Proposition 14 Campaign Coverage: George Bush, 'Blatant Giveaway' and $5.5 Billion More

Northern California's respected KQED news site has aired an overview of Proposition 14, the far-reaching, $5.5 billion measure to continue funding of stem cell research by the state of California.

The piece by Danielle Venton covers a bit of the history of the state stem cell agency, the "debt" it owes to former President George Bush and the progress of the agency, known formally as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). Venton wrote,

"The pace of innovation has been slower than many hoped. As it turned out, grand discoveries were not around the corner, and to date there is no widespread stem cell treatment approved for the public. To date, CIRM has funded more than 64 trials directly and aided in 31 more. Not all have or will result in treatments.

"But despite the lack of a marquee cure like one for Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, the agency has seen some notable triumphs."

Quoted by Venton were Jeff Sheehy, a member of the CIRM governing board; Melissa King, field operations manager for the campaign and executive director of the nonprofit Americans for Cures, and David Jensen, author of "California's Great Stem Cell Experiment" and publisher of this blog.

Proposition 14 would save CIRM from financial extinction. It is slated to begin closing its doors this winter as its original $3 billion in funding is running out. The agency was created by Proposition 71 of 2004, which raised high expectations of cures.  Venton wrote,

"Right now the state still owes about $1 billion toward the debt created by Proposition 71. If Proposition 14 passes, the yearly price tag to pay off the new bond would be about $260 million per year for about 30 years.

"Funding needs for stem cell research also are not as acute as they were back in 2004. The federal National Institutes of Health now funds some basic stem cell research, spending about $2 billion a year, with $321 million of that going toward human embryonic stem cell research. And private ventures, like nonprofits started by tech billionaires, are pouring more money into biotech."

Venton wrote,

"Proposition 14 makes it impossible for the state to use profits from its investment on, say, schools or other funding priorities. Instead, any royalties earned must be fed back into programs to make CIRM-funded treatments more affordable. 

"'What it does is it basically takes all of our returns that we get from this and gives it back to the pharmaceutical and biotech companies,' said Sheehy. 'It becomes just a blatant giveaway to these companies when we should be requiring access and requiring fair pricing.'"

King said that "CIRM fills a neglected funding need," Venton wrote.

"'The NIH (federal funding agency) does not fund clinical trials at nearly the rate that CIRM can and has been,' King said.

"She says that's important because of what she calls the 'Valley of Death,' where promising early-stage research frequently fails to translate into promising treatments that can be tested in clinical-stage research. (What works well in a test tube often does not work well in an organism.) This weeding-out process is costly but necessary. And it’s where CIRM focused a lot of its effort."

LA Times Runs Down the Middle in News Report on $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Ballot Initiative

California's largest circulation newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, this week published an overview of the state's $5.5 billion stem cell ballot measure that was headlined:

"With Prop. 14, California voters will be asked for more borrowing to keep stem cell research going"

The article by Melody Gutierrez played the issues pretty much down the middle. However, backers of the measure, Proposition 14, likely are not happy with the headline. They would have preferred one that focused on how they think the measure would save lives. 

The ballot initiative is aimed at refinancing the state stem cell agency, known officially as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and which will be closing its doors this winter because it is running out of money. The measure would also substantially widen CIRM's scope. 

The Times piece article carries more weight than most news pieces on the proposal because of the Times' reach and reputation. The newspaper claims a daily readership of 1.3 million and a combined print and online local weekly audience of 4.6 million.

The article said,

"Proposition 14 has no organized opposition and, so far, no one willing to put their money into fighting it — but the measure does have critics. Newspaper editorial boards, including those at the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle, have opposed it. Opponents include CIRM board member Jeff Sheehy, who says the state shouldn’t take on new debt while facing a pandemic-induced deficit and that medical advances attributed to the previous stem cell bond have been overstated."

The Times piece captured a bit of stem cell history:

"The campaign to pass the 2004 ballot measure told voters that the bond would save millions of lives and cut healthcare costs by billions. Critics say that’s not been the case to date, although supporters of this year’s measure note that they never intended those results within 16 years."

It should be noted that the "never intended" remark from Klein's campaign reflects a rewrite of history. The 2004 campaign was much criticized for its hype and raising voter expectations that stem cell cures were right around the corner.

Gutierrez also touched on the problem of finding financing at risky stages of research, writing,

"Alzheimer’s disease researcher Dr. Larry Goldstein, who works at UC San Diego, said the state’s stem cell agency fills a void in critical grant funding. He said industry, venture capital and federal funding is available, but often goes toward research showing promising results in late-stage trials. He said money is needed, however, to move a scientific discovery to that point. That gap, which he said is referred to as the “valley of death” in research, has been filled by CIRM grants.

"'It was getting more and more difficult to fund novel, risky and creative scientific projects,' Goldstein said. 'CIRM has done a good job of funding parts of my research that were particularly risky that have led to a particular payoff.'"

