as the p53 mutations that we discovered in hESCs a few years ago. p53 is a very bad actor; mutations in this gene are found in half of all cancers. The applicants should be planning to sequence the genome of the cells to be improve the chances that the cells are safe; we sequence our cells.

“Effectiveness concerns:

“Survival vs. replacement.

“There are two general approaches to cell-based treatment of Parkinson’s disease. The neural stem cell approach is not intended to REPLACE the dying neurons. It is intended to help the remaining dopamine neurons survive longer. The other approach, neuron replacement therapy, can reverse the symptoms long-term.

“Immunosuppression. It is necessary to suppress the immune system whenever a transplantation of unmatched cells or tissues is performed. Immunosuppression is a concern for neurologists who are treating PD patients, because it weakens the immune system and makes patients more susceptible to serious debilitating infections.

“The neural stem cells making GDNF may be a good solution for the debilitating neuronal loss in ALS, and CIRM is already funding their use for that disease. But please ask a few neurologists what they would advise their patients with Parkinson’s disease. Those I’ve asked would prefer replacement of dopamine neurons, rather than a treatment using transplantation of dividing cells pumping a nerve growth factor into the brain, that requires immunosuppression. Historically, this has not been a good idea.”

Here are two links to articles that Loring cited. See here and here. 

$25 Million for Stem Cell Research Plus Sharp Criticism of California Stem Cell Board

The California stem cell agency today approved $25.2 million for preclinical research aimed at speeding development of therapies for afflictions that include arthritis, Alzheimer's and “bubble boy” syndrome.

The action came during an agency governing board session that was marked by sharp criticism from an executive with a La Jolla firm associated with one of the rejected grant applicants, Jill Helms of Stanford. The executive, Sanford Madigan of Ankasa Regenerative Therapeutics, told the board he was "disturbed by board members not willing to do their jobs."

Sanford Madigan, LinkedIn photo

Several board members said they were offended by Madigan's remarks, although he later apologized. He appeared to be irritated by the reluctance of the board to override its reviewers. Five board members subsequently abstained from voting to overturn staff and reviewer rejection of Helms' application. The motion that would have funded her proposal failed on a vote of 5-1-5.

The public flare-up involving the board and a member of the public was unusual, although comments such as Madigan's are sometimes heard in private.

His remarks came at the end of a discussion about the weaknesses of the agency's closed-door review process. The discussion involved other applications in addition to Helms' proposal. Randy Mills, president of the agency, acknowledged the review process was "sub-optimal" and was being replaced by new procedures he has dubbed CIRM 2.0.

Ankasa was created by Avalon Ventures, which is raising $16 million to help commercialize Helm's work to develop a stem cell therapy to improve skeletal healing of elderly people.

The governing board of the agency handed out awards to seven scientists with the goal of moving their research closer to federal approval for a start of a clinical trial. The board approved applications from two researchers who made special appeals to the board after reviewers and staff nixed their proposals.

Prior to the vote on her application, Helms was told that she could revise her $7 million application and submit it for later consideration. She said the soonest that would occur would be in about 10 months, given the agency's timetable. By that time, she said the research team would be disbanded through lack of funding and the effort would "disintegrate." 

CIRM has already put $7 million into Helms' research. She has been something of a bright star for the agency, which has featured her on its Web site and asked her to appear on its panels.

The rejection of the Helms proposal highlighted some of the vagaries of the agency's longstanding review process.  She received an average scientific score  of 72 which knocked her out of the funding category(tier one). However, her median score was 75, a figure that two reviewer-approved grants received. What skewed the average figure was a low score of 45. No other grant in the top 10 received that a ranking that low. Eight reviewers recommended funding the proposal, Four did not with three recommending it be placed in "tier two," a grey area for applications.

No reviewers were listed as having conflicts of interest on the Helms proposal. However, their finanicial and professional interests are not disclosed to the public. Nor are they identified to the public.

On another proposal, John Cashman, CEO of Human BioMolecular Research Institute of San Diego, asked for a re-review of his firm's application for a treatment involving spinal fusion. He said that his firm has worked with CIRM for several years to make changes that the agency had requested. Nonetheless, he said reviewers do not seem to agree.  Cashman said,

"Certainly the system is broken."

The board did not act on Cashman's request for a re-review.

Here is the roll call vote on the Helms' application: Yes -- David Higgins, Steve Juelsgaard, Kathy LaPorte, Lauren Miller, Art Torres. No -- Jonathan Thomas. Abstain -- Francisco Prieto, Robert Quint, Al Rowlett, Jeff Sheehy, Diane Winokur.

Summaries of the reviews of the winning applications can be found on this 90-page document.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item did not contain the two paragraphs that deal with the vagaries of the grant review process and conflicts of interest.) 

Conflict-of-Interest Changes Coming at California Stem Cell Agency

Directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency meet next week to consider changes in conflict of interest rules for the persons who make virtually all the decisions on the hundreds of applications  for the cash that it hands out for research.

Details of the changes and their justification are not yet publicly available for the meeting in Burlingame, Ca., on Oct. 9. The only information that was posted on the CIRM Web site as of this morning was this brief note from the meeting agenda:

“Request for consent to initiate rule-making to amend conflict of interest regulations for non-ICOC members of the Grants Working Group.”

ICOC is the abbreviation for the stem cell governing board, whose members are required to publicly disclose many of their financial interests.

The changes would affect the out-of-state scientists who score grant applications during closed-door deliberations. The agency's governing board, which has the ultimate legal authority for application approval, has ratified 98 percent of the decisions by the grant working group, according to the agency's own calculations.

The agency does not require the scientists to disclose publicly either their economic or professional interests and has resisted proposals for more transparency for years. The interests of reviewers instead are disclosed privately to a limited number of persons within the agency There does not appear to be a significant effort to audit the disclosures for accuracy.

Questions about the legal necessity for public disclosure of grant reviewers' interests have arisen as far back as 2007, including a recommendation by the state auditor that the agency seek an opinion from the state attorney general on the matter. The auditor said,

 “The FPPC (the state's government ethics agency) believes that members of working groups, who perform duties such as advising the committee on standards and policy or evaluating grant applications and making award recommendations to the committee, may need to be included in the conflict-of-interest code. Specifically, the FPPC believes that, under state regulations, working group members may act as decision makers if they make substantive recommendations that are, over an extended period, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by the committee. Thus, as decision makers, working group members would need to be subject to the conflict-of-interest code.”

However, the agency said, also  in 2007,

  “The recommendations of the CIRM working groups have never been routinely and/or regularly adopted by the ICOC. Until the time that such a pattern is detected, the question you suggest we raise with the attorney general is entirely hypothetical, and is therefore not appropriate for submission. We will, however, continue to monitor approvals for such a pattern and will reconsider our decision if one emerges."

Because of the closed door nature of the grant application review process, conflict questions rarely surface publicly. Last spring, however, the California Stem Cell Report reported conflict violations involving an internationally reknown scientist-reviewer in a $40 million grant round. The scientist, Lee Hood of Seattle, Wash., is a close friend of one of the applicants, Irv Weissman of Stanford. They also own property together in Montana.

As we reported at the time,

“The conflict was not discovered by the agency during the review. It was raised by another reviewer at the end of the review, which, for the first time in CIRM history, failed to conclude with a decision supporting any of the proposals. Reviewers' comments have been sent back to applicants with another review scheduled for November. The agency said Hood will not take part in that session.”

Hood was recruited as a reviewer by CIRM President Alan Trounson, who has been a guest of Weissman at the Hood-Weissman ranch.

UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler is a man of many parts. Not only does he thrash around in petri dishes, but he also dabbles in graphics. In this case, a cartoon about grant reviews and conflicts of interest. Above is the the first frame of the cartoon. You can see the whole story on his blog at this location.

Inside the Grant Review Process at the California Stem Cell Agency

One of the major issues today involving the California stem cell agency and the Institute of Medicine revolves around the grant review process, appeals and conflicts of interest.

The agency has prepared a presentation of how it perceives the process. The Institute of Medicine has also described the review process. Both descriptions offer different sorts of insights into the procedures.

We are offering both characterizations. Both have at least one error and other limits. The IOM, for instance, says grant applicants who file extraordinary petitions are invited by CIRM to make public presentations to the board. That is not the case.

CIRM's presentation refers to a second tier category for applications, a category that has not been used for some time by the agency. The agency also says that it provides to the public in advance of board meetings statistics on the spread and deviation of reviewer scores on applications. That is not the case. The material, a key board tool for evaluating appeals, has generally not been available to the public until the day of the meeting, if then. Sometimes it has only been available via a Power Point presentation on a screen at the meeting. The CIRM slide on executive sessions says that board members do not discuss merits of an application in executive session. That assertion is marginal at best. Last September, statements by the chairman of the board clearly indicated that such a discussion occurred during an executive session. From our attendance at other meetings, it seems abundantly clear that discussions do occur in executive session.

We have queried the agency concerning the statements in the grant review presentation document.

Readers should also be aware that grant reviewers make the de facto decisions on grants, although the board has final legal authority. The board has almost never rejected a grant approved by reviewers. The board also goes along with reviewers on the vast majority of applications that are rejected.  The board, however, does pick a few applications not favored by reviewers in each round and approves them. 

That said, both of descriptions are helpful in understanding the process. Here is a link to the text of the IOM description. The CIRM description is embedded in a document on its web site and can be found as exhibition B.

IOM Description of CIRM Grant Review Process

Here is the text of the Institute of Medicine's description of how the grant review process works at California stem cell agency. You can find CIRM's version as exhibit B in this document.

"CIRM staff are available to potential applicants to discuss ideas and to answer questions about published RFAs and the conformity of a particular proposal to the goals of announced programs. From responses to a questionnaire submitted by the committee to the California stem cell scientific community, 4 it appears that views on discussions of this type vary, with some individuals being highly appreciative of these preliminary discussions and others finding the CIRM staff less accessible (IOM, 2012d). The committee agrees that having a system for communicating with potential applicants early in the process is important, in particular to ensure that neither applicants nor CIRM staff are spending large amounts of time writing or assessing proposals that are not in keeping with the goals of any particular RFA. The committee also suggests that CIRM continue making its scientific staff available to potential applicants and working with this constituency to maximize the effectiveness of this aspect of the grant submission process.

"CIRM staff recognized that the number of applications that would potentially be received for a given RFA could overwhelm the Institute’s ability to review each rigorously for scientific merit. Accordingly, during its early years, CIRM restricted the number of applications that would be accepted from any one institution in response to a particular RFA. The reasoning was that doing so would limit the overall number of applications, making the review process manageable while guaranteeing that applications would represent the scientific communities at a wide range of California institutions. This was especially important given that CIRM’s enabling legislation limited administrative expenditures, requiring that the process for grant-making decisions be streamlined. However, there was considerable pushback from potential grantees, as it was thought that some individuals, in particular junior investigators or those new to stem cell biology, were at a disadvantage in competing with colleagues at their home institutions for the right to submit a proposal and hence had limited access to possible CIRM support.

"To address this concern while keeping the number of proposals sent for full review manageable, CIRM established a pre-application procedure and eliminated the restriction on the number of applications that could be submitted from any single institution (CIRM, 2011d). The preapplication procedure is similar to a process used by a number of private foundations that provide support for biomedical research. Applicants are asked to provide a shortened version of their proposal through the CIRM website. CIRM staff evaluate these shortened proposals to ensure that they are in keeping with the RFA. Those deemed responsive to the RFA are then sent to three outside reviewers, who are also provided the RFA. Each reviewer is asked to evaluate the preapplication, indicating whether it should definitely, possibly, or definitely not be invited as a full proposal. Additionally, each reviewer is asked to identify proposals that are among the two to three best in the group being evaluated by that reviewer (each reviewer typically is given 10-25 pre-applications to consider). No written critique is requested of the evaluators. Using these initial external evaluations, CIRM staff determine which applicants will be invited to submit full proposals. Once invited, proposals must be based on the pre-application proposal that was submitted. There is no appeal process for pre-applications that are not invited for a full proposal submission (CIRM, 2011e).