 The Times also reported,

"Sheehy said he’s been dismayed by claims now being made by proponents of Proposition 14 that he said mischaracterize some achievements as being the direct result of CIRM funding when the agency’s role was limited. If a major drug was developed with CIRM’s funding, the state would receive a royalty, patent or licensing revenue. To date, the agency has received $462,433, a fraction of what voters were told the state would take in."

Gutierrez concluded, 

'"The state can’t just keep giving money to this forever,' Sheehy said. 'It was never meant to be a permanent thing. It was for a specific unmet need that doesn’t exist anymore.'"

********

​Read all about California's stem cell agency, including Proposition 14,  in David Jensen's new book. Buy it on Amazon:  California's Great Stem Cell Experiment: Inside a $3 Billion Search for Stem Cell Cures. Click here for more information on the author.

Proposition 14: Newsom Endorses California's $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Measure

Newsom pushed a $17 million bid for the CIRM HQ

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, long a supporter of the California stem cell agency, today endorsed Proposition 14, the November ballot measure to give the agency $5.5 billion more and save it from financial extinction. 

Known officially as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the agency is running out of the $3 billion voters provided in 2004. It will begin shutting its doors this winter without a major infusion of cash. 

Newsom's endorsement was buried in a news release announcing his stand on a number of ballot measures. It also came on one of the worst days of the week in terms of securing news coverage, not to mention that California news is dominated today by wildfire coverage, among other things. 

The news release could not be found on the Internet at the time of this writing. It was forwarded to the California Stem Cell Report by the campaign. The full text of the Newsom announcement concerning the stem cell measure said, 

"YES on Proposition 14 to continue funding stem cell research, as well as research and therapy development for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other neurodegenerative conditions.  As Mayor of San Francisco, Newsom was an outspoken champion of Proposition 71 (2004), which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and made California a global leader in the field." 

In 2004, Newsom played a major role in raising a $17 million, successful bid to lure the headquarters of the agency to San Francisco. After its free rent expired a few years ago, CIRM moved to Oakland because of the high cost of space in San Francisco. 

Below is the release thanks to the folks at the campaign. 

*********

​Read all about California's stem cell agency, including Proposition 14,  in David Jensen's new book. Buy it on Amazon:  California's Great Stem Cell Experiment: Inside a $3 Billion Search for Stem Cell Cures. Click here for more information on the author.

***********

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 11, 2020

 

NEWSOM TAKES ADDITIONAL POSITIONS ON NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURES 

Governor supports Props 14, 15, 18 & 19, opposes Prop 21

 

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced his positions on remaining measures appearing on California’s statewide ballot in November.

 

Newsom SUPPORTS Proposition 15, which would reclaim billions of dollars for California’s public schools, community colleges and essential local services by changing the tax assessment of the most expensive commercial and industrial (non-residential) real property to current market value.

 

Newsom has long endorsed the concept of this balanced “split roll” property tax reform as a matter of fairness, as long as residential property owners and small businesses are protected.

 

“California, like every state in America, is currently experiencing the severe financial aftershocks of global pandemic,” Newsom said.  “As a result, we’ve seen numerous proposals floated to stabilize our state’s long-term fiscal outlook, to protect our most vulnerable and local communities, and to fund critical programs with new revenue.”

 

“In a global, mobile economy, now is not the time for the kind of state tax increases on income we saw proposed at the end of this legislative session and I will not sign such proposals into law,” he said.                                                                                                             

 

“I do however support Prop 15 because: it’s a fair, phased-in and long-overdue reform to state tax policy, it’s consistent with California’s progressive fiscal values, it will exempt small businesses and residential property owners, it will fund essential services such as public schools and public safety, and, most importantly, it will be decided by a vote of the people,” he said.  

 

Newsom OPPOSES Proposition 21, which, with some modifications, is similar to the failed Proposition 10 he also opposed in 2018.

 

“In the past year, California has passed a historic version of statewide rent control – the nation’s strongest rent caps and renter protections in the nation – as well as short-term eviction relief,” he said.  “But Proposition 21, like Proposition 10 before it, runs the all-too-real risk of discouraging availability of affordable housing in our state.”  

 

In addition, Newsom is taking positions on the following measures:

 

• YES on Proposition 14 to continue funding stem cell research, as well as research and therapy development for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other neurodegenerative conditions.  As Mayor of San Francisco, Newsom was an outspoken champion of Proposition 71 (2004), which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and made California a global leader in the field.  
• YES on Proposition 18, which would allow Californians 17 years of age to participate, register and vote in primary elections if they turn 18 by the time of the general election that same year.
• YES on Proposition 19, extending financial protections to homeowners 55 or older who purchase a new home or lose their home to wildfire.  It also closes a property tax loophole and allocates those savings to local firefighting programs. 