"After the pre-application process was piloted, applicants, reviewers, CIRM staff, and the ICOC board members were surveyed regarding its acceptability (CIRM, 2011e). As might be expected, applicants often expressed frustration that there was no feedback on why their pre-application was not selected to move forward. Additionally, in responses to the committee’s questionnaire 5 , some principal investigators raised concern about whether a short proposal contains sufficient detail for an informed review (IOM, 2012d). On balance, however, there appeared to be overwhelming support for the pre-application process, especially in comparison with the previous model whereby there was a limit on the number of applications that could be submitted from any single institution (CIRM, 2011e). The committee agrees that, despite its limitations, the current preapplication procedure opens up the opportunity for CIRM funding to a broader cohort of investigators and is, in principle, an appropriate process. The committee recognizes the tension between providing applicants as much information as possible and not overburdening reviewers, and suggests that CIRM consider ways of offering applicants more information on the shortcomings perceived in preapplications that were not selected for further consideration.

"The Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group, designated in most CIRM materials as the Grants Working Group (GWG), is the entity charged with reviewing scientific proposals and making recommendations to the ICOC (the CIRM governing board) with respect to those that should be funded.

"The GWG is appointed by the ICOC and consists of 23 members, including the chair of the ICOC, 7 of the 10 ICOC patient advocates, and 15 non-California scientists known for their expertise in stem cell biology (CIRM, 2009f, 2012g). The 15 scientists are selected based on the particulars of the individual RFAs and are drawn from a pool of more than 150 individuals chosen by CIRM as highly qualified to review proposals. Participation of these experts, none of whom, as non-Californians, are eligible for CIRM funding and stand to gain directly from CIRM, is instrumental in providing the rigorous scientific review required for making funding decisions. The success CIRM has had in commissioning outstanding review committees for each of its RFAs is a testament both to the Institute’s stature in the eyes of the stem cell community and the willingness of stem cell scientists outside of California to contribute their time and effort to facilitate the work of their California colleagues.

"Full proposals received by CIRM by the RFA deadline are entered into the CIRM database, and all GWG members assigned to this review cycle declare any conflicts of interest with any of the applications (CIRM, 2009g). Any GWG member in conflict for a particular application is recused during discussions, scoring, and final voting. The GWG members are then assigned applications for which no conflict exists based on their unique expertise. Typically, three external scientists review each application. The GWG can call on additional specialist reviewers as needed if its own expertise is insufficient to evaluate the science in any individual application adequately. Prior to the GWG’s face-to-face meeting, each reviewer and ad hoc specialist submits a scientific score (1-100, with 100 being best) and a written critique for each assigned application. A meeting of the GWG is then announced on the CIRM website. This meeting starts with a session open to the public, during which GWG business is conducted. The GWG then meets in closed session for a two-stage review of the applications (CIRM, 2011g).

"The first stage of the review is scientific in nature, led by the chair of the GWG (an external scientist member appointed to this role by the ICOC). The assigned reviewers declare their scores for the application being discussed and briefly summarize the basis for their recommendations. This is followed by full discussion of the application by GWG members, ending with the assigned reviewers suggesting revised scores based on the discussion. Each scientific member of the GWG not in conflict with that application then submits a final scientific score. Although ad hoc specialist reviewers can suggest scores in their written evaluations and, if present, during the discussion, only GWG members can submit a final score. The final scientific score is the arithmetic mean of the reviewers’ scores. If there is a wide divergence in scores with a sizable proportion (greater than 35 percent) of the GWG being in disagreement with the majority view, a minority report is forwarded to the ICOC along with the final score (CIRM, 2011g).

"The next stage is the programmatic review, chaired by one of the patient advocate members of the GWG appointed to this position by the ICOC (CIRM, 2011g). The purpose of this review is to evaluate all of the applications taking into account not only their scientific scores but also the overall purpose of the RFA, with the goal of segregating the applications into three tiers— recommended, provisionally recommended, or not recommended for funding. This process has two steps. First, a histogram of the scores of all of the applications is generated. Of note, at this stage the applications are deidentified, and only the scores are revealed. The GWG examines this histogram and identifies natural breaks to divide the applications into the three tiers based on their scores. Next, the applications are identified so that the scientific score (and tier) of each is made known. GWG members (except those with conflicts, who leave the room) begin a discussion to determine whether any of the applications should be moved from one tier to another in an effort to achieve a balanced portfolio representing a spectrum of priority disease areas, scientific approaches, innovation, and so forth. For an application to be moved from one tier to another, a majority vote of the GWG is required; all members of the GWG not in conflict (scientists and patient advocates) participate in this vote. Once the GWG is satisfied with the final ranking of proposals, a final vote is taken, and the rank order is proposed to the ICOC for approval. For each application, in addition to its final ranking, the scientific score voted by the scientists on the GWG is provided to the ICOC (CIRM, 2011g; IOM, 2012e).

"The ICOC makes funding decisions at a meeting scheduled and publicized in advance. As with other ICOC agenda items, deliberations on the funding of applications begin in a session that is open to the public. ICOC board members in conflict with any particular application are recused from both this public discussion and any subsequent private deliberations. Prior to the ICOC meeting, summary information about each application is available on the CIRM website, including how that particular application ranked relative to the others and its tier designation.

"Applications are redacted, however, to remove information that would identify applicants or institutions. Individual applicants are aware of how their proposal scored and how likely it is to be funded, and have the opportunity to make an “extraordinary petition” to the ICOC. Any ICOC board member may request that the petition be heard. In such cases, petitioners are invited to the ICOC meeting to explain why they believe the assigned score and priority ranking are not appropriate.(California Stem Cell Report note: The preceding sentence is in error. Petitioners are not invited to appear. In fact, some have not understood their right to appear. Others do not even understand that they can file a petition.)

"The ICOC takes this information (the petitions) into consideration as it deliberates about the final ranking of applications. If it is necessary to discuss proprietary information, the ICOC may meet in closed session before a final vote is taken on which applications will be funded. As a result of its private and public deliberations, the ICOC may move applications from one tier to another before taking a final vote, after which applicants are notified about funding decisions. Examination of ICOC records indicates that the shifting of applications from one tier to another does occur. For example, as of October 22, 2012, 62 extraordinary petitions were heard by the ICOC, of which 20 (32 percent) were successfully funded (CIRM, 2012h). While most of this shifting is between adjacent tiers, there have been cases in which applications have been moved from tier 3 to tier 1 (CIRM, 2011g; IOM, 2012e); this has occurred with applications for major programs with large budgets. As discussed in greater detail below, the committee is troubled by the extraordinary petition mechanism and suggests that this practice be eliminated. The committee recognizes that CIRM has recently initiated a self-study regarding all aspects of extraordinary petitions."  

Texas Flap Looms Over California Stem Cell Agency's Grant Appeals

In nine days, the California stem cell agency plans to take another crack at finding ways to curb its free-wheeling appeal process involving scientists whose applications for millions have been rejected by reviewers.

It is a matter of considerable interest to researchers who need the cash to keep their labs running and remain in good standing with their host institutions.

The stem cell agency's governing board this fall created a task force to deal with the appeals issue after a record-breaking number of researchers made public appeals featuring emotional patient advocates. Even the former chairman of the agency, Robert Klein, made a two-time pitch for one applicant. Board members later complained publicly about “arm-twisting,” lobbying and“emotionally charged presentations.”

The agenda for the Nov. 30 task force meeting in Oakland -- with teleconferencing sites in San Francisco, Irvine, Palo Alto, Seattle and Rochester, N.Y. -- contains few clues on what the panel is hoping to specifically accomplish in next week's 90-minute session.

But interested researchers can check the transcript from the Oct. 24 meeting, during which CIRM President Alan Trounson described the problem as “very critical.” He said,

“I think this is a very serious matter that could really bite us very hard in a similar way to what's happened in Texas. Unless we come up with some kind of process that really addresses the science, it's a very large concern.”

Trounson's Texas reference was to the mass resignations of reviewers at that state's $3 billion cancer research effort. Questions have been raised about integrity of its grant review process and the program's political and biotech industry relationships. James Drew of the Dallas Morning News produced a bit of an overview this week. In another piece, Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle provided quotes from emails from the infighting on a controversial $18 million grant.

Changes in California's grant appeal process may well be also discussed at the agency's board meeting Dec. 12 in Los Angeles. The board hopes to wrap up its action by late January.

Here is a link to an item with more specifics on material presented to the task force in October. Here is a link to an August 2012 list of articles and documents related to the CIRM appeals process.

Interested parties can address comments to the agency at info@cirm.ca.gov.   

Dennis Steindler Application: Excerpt from Review Summary

The CIRM summary of the review on the $6.7 million grant to recruit Florida scientist Dennis Steindler to the Parkinson's Institute in California carried a strong minority report. However, the review itself drew fire this morning from some CIRM board members.

They included patient advocate Jeff Sheehy, co-vice chair of the grant review group, who supported approval of the grant. He noted that the low score reflected two extreme opinions. He said some of the reviewers were doing their research on the Parkinson's Institute on the Internet during the actual review.  Sheehy said that was not a "good way" to perform a review and reflected a "major short-coming." 

Here is an excerpt from the review.

"In summary, this is an application from an established leader in NSC biology to pursue research focused on disease mechanisms in PD. Strengths of the proposal include the quality of the PI, the focus of the project on an interesting hypothesis, and the leadership in basic science that the candidate would bring to the applicant institution. Weaknesses included deficiencies in the research plan, the limited track-record of the PI in PD research and an institutional environment lacking adequate support for basic science investigations."

The summary continued, 

"During programmatic discussion some GWG (grant review group) members cited a need to broaden stem cell leadership not only at the large universities but also at the smaller institutions as well. They felt that the candidate's recruitment would strengthen the applicant institution and provide leadership and strength in basic research. The need for increased research focused on Parkinson's Disease was also cited by some reviewers. A motion to recommend the application for funding carried with a majority vote. Because more than 35% of GWG members opposed the motion, opponents have exercised their right to have that position reported to the ICOC. The consensus statement from this group is as follows: 'Despite the facts that the applicant has many excellent attributes, that Parkinson's disease is a key area of interest, and that the applicant institution may deserve additional consideration, our opinion is that the application clearly falls short in several critical scientific areas that outweigh the programmatic concerns and do not justify a recommendation for funding. We believe that the people of California depend upon us to make recommendations based on our scientific expertise, for outcomes that are most likely to impact medicine and the health and treatment of their citizens. We believe that their money can be better spent.'"

Whopping Pay Hike Proposed for CIRM Grant Reviewers

The California stem cell agency, which constantly stews about recruiting and keeping enough top notch scientists to review its grant applications, is now proposing to pay them $750 a day, which could total as much as $10,000 per reviewer for each grant round.

If the compensation reaches that level, it would be a 500 percent increase in the flat $2,000 that was previously provided.

The pay hike comes before the CIRM board later this week. In a memo, the CIRM staff said it was needed in order for the agency to be “competitive” in securing reviewers, who are usually well-known and respected scientists.

CIRM offered no figures for the overall estimated cost of the increase in what it calls "honorarium." But at $750-a-day, which amounts to $195,000 if it were applied on annual basis, the amount is pay – not honorarium.

We based our cost estimates on information provided in 2007 by Richard Murphy, then interim president of CIRM. Murphy also had served as head of the Salk Institute and as a member of CIRM board.

Murphy told the California Stem Cell Report that when he did grant reviews it took him one to two weeks to review the grants and write them up, including meeting time and travel. Based on that, the proposed pay for reviewers – which covers days of service, not just actual meetings -- could run from $3,750 to $10,000 per grant ground for each reviewer. Of course, the amount depends on how fast a reviewer works and could be less or more.

The number of grant reviewers actually used varies, depending on the need for specialists. However, 13 sit as regular members of the grant review group and many, many more as alternates or ad hoc members.

Murphy spoke to us at a CIRM board meeting during which the compensation was boosted from $500 a day to the flat $2,000. The $500 only applied to meeting days. The compensation does not include travel expenses, which are also reimbursed by CIRM.