 

Previously, Newsom had taken an early position on important criminal justice and civil rights measures appearing on the November ballot, including:  

 

• YES on Proposition 16 to restore affirmative action by repealing 1996’s Prop 209.
• YES on Proposition 17 to restore voting rights for Californians on parole after completing their prison term.
• NO on Proposition 20, which attempts to roll back criminal justice reforms enacted by California voters.
• YES on Proposition 25 to ban cash bail, by upholding the 2018 law signed by Governor Jerry Brown.

 

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2020.  The deadline to register online to vote is Monday, October 19, 2020, although Californians can register in person to vote up until Election Day.

 

In June, Newsom signed a law requiring election officials to automatically send a mail-in ballot to every registered voter in the state.  The law also requires election officials to count all ballots received within 17 days of the election. 

 

# # # 

More News Reports on Halt in California Stem Cell Funding Applications

The journal Science this week joined the publications beginning to report on the financial travails of the $3 billion California stem cell agency. 

In a piece by Jocelyn Kaiser, the journal briefly summarized the agency's activities and its outlook for the future. Kaiser wrote, 

"Some researchers who explore the basic science of stem cells had already been looking for other funding sources as (the agency) began to emphasize clinical work and their support wound down. But others, especially those planning clinical trials, will be hit hard.

April Pyle, UCLA photo

"'It’s going to be a huge impact on my lab and many others if they end,” says April Pyle of UC Los Angeles (UCLA), whose 11-person group works on using muscle stem cells to treat muscular dystrophy. Her last CIRM grant ends in March 2020 and although she also has some NIH funding, it does not support the animal testing and other studies needed to move her work toward a clinical trial."

CIRM is the abbreviation of the official name of the stem cell agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. 

Pyle has received $4.6 million from CIRM and UCLA $289 million, according to the agency's figures.

Kaiser also wrote, 

"Ongoing payments for approved projects continue, but scientists are already tightening their belts for a funding gap. They are also contemplating the end of a boom in stem cell research in the state. California’s voters may be asked to renew CIRM with another bond initiative next year, 'but there’s no guarantee,' says Arnold Kriegstein, who heads a stem cell center at the University of California (UC), San Francisco, and has received CIRM funding in the past."

Kriegstein has received $4 million from CIRM and UC San Francisco $192 million.

The shutdown of CIRM applications was first reported by the California Stem Cell Report on June 20.

Others have recently followed, in one form or another, including The Scientist, Genome Web, Capitol Weekly, National Review, The Beacon, Spine Review and LifeNews.

The California Stem Cell Media Mix: 'Not Meant to Last Forever'

The Scientist magazine this week caught up with California stem cell matters, declaring that state stem cell agency "was not meant to last forever."

The piece by Chia-Yi Hou was a brief overview of California's stem cell agency, bringing the magazine's readers up-to-date about the current condition of the $3 billion research effort. 

"The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) was not meant to last forever, as it received a finite amount of government funds when it was formed," she wrote, referring to the stem cell agency by its official name.

Noting that the program was slow to begin its spending, The Scientist article continued, 

"Eventually, research ramped up and, with the help of CIRM, California has become a hotspot for the field. CIRM helped start stem cell labs in California and attract investments from pharmaceutical companies. 'I think it launched the whole field,' says stem cell researcher Jeanne Loring of Scripps Research in an email to The Scientist. 'At a time when the [National Institutes of Health] was not supporting much translational research using pluripotent stem cells, CIRM was investing heavily in that area.'" 

The piece said,

"Where CIRM funding has been crucial is funding preclinical studies that help get research 'from the bench to the bedside,' says stem cell and gene therapy researcher Stephanie Cherqui of the University of California, San Diego, who is the recipient of two awards totaling more than $17 million. Not many granting agencies have the means to provide millions of dollars to fund the toxicology, pharmacology, and manufacturing studies that are required by the US Food & Drug Administration before potential treatments can go into clinical trials, according to Cherqui."

Stem Cell Video Flap: A Back Story on How the Affair Broke

A San Diego stem cell scientist today shared the back story on development of a stem cell video ruckus earlier this month that snared a dozen or more scientists, including the president of the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

Jeanne Loring, chief scientific officer of Aspen Neuroscience,

Jeanne Loring, San Diego UT photo

wrote about the affair on The Niche, a blog published by UC Davis researcher, Paul Knoepfler.

Her account told how she became aware of the video, Healthcare Revolution, on the morning of Thursday June 13 when she was notified that the video would be released a few days later and included her. Loring wrote,

"I was mystified about how this happened, so Thursday evening I sent an email with the subject 'Help! what do you know about this 'documentary' to the 9 people on the documentary’s website whose emails I had: Bruce Levine, Evan Snyder, Larry Goldstein, Arnie Caplan, Josh Hare, Paolo DeCoppi, Tony Atala, Julie Allickson, and Maria Millan. None of them seemed to know either."