As CIRM indicated, retaining skilled reviewers appears to be getting tougher. Lifting of the federal ban on hESC grants would certainly would seem to create more demand from the NIH for scientific reviewers who might also be recruited by CIRM. And the stem field generally is much more active than it was in 2005, when CIRM got started, generating more demand for reviewers. All of those reviewers also have their own personal research projects to attend.

The need for increased CIRM incentives is also likely linked to the absence of a chief scientific officer (CSO) at CIRM. One of the “the most important and least appreciated aspects of the CSO's role has been to personally beg, harangue and plead” with other scientists to serve as reviewers, as one person told us.

The post is now vacant after the resignation of Marie Csete earlier this year. Csete had served as CIRM reviewer and was well-respected and well-known in her field, giving her the heft to bring in reviewers.

It is likely to be some months before her post is filled.

CIRM also cited as justification for the pay increase an increasing future workload as grant rounds become more complex.

CIRM Publishes Reviews on $66 Million Grant Round; Names of Applicants Remain Secret

Ranked and scored reviews of applications for $66 million in stem cell/biotech training grants can now be found on the web site of the California stem cell agency, which is expected to give away the money next Thursday or Friday.

None of the names of the institutions proposing the programs have been disclosed by CIRM in keeping with its longstanding and mistaken policy of not disclosing the identities of those who are seeking public funds. The names of the winners ultimately will be made public, after they been officially approved. CIRM never releases the names of the losers.

The recommendations, which are in reality de facto decisions, of the Grant Working Group that are virtually certain to be ratified by the full CIRM board can be found in the categories of "recommended for funding" and "not recommended for funding." CIRM directors almost never have overturned those decisions by grant reviewers in the process of approving 253 grants since 2005.

Something of a case can be made for not revealing the names of individual scientists who compete for the grants on the grounds that it could be embarrassing. But not to disclose the names of the enterprises – many of which are publicly funded institutions – serves no public interest. It prevents the public from making thoughtful comments on the grants and has led to an embarrassing situation for CIRM itself involving a $2.6 million grant to CHA RMI of Los Angeles. (Following the flap, CHA ultimately withdrew its application.)

In contrast, stem cell insiders are not likely to have too much difficulty in determining the identities of most of the applicants based on the material in the grant reviews.

That said, CIRM is to be commended for posting the links to the reviews on Thursday in reasonably timely fashion ahead of the CIRM board meeting.

Here is where you can find the reviews for the $18 million program to train lab personnel and the $48 million effort to train young scientists.

Conflicts of Interest, CIRM and Transparency

Do conflicts of interest exist among the scientists who make the de facto decisions on hundreds of millions of dollars in California grants for research related to embryonic stem cells?

The answer? Yes.

Even the California stem cell agency acknowledges that fact. Because of conflicts, the agency regularly excuses some of the scientists who review the grant applications from participating in specific cases.

But CIRM stoutly maintains that the financial and professional interests of reviewers are not suitable for release to the public or applicants. The agency contends the reviewers are only making recommendations. However, the reviewers' decisions are almost never rejected by CIRM's board of directors. The agency also has turned down a recommendation by the state auditor that it seek an opinion from the state attorney general on whether it should publicly disclose the reviewers' interests.

Trust us, the agency says. We will police the conflicts and assure that no abuses occur.

Rarely do rejected applicants raise conflict issues publicly. No one wants to offend the world's largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research. In August, however, one scientist brought up the question of conflicts at a meeting of the CIRM board of directors.

Steven Kessler, a scientific director at Advanced Cell Technology of Los Angeles, was not happy with the response he received from CIRM staff on a letter he wrote concerning what he said was a conflict of interest on the part of a unnamed reviewer.

According to the transcript of the meeting, here's how Kessler summarized his position for CIRM directors:

"If a grant reviewer has a financial relationship with company "X"...that is, he's receiving funding from that organization or he's expecting royalty income from some company by virtue of having licensed technology to that company and that reviewer is sitting in on reviews from other for-profit organizations...and doesn't recommend those for funding, to us, from a business perspective, that's a conflict of interest."

Kessler said he had cited "numerous instances" of conflicts on the part of the reviewer, where there would be "every incentive to help impede the competition for the company that he has a relationship with.".

Kessler said,

"I was told that the way CIRM interprets its own conflict of interest policy, the example I gave you was not a conflict of interest."

At that point CIRM Chairman Robert Klein cut off Kessler, declaring that the directors needed to discuss the names for CIRM-funded labs before going to lunch.

Kessler's comments followed a discussion in which Klein and other directors expressed concern about reviewers quitting if they were subject to public complaints.

Klein said,

"To the extent that (applicants) are criticizing peer reviewers, which is sometimes common, we're going to lose our peer reviewers."

On Sept. 14, we asked CIRM for a copy of Kessler's conflict-of-interest letter. On Oct. 22, more than five weeks later and after repeated follow-up queries, the agency declined to release the letter.

Initially, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, said there was a question of redaction of material from the letter. Then he said our inquiry was lost by CIRM's interim general counsel. Ultimately, on Oct. 22, Gibbons said,

"Our interim general counsel has determined that the Kessler letter is part of the grant application process and as such is not a public document."

We asked for the legal reasoning behind that statement. On Oct. 29, Gibbons quoted interim counsel Ian Sweedler as saying,

"Applicants need to know that they can contact CIRM with information about potential conflicts, and that they can do that without leveling public allegations against a professional colleague."

Obviously conflicts of interest can at times involve judgment calls. CIRM also places a burden on its reviewers, all of whom come from out-of-state and cannot apply for CIRM grants. Marie Csete, now CIRM's chief scientific officer, commented last year on the situation when she was a reviewer prior to her employment at CIRM. Among other things, she said that she and the other reviewers were being asked to fund the work of their competitors.

CIRM's overriding concern has been the care and feeding of reviewers. We acknowledge that they need considerable attention. However, the main issue here is the stewardship of public funds and the integrity of a state government process involving billions of dollars. From its birth, CIRM has wrestled with problems spawned by the ballot initiative that created the research program. CIRM was deliberately cobbled together with built-in conflicts starting at the very top. The chief beneficiaries of CIRM's largess sit on its board of directors and set the rules for grants and control the process.

The bounty from CIRM is huge. Here is a list of CIRM recipient institutions (with grant totals) which have or had employees or representatives on the CIRM board of directors: Stanford, $94 million; UC San Francisco, $82 million; UCLA, $51 million; UC Irvine, $51 million; USC, $48 million; Sanford (San Diego) Consortium, $43 million; UC Davis, $36 million; UC San Diego, $33 million; UC Berkeley, $29 million; UC Santa Cruz, $17 million; Burnham, $18 million; Salk Institute, $16 million; Scripps, $9 million; UC Merced, $8 million; UC Santa Barbara, $7 million; UC Riverside, $6 million; Caltech, $2 million, and City of Hope, $2 million.

The built-in conflicts at CIRM are not likely to change, short of another ballot measure. They are enshrined in the state Constitution, a move by Prop. 71 writers who wanted to make CIRM immune to normal government oversight.

However, handing out billions behind closed doors with no outside scrutiny is a recipe for abuse. State ethics officials are already looking into the attempt by one CIRM director to influence CIRM staff on behalf of his institution. Should a major scandal erupt, it would ill serve the agency, the people of California and the cause of science.

If only to protect itself, the agency should comply with its repeated promise to adhere to the highest standards of openness and transparency and publicly release the statements of the economic and professional interests of its reviewers.

(Further note: Kessler also declined to release his letter to us. The CIRM grant review committee meets next Wednesday and Thursday in San Francisco to review applications for $66 million in public funds. The review sessions are closed but the public may comment on Wednesday morning.)

Links to CIRM Grant Review Process

Here are some links to documents relating to the California stem cell agency and complaints about fairness in its grant review process.

Consumer Watchdog Identifies Businesses Rejected for CIRM Grants

CIRM's August Proposal for a Reconsideration Procedure (this is likely to be modified for CIRM's September meeting)

Transcript of August CIRM Meeting

Cascade LifeSciences Seeks Reconsideration

Text of Cascade's Reconsideration Letter

CIRM Response to Cascade

Transcript of June CIRM Meeting Involving Cascade

Transcript of the January CIRM directors meeting, which heard the first public appeal of a scientific review. Search on the term "luben," which is the misspelling of the name of Bertram Lubin, president of Childrens Hospital Oakland Research Institute, who appeared before the directors seeking reconsideration.

Nature magazine article April 30, 2008, in which Lubin comments on CIRM

California Stem Cell Report account of part of the January meeting involving the Lubin appeal.

Cascade LifeSciences Critiques CIRM Grant Review Process; Questions Raised about Fairness and Facts

Cascade LifeSciences of San Diego is one of the few companies to appear at a meeting of the board of directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency in connection with rejection of its grant application.

Kenneth Woolcott, chief business officer of the firm, expressed dismay last Thursday night concerning CIRM's scientific grant review process. Among other things, he said that reviewers appeared not to have read the application very carefully.

Following the meeting, we emailed him and asked if he would like to comment further with an eye to making constructive suggestions for changes in the review process. We are asking CIRM if it has any comment on Woolcott's remarks, the text of which follows:

"We were disappointed by the CIRM review and discouraged by the process. I trust that the agency and the applicants will evolve favorably with experience. As our distinguished Gov would say..............'We'll be Back.'

"Our real hope is that through expressing our concerns we will be able to make industry (For Profit) a viable partner in the mission of Prop. 71.

"The mission statement of Prop. 71 makes very clear that although science is a laudable goal it is not the end game. Products that treat, cure, or enhance our lives are the end game. Fast forward 10 to 15 years and I would like to be so bold as to suggest that the ultimate arbiter of the success of CIRM or Prop 71 will be PRODUCTS. Not research achievements, not publications, not patents, not even Nobel Prizes. All of these will advance our efforts and are important metrics and may even contribute to the economy of California. But John Q. Public will only benefit directly by the development of innovative stem cell related PRODUCTS that I believe will change medical approaches to disease in fundamental ways.

"I am a lawyer and the CBO of Cascade LifeSciences, but I am also a taxpayer. I also have an industry bias cultivated over 20 years with two of the San Diego biotech pioneers, Hybritech and IDEC. What I know about stem cells I have learned, what I know about product development I have lived.

"I believe industry and CIRM share the goal of product development. Although cutting edge science and academic excellence are part of the goal, we believe that industry must be the conduit through which PRODUCT run the clinical, regulatory and marketplace gauntlet.

--------
(Editor's note: Here is a brief sketch of the firm provided by Woolcott.)

"Cascade LifeSciences

"Founded 2007
"San Diego, CA
"Howard Birndorf, Chairman
"Kenneth Woolcott, Chief Business Officer
"Sophia Khaldoyanidi, Ph.D, MD , Chief Scientific Officer
"Larry Respess, General Counsel
"Exclusive Licensee of Novel SCNT technology developed at Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) and published in Nature, Nov 2007. (First successfully SCNT in Primates)
"Dr. S. Mitalipov , inventor of SCNT patents and consultant on human SCNT effort.

----------

"Our Expectation

(Editor's note: Woolcott's detailed comments follow.)

"CIRM RFA 07-05: New Cell Line Awards

"Page 1, Program Objectives --'Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), a method for reprogramming that is well-established in several mammalian species, has not yet been achieved with human cells, but recent success has been reported in non-human primates.' [This is Dr. Mitalipov's work published in Nature and exclusively licensed by Cascade]

"Page 2. 'The needs may in the future be met by derivation of hESC following SCNT...'

"Page 2. 'CIRM proposes a new program to address the need for new types and sources of human pluripotent stem cell lines and for the optimization of existing methods for their derivation"

"Cascades Reasoned Expectation:

"Translation of our SCNT primate work into the SCNT generation of hESC is right in the 'strike zone' of the RFA. We were very pleased the CIRM had seen the wisdom of opening up the grant process to industry to help fund this critically important translational research that can neither be funded by the NIH nor is of interest to all but a very few private investors.