The next day Loring asked the producers to remove her from the video, which they did. Loring's post today said,

"I was very, very relieved. I checked the website later that day, and my photo was gone. Over the next few days I heard from the colleagues I’d contacted earlier, and gradually they too asked to be removed. It was fascinating to watch the 'episode experts' disappear one by one from the website.

"I tried watching one of the newly edited episodes. I was sickened by it and couldn’t watch to the end. I’m so glad I’m not in it."

Media Series on California Stem Cell Agency Has New Publication Dates

The San Francisco Chronicle has changed the publication dates for its series on stem cells and the California stem cell agency.

The second installment, dubbed "clinics,"  was scheduled to appear today. However, the publication date is now set for Aug. 2, one week from tomorrow. The rest of the schedule calls for the "research" installment on Aug. 16 and "progress" on Aug. 30.

Here is a link to an item on the beginning of the series earlier this month.

Aussie Bioethics Web Site Negative on California Stem Cell Royalties

The California stem cell agency and its royalty news drew attention today from down under in an article that did not exactly view the research effort with warm regards.

The piece appeared on the bioethics blog called Bioedge and was written by Michael Cook, who publishes the web site. He picked up on American news about the royalty matter, largely from the California Stem Cell Report, but also from the $3 billion agency itself.

Cook described the critics as scathing. He concluded,

"During the campaign for Proposition 71, supporters strongly argued that destructive research on human embryos was absolutely necessary for the science to proceed and that cures would certainly come. Almost 14 years later, there have been no cures. The royalty cheque was for a potential therapy for glioblastoma, a deadly brain tumour – but even this not on the market yet. Thus far, it has only passed Stage I clinical trials and been written up in glowing terms in O, The Oprah Magazine."

10th Anniversary Media Event Tomorrow in Los Angeles for California Stem Cell Agency

The $3 billion California stem cell agency will celebrate its 10^th anniversary with a media event tomorrow in Los Angeles aimed at demonstrating the impact of the Golden State’s research program.

The news conference is scheduled for 11 a.m. PST, and members of the public can listen in by dialing 866-528-2256 with a participant code of 1594399. The event will be at the Broad stem cell center at USC.

A note on the agency’s blog, The Stem Cellar, said,

“(The) money has helped make California a global leader in stem cell research and led to ten clinical trials that the stem cell agency is funding this year alone. Those include trials in heart disease, cancer, leukemia, diabetes, blindness, HIV/AIDS and sickle cell disease.”

The item continued,

“To hear how that work has had an impact on the lives of patients we are holding a media briefing to look at the tremendous progress that has been made, and to hear what the future holds.”

The Los Angeles media market is a tough one. It is also the state's largest. Great competition exists for coverage of events.  Kevin McCormack, the agency’s communications director, is promising to have patients on hand who have benefited from stem cell therapies along with researchers and key figures in the state stem cell effort.

The California Stem Cell Report last Sunday carried a 10th anniversary rundown on the agency.

(An earlier version of this item incorrectly said that the event will be at UCLA. The news conference will be at USC.)

Asterias Stock Price Jumps Nearly 13 Percent Today Following hESC Therapy News

The California stem cell agency and Asterias Biotherapeutics today picked up a modicum of news coverage in connection with an advance on a spinal injury therapy that was once hailed as historic.

The news about the Menlo Park, Ca., firm’s clinical trial received major attention in the San Francisco Chronicle and more modest coverage in the San Francisco Business Times and on the ipscell.com blog.  

The news also helped to push the Asterias stock price up nearly 13 percent since yesterday to close at $3.08 today. The stock closed at $2.43 Tuesday, the day before the company released the clinical trial news, according to Google Finance.

Stephanie Lee’s piece in the Chronicle contained some history about the potential therapy, dating back to when it was developed by Geron and then abandoned. Geron was the first firm to win approval of a clinical trial for a human embryonic stem cell (hESC) treatment.

Lee also had a couple of interesting tidbits, including the fact that the stem cell agency’s $14.3 million award to support the trial will cover half its costs. Lee also reported,

“Geron treated severe injuries in the thoracic region of the spinal cord, which runs along the back. Asterias is targeting injuries that originate in the neck, citing an outside study that suggests injuries in this area are easier to treat.”

Enal Razvi
Select Biosciences photo

Lee additionally quoted Enal Razvi, managing director of Select Biosciences U.S., an international life sciences consulting firm with its U.S. headquarters in Fremont, Ca.,  as saying,

"This is just the start of a trial, not the approval of a drug, which are two very, very different things in this space…(but) this helps things go to the next level." 

The Chronicle story was the No. 1 story late afternoon today in Google news search results using the term "stem cell," ranking ahead of the STAP news out of Japan.

Paul Knoepfler, a UC Davis scientists who writes the ipscell blog, carried a Q&A with Jane Lebkowski, president of research and development at Asterias, who discussed another hESC product. She said,

“A second Asterias product is AST-VAC2, which are human embryonic stem cell derived dendritic cells. These cells are modified to express telomerase, a protein typically expressed in cancer cells. The aim is to use these telomerase expressing dendritic cells to stimulate immune responses against cancer cells. We are now preparing for clinical trials with this product.” 

That effort could well find its way to additional funding from the California stem cell agency if it meets the four-point criteria of the new president, Randy Mills, of the $3 billion research program.

In the San Francisco Business Times piece, Ron Leuty noted that the initial five-patient safety trial showed that “spinal cord injuries in four the patients had shrunk.” Leuty wrote,

“Whether that means Geron’s treatment is working in those patients is an open question. Geron’s study looked only at acute, or new, spinal cord injuries, so some of the results could be connected to normal healing over time.”

Good News, Bad News and the California Stem Cell Agency

A few weeks ago an anonymous reader admonished the California Stem Cell Report to be more positive about the $3 billion agency and its efforts to develop the cures that its backers promised California voters more than eight years ago.

The comment was thoughtful and pointed out that “almost all the time” the agency “has done the right thing.” The reader made the remarks in the context of continuing coverage of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report that found there were major flaws in CIRM's operations. (The reader's comment can be found here at the end of the post.)

Given the reader's remarks, it seems a good time to review the operating principles and biases of the California Stem Cell Report.

Bias No. 1: Openness and transparency come first in any government operation. They are fundamental to the integrity of all government enterprises. Bias No. 2: The California stem cell agency is generally doing a good job at funding stem cell research. We generally favor all manner of stem cell research. 

Regarding our operating principles, the goal is report news and information about the agency along with analysis and explanation. One key to understanding what this blog does is to understand what news is. News by definition is almost always “bad” as opposed to “good.” News deals with the exceptional. It is not news that millions of drivers commute to work safely each day on California freeways. It is news when one is killed in a traffic accident.

The California Stem Cell Report also tries to fill information voids. We understand that the stem cell agency believes certain information is not in their best interests to disclose. Such is always the case with both private and public organizations. However, it is generally in the public interest to see more information rather less, particularly information that an organization would rather not see become public.

Analysis and explanation of what the stem cell agency does is rare in the California media and even less seen nationally or internationally. This blog focuses primarily on the public policy aspects of the agency – not the science. The agency is an unprecedented experiment that brings together big science, big government, big academia, big business, religion, morality, ethics, life and death in single enterprise – one that operates outside the normal constraints of state agencies. No governor can cut CIRM's budget. Nor can the legislature. Even tiny changes in Proposition 71, which created CIRM, require either another vote of the people or the super, super-majority vote of both houses of the legislature and the signature of the governor. All of this is the result of the initiative process – a well-intended tool that has been abused and that has also created enormous problems for the state of California that go well beyond the stem cell agency.

Then there is the funding of the agency, which basically lives off the state's credit card. All the money that goes for grants is borrowed and roughly doubles the actual expense to taxpayers.

Since January 2005, we have posted 3,452 items on the stem cell agency because we believe the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is an important enterprise – one that deserves more attention that it receives in the mainstream media. Our readership includes persons at the NIH, the National Academy of Sciences, most of the major stem cell research centers in California, academic institutions in the Great Britain, Canada, Norway, Germany, Russia, China, Australia, Singapore and Korea – not to mention the agency itself and scientific journals.

We do not attempt to replicate what the California stem cell agency itself does, which is to post online a prodigious amount of positive stories and good news about the agency. To do so would serve no useful public purpose and would simply be repetitive. That said, there is room to acknowledge the work that the agency does, particularly the staff, but also the board. We try to point that out from time to time.

The California Stem Cell Report also welcomes and encourages comments, anonymous and otherwise. Directors and executives of the agency have a standing invitation to comment at length and have their remarks published verbatim, something almost never seen in the mainstream media.

Finally, given the questions raised by the Institute of Medicine about disclosure of potential conflicts of interests, the author of this blog and his immediate family have no financial interests in any biotech or stem cell companies, other than those that may be held by large mutual funds. We have no relatives working in the field. We do have the potential personal conflicts, cited generally by the IOM in connection with some CIRM board members, involving relatives who have afflictions that could be possibly be treated with stem cell therapies in the distant future.   

More IOM-CIRM Coverage: One Story Notes Major 2007 Conflict Flaps at Stem Cell Agency

Additional coverage emerged this morning, including stories in the Los Angeles Times, the Nature web site and Businessweek. on a blue-ribbon report that recommended sweeping changes at the the $3 billion California stem cell agency

In the Times, California's largest circulation newspaper, Eryn Brown's story was headlined,

"Stem cell agency board criticized for conflicts of interest."