"Cascades Competitive Appreciation.

"iPS is a very important scientific avenue of research but SCNT is a very competitive alternative especially for PRODUCTS that are intended for human use.

"Cascades Experience with the Grant Review

"Grant review comments were factually incorrect. Not a matter of subjective scientific debate. Hence, the conclusions were fundamentally flawed. For example, reviewer #1 comment was 'lack of novelty, pure translation of the non-human primate work into humans.' This seems to defy logic and the mission of human therapeutics. Moreover, this does not seem to be consistent with the objectives published by CIRM in its RFA, which specifically calls out the 'hurdle' of human SCNT as a fundable goal.

"A second example of a reviewer's factual error is the comment 'The ability to generate individualized human embryonic stem cell lines using somatic cell nuclear transfer from either healthy individuals or patients with specific disease states is an exciting and yet technically demanding prospect. To date, no one has successfully cloned human embryonic stem cells, although recently, a group at University of Oregon Heath Sciences Center has successfully derived primate embryonic stem cells, with an efficiency of approximately 0.3[s1] %.' This is factually incorrect at two levels and we are unsure of where the reviewer got the 0.3% efficiency rate. Our November 2007 Nature paper calls out 0.66% efficiency at page 497. Our grant application (filed Jan 2008) describes in detail at page 8, Confidential, non-published information, 'These results represent a significant reduction in the number of oocytes required to produce a single ESC line over previously reported efficiency (from 152 to 30) providing the important foundation to conduct the proposed studies in humans.' One ESC out of 30 oocytes is actually 3.3%.

"As we all know development of therapeutics for the monkey population is a very low margin business. [Sorry could not resist]

"Moreover, at the CIRM IROC meeting Dr. Uta Grieshammer, specifically presented the review committees grant criteria and noted specifically that the review team was advise that 'novelty' was NOT a priority for these types of grants. Also at the meeting, Dr. Trounson announced that no SCNT grants had been made due to some sort of vague policy concern about access to human oocytes and the challenges this had created in other countries. First, this was 'moving the goal posts' after we had submitted our grant application. Second, we appreciate the challenge of securing oocytes but we at Cascade had been fortunate enough to secure commitment from LJ IVF clinic to supply all the oocytes we need to proceed with our effort. Moreover, if this was truly the reason for flagging our grant application as non fundable, CIRM should have just told us that in writing and explain how they were going to proceed, if at all, in the area of SCNT.

"We filed a formal request to rebut the conclusions and comments of the reviews but were told there was no such process. We now understand that after our departure on Thursday, Rusty Gage, one of our esteemed colleagues here in San Diego was allowed to rebut reviewer comments and did receive funding. We are unclear on how this rebuttal process works and why we were denied any opportunity to dialogue on the merits.

"We are now told that my discussion at CIRM was flawed because I did not address the mistake regarding efficiency of our SCNT. This is unfortunate, as we were told our request for rebuttal was rejected and that we were not allowed to discuss the merit or lack of merit of the specific review of our application but our 3 minutes was limited to expressing our concerns about the process and our suggestions for improvement from an industry perspective.

"How did this happen? Mistake? Miscommunication? Misunderstanding? Bias?

"Suggestions and Action Items for Consideration

"Industry representation on CIRM grant review teams

"Formal appeal process or ability to respond in writing to reviewer comments. See, SBIR, STTR, NIH funding for models of review cycles.

"Holding the review team to the published review criteria--e.g., in this RFA, novelty is not a priority criteria.

"One of the review criteria should always be the impact of the research on the advancement of human product development.

"If the Rusty Gage review reconsideration is as I understand it, it seems that there is one set of rules for a deservingly prominent scientist and a different set of rules for Cascade LifeSciences. We also filed a letter with CIRM asking for the opportunity to comment on our grant review and were denied. This seems, without more complete information, to be unfair.

"Perhaps separate academic/not-for-profit grant application review from for profit review. Comparing not-for-profit grants (institutions that are grant writing machines) with the grant applications of fledgling biotech companies is fundamentally unfair. Anyone who knows me will tell you I am a basketball fan. Using that sport as an analogy, this is like the USA basketball team of young college players competing against the Soviet National Team of grown men that had played together for four years. We all know how that worked out.

"Although I believe that industry is a key element of product development, and we desire to work with CIRM to advance the cause, if their funding criteria or standards are inconsistent with industry participation or pragmatic product development, we need to know that earlier rather than later.

"I am personally and professionally committed to assist CIRM in making industry an equal partner in achieving the mission of Prop. 71. I would look for guidance from the ICOC (CIRM's board of directors) on how we can work through some of these administrative and structural challenges.

"Hope this helps. It is a complex issue for industry as well as for CIRM."

Sunshine and $66 Million in Stem Cell Training Grants

The California stem cell agency is proposing a new, $66 million round of training grants that will reach into the undergraduate level as well as honing the skills of more advanced students and scientists.

The proposals also offer an fine opportunity for CIRM to break out of its usual, closed-door grant review procedures and open the process to overdue public scrutiny.

The training plans will come up next week for conceptual approval at CIRM's Oversight Committee meeting. The proposals include a three-year, $48 million offering aimed at pre-doctoral, postdoctoral and clinical fellow levels. The second, $18 million training plan targets lower academic levels and could involve as many as 100 students over a possible three-year period.

The latest proposals are a continuation of an effort begun in September 2005, when CIRM approved its first-ever grants, $39 million for training 170 scientists over three years. Those grants were reviewed behind closed doors by scientists whose financial interests are not publicly disclosed, an arrangement that has persisted to this day.

Closed door reviews are a long-standing custom in the scientific community. Changing that process is uncomfortable for many. CIRM has argued that the private process is necessary to encourage candid comments from reviewers and to avoid embarrassing rejected applicants. Unspoken is the possibility that disappointed applicants might later vent their displeasure on the CIRM grant reviewers, perhaps by acting negatively on the reviewers' own grant applications before the NIH or other institutions or taking some other professional retaliatory action.