The article began,

"The board of California's stem cell funding agency is rife with conflicts of interest and should be restructured to improve the integrity of its grant-making process, according to a new report from independent experts convened by the national Institute of Medicine."“

In the San Diego U-T, reporter Bradley Fikes' article was the only piece in all the coverage to mention two major conflict-of-interest flaps at the agency in 2007.

One involved then CIRM board member John Reed, head of Sanford-Burnham in La Jolla, who tried to influence CIRM staff in connection with a grant to his organization, triggering an investigation by the state's political ethics commission. (Reed's actions were first disclosed by the California Stem Cell Report.) The other case involved inappropriate actions by four members of the 29-member board in an $85 million round. Ten applications were dumped from the round because of the directors' actions. The conflict issues were so rampant that only eight of the directors present at a December 2007 meeting could discuss the issues.

(See here, here and here.)

On the Nature news blog, Monya Baker had a thorough piece that said the agency “received a mixture of praise and hard-to-enact recommendations from an august scientific body.” She also wrote,

“It’s unclear what effect the report will have. Many of these recommendations run counter to requirements enshrined in the legislation that created CIRM, and the board of CIRM has heard similar recommendations before and failed to act on them.”

On the web site of the journal Science, Greg Miller wrote that IOM report "praises the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) as a 'bold social innovation' that provided a creative new source of funding that has turned the state into an international hub of stem cell research. But the IOM panel authoring the report also concluded that the funding agency’s organization and governance is not optimal."

Businessweek carried the AP story by Alicia Chang mentioned yesterday. The AP story also appeared on the San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee web sites and was also carried internationally on other web sites.  The Chronicle also had a staff story by Erin Allday.  
(An earlier version of this item did not contain the last sentence regarding the Allday story.)

Coverage of the IOM Report: Light but a Column with a Cutting Edge

News coverage has been light so far today of the Institute of Medicine's recommendations for an overhaul at the $3 billion California stem cell agency. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist from the Los Angeles Times took a sharp knife to the agency's press release on the IOM report.

Michael Hiltzik, who is a regular critic of the agency, asked,

 "So how did CIRM react to the report? Even before the review panel's conference call with the press was completed, the agency issued a news release stating that the panel had 'praised' the agency 'for its ground breaking work in helping advance the science of stem cell research.'"If you wanted to know about the committee's criticisms, the first mention of those was in paragraph 9 of the news release. It quoted board Chairman Jonathan Thomas as promising to 'work on establishing a process to enable us to consider how best to proceed with reviewing the recommendations.' 

"By my count, that's seven steps it will take before actually acting on the recommendations. 

"As it happens, the panel's recommendations, which include creating a majority of independent board members without any potential conflicts of interest, track very closely to recommendations made by several previous outside reviews of CIRM, especially a 2009 study by the state's Little Hoover Commission.

"CIRM rejected almost every one, and it looks to be preparing to circle the wagons again against sensible improvements in the way it does business."

The Associated Press story by Alicia Chang popped up in two different forms on the Washington Post web site and in Ottowa and Spokane, among other places. Chang was on board for the IOM news conference and had this to say about CIRM from one of the IOM study group members.

“'They’re not broken but they’re bent,' said Sharon Terry, president of the nonprofit Genetic Alliance who was part of the panel. 'They need some correction.'”

Chang's story originally began,

“California has transformed into a powerhouse player in stem cell research, but the taxpayer-funded institute responsible for that needs an overhaul, a report released Thursday found.”

Another version, that appeared in Ottowa and Spokane and beyond, started this way,

“A report says California’s stem cell agency needs more independent oversight and recommends a restructuring to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.”

Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business, who is one of perhaps two reporters who regularly cover the stem cell agency, wrote,

“A review of California's stem cell research funding agency proposed changes to the agency's governing structure and commercial goals while praising its results so far. The 124-page report from the Institute of Medicine recycles many conflict of interest and intellectual property concerns that have dogged the San Francisco-based” agency.

Stephanie O'Neill at KPCC radio in Los Angeles also had a story.

Fortune Magazine on California Stem Cell Agency: Warm, Personal and Favorable

California's $3 billion stem cell research effort today garnered a handsome dollop of favorable national news coverage– a lengthy piece in Fortune magazine that spoke of looming stem cell cures and the leading role of the state stem cell agency.

The article led the Fortune web page online at one point this morning and likely will be read by tens of thousands of persons, although it was not the cover story on the print product. 

Written by a former senior editor of the magazine, Jeffrey O'Brien of Mill Valley, Ca., the piece was warm and personal. He began with the story of his 95-year-old grandmother and her health issues, ranging from arthritis to macular degeneration. And he wrote,

“The citizens of California have spoken. If my grandmother and I had the power to get the rest of the country to follow, we would.”

O'Brien also discussed the science and finances of the stem cell business. He said,

“To be clear, the earliest stem cell therapies are almost certainly years from distribution. But so much progress has been made at venerable research institutions that it now seems possible to honestly discuss the possibility of a new medical paradigm emerging within a generation. Working primarily with rodents in preclinical trials, MDs and Ph.D.s are making the paralyzed walk and the impotent virile. A stem cell therapy for two types of macular degeneration recently restored the vision of two women. Once they were blind. Now they see!

“Some experts assert that AMD could be eradicated within a decade. Other scientists are heralding a drug-free fix for HIV/AIDS. Various forms of cancer, Parkinson's, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and ALS have already been eradicated in mice. If such work translates to humans, it will represent the type of platform advancement that comes along in medicine only once in a lifetime or two. The effect on the economy would be substantial. Champions of stem cell research say it would be on the order of the Internet or even the transistor.”

O'Brien continued,

“The obstacles along the road from lab rat to human patients are many, of course, but the biggest by far is money. With the dramatic events in the lab, you might think that a gold rush would be under way. That's far from true. Long time horizons, regulatory hurdles, huge R&D costs, public sentiment, and political headwinds have all scared financiers. Wall Street isn't interested in financing this particular dream. Most stem cell companies that have dared go public are trading down 90% or more from their IPOs. Sand Hill Road is AWOL. The National Venture Capital Association doesn't even have a category to track stem cell investments.”

As for the California stem cell agency itself, the article contained remarks from its Chairman J.T.Thomas, President Alan Trounson and former chairman Robert Klein about the origins and progress of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).

O'Brien wrote, 

“The $1.7 billion awarded so far has made one obvious mark on the state: a dozen gleaming research institutions. CIRM has proved adept at getting billionaires to donate funds to the cause.”

O'Brien interviewed a several prominent businessmen who have contributed tens of millions of dollars to stem cell research “about the prospects of a legitimate industry emerging.” One was “bond genius” Bill Gross, who has contributed to UC Irvine. Gross replied.

“Goodness, you're talking to the wrong guy. Our donation had nothing to do with business.”

Eli Broad, another big stem cell donor, said pretty much the same thing. And Andy Grove, the former chairman of Intel, was “surprisingly full of doom and gloom.” O'Brien wrote,

“For close to two hours, Grove argues passionately about how the FDA is enabling predatory offshore industries by impeding progress and the many reasons financiers want no part of stem cells. "VCs aren't interested because it's a shitty business," he says. Big Pharma? Forget it. CIRM? "There are gleaming fucking buildings everywhere. That wasn't necessary." When I press him to be constructive, he wearily offers one possible solution. Rather than courting billionaires to put their names on buildings, we need a system of targeted philanthropy in which the 99% can sponsor the individual stem cell lines that matter to them.”

O'Brien said, however,

“It was clear during our talk that Grove wants an economic model for stem cell research and development to emerge, even if he's not willing to bet money on its happening. And that puts him in good company.”

While the Fortune article has its negative points about stem cell research, it is about as laudatory as it is going to get at this point for the California stem cell agency. The piece recognizes and even celebrates much of the work of the agency. The article clearly details the void in financing for commercialization of stem cell research, bolstering support for efforts like those in California. Importantly, it also helps to push the activities of the stem cell agency more fully into the national discussion of stem cell research and its future. That should pay off again and again in future news coverage and also benefit the stem cell agency as it explores the possibility of additional funding – either private or public – after the cash for new awards runs out in 2017.

(The story is in the Oct. 8, 2012, edition of Fortune.)

Minimal News Coverage on CIRM Chair Nominees

The latest news coverage of selection of a new leader for California's $3 billion stem cell agency is meager, to say the least.

Absent from the game this morning is most of the major media in the state, including the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News. The Chronicle's and Mercury's backyards include the headquarters of CIRM, not to mention the major beneficiaries of the agency's largess. Oddly, The Sacramento Bee carried a story yesterday about the third nomination of Jon Thomas for chair of CIRM but failed to report the new nomination of Frank Litvack.

Here are links to the stories that searches by the California Stem Cell Report turned up this morning: Ron Leuty's piece in the San Francisco Business Times, Kathie Worth in the San Francisco Examiner and David Sider in The Bee.

Slim Coverage Today of California Stem Cell Agency Awards

The California stem cell agency's latest grants – more than $70 million – drew scant attention in the media this morning.

Most of the coverage was a routine rehash of the CIRM news release. Here are links to the various stories that surfaced today: Keith Darcé of the San Diego Union-Tribune, Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times, Richard Halstead of the Marin Independent Journal, Loralee Stevens of North Bay Business Journal, Pat Brennan of the Orange County Register.

Here are the press releases from recipient institutions that popped up this morning in a search.
University of California, UC Irvine, Cedars-Sinai.

Howlers: Loud as Thunder

From time to time, we have discussed the media and its behavior in connection with the California stem cell agency.