Applications for the CIRM training grants, however, will come from institutions – not individuals. It is very difficult – although probably not impossible – to embarrass, for example, UC Berkeley, especially during a review of an application for a training program.

Some have argued that CIRM should not diverge from NIH closed-door review practices. However, CIRM and the NIH are much different animals. The NIH is subject to control by the president and Congress. CIRM is all but immune from fiddling by the governor and the legislature because it is enshrined in the state Constitution and given special protection under the terms of Prop. 71.

CIRM officials have said that the agency's review process does not need to be changed because no problems have come up. However, an ounce of prevention can help to avoid unexpected scandal. No one last year would have predicted the mess that resulted when one CIRM director intervened with CIRM staff in an attempt to secure a grant to his institution. No one would have predicted that the director's action would come as the result of advice from the chairman of CIRM, who is an attorney intimately familiar with CIRM law and rules.

While its scientific reviews are closed, the stem cell agency has conducted public hearings on the construction phase of applications for $262 million to build stem cell labs. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog, participated in those open sessions.

In response to a query, he said they worked out well. He added,

"The Facilities Working Group review of applications for funding laboratories was public and everyone benefited. The scientific review was secret, implying that it's perfectly OK to embarrass an institution because it can't build a building, but that it's wrong to suggest publicly it can't do decent science.

"It's time to open the closed scientific brotherhood to scrutiny and conduct the scientific reviews of the training programs in public. What do scientists have to hide?"

Earlier this week, Nature magazine warned of "cronyism" at CIRM and called for "strong governance" of the stem cell agency. However, the political realities in California are such that the built-in conflicts of interest on the Oversight Committee are not going to disappear any time soon.

Letting a little sunshine in on this round of training grants would be salutary for CIRM and well serve both its own interests and the interests of the people of California.

Childrens Hospital Loses Bid for Lab Grant; 12 Survive

In their most heated public session in their short history, directors of the California stem cell agency Wednesday night rejected a bid by Childrens Hospital Oakland Research Institute to overturn a negative recommendation on a grant to build a lab to fight sickle cell anemia.

Childrens' request failed on a 5-10 vote despite an impassioned plea by CIRM director Jeff Sheehy.

"This is a no-brainer," said Sheehy. "This is a very promising area of research."

Other board members argued that Childrens' public appeal, the first ever directed to the Oversight Committee, violated the agency's processes, was unfair to other rejected applicants and needed consideration in some future round of grants.

Sheehy didn't buy the arguments. "Let us study it," he said caustically. "Let another person die."

The board's action came during a session that resulted in the relatively routine approval of 12 institutions to advance to the next round of the $262 million stem cell lab grant program, which will judge the actual building plans. Today's review focused on the research proposed for the facilities. All 12 approved Wednesday night were identified earlier as being recommended for funding following a closed-door session involving scientific reviewers who are not required to disclose publicly their financial interests.

Childrens Hospital received a "do-not-fund" decision by the reviewers. Bertram Lubin, president of the hospital, appeared before the Oversight Committee Wednesday night after sending three letters to the members of the panel. (Two of have appeared on this web site.)

He told directors that the grant reviewers did not appreciate the type of research proposed by Childrens. Sheehy, who participates in the closed-door review sessions, concurred.

Lubin also told directors, "When you report on what CIRM has done, this (funding his program)would be a major accomplishment." He said it could result in actual treatments in a year or two, which is a far cry from almost all of the research financed by CIRM.

Some directors, including Chairman Robert Klein, have pushed aggressively for faster work on therapies. Ironically, earlier in the day, a CIRM Task Force explored details of how it could launch a massive loan program, totaling as much as $750 million, to speed development of therapies.

Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine, did not agree with Childrens' appeal. "I don't think we can run a board this way. If we do, it would be chaos." He was responding to a request by Lubin for a 10 minute presentation Thursday of Childrens' case. Levey warned that allowing the presentation would lead to 50 other rejected applicants coming to the board.

Director Joan Samuelson said that even 100 persons would be okay with her. She provoked laughter when she declared that would show more interest than at any other board meeting.

CIRM's new president, Alan Trounson, who was attending his first board meeting, expressed concern about whether allowing Lubin to make a 10 minute presentation on Thursday would be fair to the five other rejected applicants. He suggested that they might need to be notified and allowed to make a similar pitch, perhaps by phone.

Ted Love, another director, said, "We can't fund everything. He said that if Childrens' research is "really good," they will find funding elsewhere. Both Klein and Trounson indicated that Childrens research might find favor in another round of grants.

However, the board rejected, on a 3-10 vote with one abstention, Samuelson's motion to permit a 10 minute presentation. Lubin was allowed to make his appeal during the comment period alloted to the general public. Speakers are supposed to be limited to three minute presentations, but enforcement of is sometimes lax.

While Childrens was frustrated in its bid on Wednesday, other applicants are going to be disappointed this spring in the second round of the competition. CIRM staff said that if all 12 were funded at the midrange of the amounts alloted in each category of competition, $320 million would be required. The board has already said it will only spend $262 million.

Following the meeting, CIRM released the following statements:

Klein said,

"Investment in facilities to extend California’s state-of-the art research capacity is a critical part of CIRM’s Scientific Strategic Plan to sustain and build California’s global leadership in stem cell research. Through the Major Facilities Grants we are leveraging the impact of Proposition 71 funds with contributions from donors and non-profit research institutions. Our goal is to exceed $550,000,000 in research facility investments that will advance critical stem cell research. Achieving this goal would mean that every one dollar of State funding from Proposition 71 would deliver two dollars in research facility investment."

Trounson said,

"The facility investments CIRM will make through these grants will continue to propel California as a leader in stem cell research. Providing the necessary infrastructure for research is a critical step in laying the foundation for eventual therapies and cures."

The Oversight Committee meeting will continue today with an appeal by the Human BioMolecular Research Institute San Diego of reviewer rejection of its grant application.

The 12 institutions that survived Wednesday night's judgments are Buck Institute, the San Diego Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, Stanford, UC campuses in Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, San Francisco, Merced, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and Santa Cruz and the University of Southern California.

The agency's press release is not likely to be available on its web site until sometime Thursday morning.