The other day, we ran across an apt, media-related commentary in Barbara Kingsolver's new novel, “The Lacuna.”

The remark was offered by one of her characters during a discussion of newspapers with Leon Trotsky in Mexico prior to World War II. One could say that it still applies more than 70 years later.

Here is how it went:

“It's true sir. The newspapers are like howlers on Isla Pixol.”

“What are these howlers?” Trotsky asked.

“A kind of monkey, very terrifying. They howl every morning: First one starts, then a neighbor hears it and starts his own howl, as if he can't help it. Soon the whole forest is bellowing, loud as thunder. It's their nature, probably they have do it, to hold their place in the forest. To tell the others no one has gotten the best of them.”

Scientist Magazine Picks Up Grant Termination Story

The Scientist magazine today picked up our report on the termination of three grants by the California stem cell agency.

In a piece by Jef Akst, the magazine said CIRM “giveth and it taketh away.”

The Scientist piece, which credited the California Stem Cell Report, did not add a great deal to our report, but Akst wrote,

"'Termination is a last option,'" CIRM's chief communications officer Don Gibbons wrote in an email to The Scientist. 'We first work with grantees who are not progressing to get them back on track.'"

Nature on Disease Team Round: The Race is On

Nature magazine has published another piece on the California stem cell agency's ambitious, $230 million disease team round, calling it the “starting gun” to confirm the promise of stem cells.

The Nov. 2, 2009, story by Erika Check Hayden said that some researchers around the country say the grants and loans will benefit the field as a whole. She also carried a comment from the former chairman of the CIRM grants review group, Stuart Orkin. Orkin resigned his post last November and did not participate in the review of the disease team grants.

Hayden wrote,

“Other researchers have welcomed the awards, but note that many of the projects test ideas that are similar to work being funded elsewhere.

"'The general [new-grant] portfolio strikes me as being similar to what is going on elsewhere,'" says haematologist Stuart Orkin of the Children's Hospital Boston in Massachusetts. 'I don't see anything radically different from what I see people thinking about in other institutions, but it's great to have the funding to do it.'

“For instance, two of the grants will fund work to develop monoclonal antibodies — targeted biological drugs that are already approved for many indications — to target cancer cells. Another grant will try to use a patient's own cardiac stem cells to repair damage from heart attacks, a controversial approach that is already being tested in patients. A fourth grant aims to modify patients' bone-marrow cells to correct the genetic defect that causes sickle-cell anaemia, then implant the cells back into patients.

“A similar approach has been used to treat severe combined immunodeficiency disorder. 'That would have been called gene therapy before, instead of stem-cell therapy, and there are a number of people doing that,' Orkin points out.”

The magazine also carried an item last week on its blog.

Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, has pointed out that the grants received more coverage than we reported last week. We found another story in a local paper in Los Angeles, the Daily News, and one on a Los Angeles radio station, KPCC. The Daily News story was reprinted in the Contra Costa Times. Other stories appeared elsewhere as well.

In our reporting on news coverage of CIRM events, we rely on Internet search engines, which are not perfect and sometimes slow. Plus we do not necessarily mention every news report in our items, just the ones of interest with higher impact or interesting reporting or commentary.

CIRM has a standing invitation to comment on any subject, including accounts of CIRM news coverage, on the California Stem Cell Report. We have told the agency on more than one occasion we will carry their commentary verbatim, a practice that is not found in the mainstream media.

Blogger Talks to Novocell About First CIRM Loan

Little information was dispensed yesterday by the California stem cell agency about the first step in what is proposed to be a $500 million loan program for the biotech industry.

But a biopharmaceutical industry blogger provided some information about the $20 million loan to Novocell, Inc., a San Diego stem cell engineering company with an emphasis on diabetes therapies. It is the first beneficiary of the loan program.

CIRM directors approved the loan to help develop a novel cellular therapy for diabetes. The disease team effort includes a $2.8 million Novocell contract with Jeff Bluestone of UC San Francisco.

Alex Lash of the In Vivo blog talked to Novocell CEO John West. Kash wrote,

“West...says the cash infusion from 'the stem-cell experts' was a validation of the firm's work and puts it in a 'good position' to look for its next round of venture funding.

“There are some minor details to work out first, though. West says Novocell hasn't yet received a loan document from CIRM and isn't exactly sure about the terms. Based on the loan program's guidelines, West is aiming for 10% warrant coverage and a payback period closer to 10 years, the far end of the range. 'We have a good feeling we'll work it out,' said West.

“CIRM loans will certainly have more generous terms than typical bank loans, and the agency has said it doesn't expect many of them to be paid back. West said he was surprised that Novocell was the only for-profit to lead a disease team application. But he noted that not many of the state's stem-cell related firms were far enough along to push a program into the clinic within four years, one of the top criteria of the agency's reviewers.”

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item misspelled Alex Lash's last name as Kash.)