Scripps Confirms Marletta's Plan to Leave as President

The Scripps Research Institute has confirmed the departure of Michael Marletta as its president in a 72-word statement, but details about who will replace him and when are yet to emerge.

The move was announced this morning at a meeting at the 2,900-employee institute in La Jolla. Later, Scripps released its terse statement. Not mentioned were any proposals to deal with the financial plight of the renown biomedical research organization, which is the issue at the root of Marletta's resignation.

Bradley Fikes and Gary Robbins of the San Diego U-T have more details and background. Here is the Scripps statement, which is oddly worded, seeming to leave open the possibility of Marletta remaining at Scripps. Fikes and Robbins nonetheless report that four scientists at the morning meeting said Marletta is resigning.

"The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) Board of Trustees has announced that Dr. Michael Marletta has indicated his desire to leave TSRI and the Board is working with Dr. Marletta on a possible transition plan. Should Dr. Marletta depart TSRI, the Board will work to make any transition to new leadership the highest priority. Any such transition will engage all key constituencies in a dialogue about the future direction of this storied institution."

Scripps Research President Resigns Following Financial Problems at the Institute

Michael Marletta today resigned as head of The Scripps Research Institute, one of nation’s leading biomedical research organizations, in the wake of an aborted, $600 million merger with the University of Southern California.

Bradley Fikes and Gary Robbins of the San Diego U-T reported that the announcement of his resignation came at a meeting this morning at the La Jolla facility. They wrote that no successor has been named.

Marletta joined Scripps in January 2012. His resignation came in the wake of financial problems at the institute, which is operating this year under a $21 million deficit. Leading members of the faculty called for his removal after the proposed merger came to light. 

Scripps has not yet made a formal announcement on its Web Site. 

A Nature Post Mortem on the Scripps-USC deal and Faculty Rebellion

The journal Nature took a look this week at the vicissitudes at The Scripps Research Institute, including its now defunct, $600 million merger with USC as well as the Scripps faculty uprising.

The July 15 piece was written by Erika Check Hayden, who reported,

“Scripps faculty members…felt that the (USC) deal sold them short. In interviews, they noted Scripps’ coveted ocean-front location: La Jolla is one of the priciest zip codes in the United States. The $15-million annual payments over 40 years offered by USC would be the equivalent of a $250-million mortgage, they say. That would not even cover one year of the institute’s operating expenses, which were $400 million in 2013.

“’It didn’t make a lot of sense financially,’ (Scripps researcher Martin) Friedlander says  ‘You can’t ignore a $20-million deficit, but there are many other creative ways of addressing the financial shortfall. We certainly do not have our backs against the wall.’”

The nearly done deal with USC came about because of Scripps’ financial plight. The faculty took umbrage when they learned about it late in the game and called for the removal of President Michael Marletta. The deal then collapsed, and Scripps said it is going to look at unspecified alternatives.

Hayden has interviews with a number of folks, including both from within and without Scripps. She concluded,

“Marletta has said that he is seeking more donations for Scripps, but is disadvantaged by being a relatively recent arrival; he was chair of the chemistry department at the University of California, Berkeley, until 2010.

“’Philanthropy is about long-term relationships with your donors; it’s not something where you just turn the spigot and say, ‘OK, we’ll go out and raise a billion dollars’,’ says Salk president William Brody, who initiated his institute’s fund-raising campaign soon after arriving in 2009.

“Still, Brody and other observers say that Scripps should be able to find a way out of its current dilemma that does not involve dissolution or losing its independence.

“’If they can stick to their knitting and stay the course, they will be successful,’ Brody predicts.”

Scripps-USC Deal is Dead; Cash Problems Remain

The $600 million merger of The Scripps Research Institute with the University of Southern California has been quietly put to rest, but the issues behind it – money, money and money -- are still very much alive.

Scripps announced the termination of the proposed deal yesterday in a three-paragraph statement. Bradley Fikes and Gary Robbins of the San Diego U-T, who have been on this story like a dog on a bone, wrote,

“James Paulson, who chairs the Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, praised the decision in an email to U-T San Diego.

“'This is a very positive step taken by the board and Dr. (Michael) Marletta(president of Scripps),’ Paulson wrote. ‘It clears the slate to look at all possible options to secure the future of TSRI, and will undoubtedly be welcomed by the faculty.’”

Faculty leaders had called for the removal of Marletta, declaring that they lack confidence in him. Scripps is running a $21 million deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. It also has come up short in philanthropic contributions while federal funding for research has shrunk.

UC San Diego earlier expressed an interest in some sort of arrangement with Scripps, which is reknown for its biomedical research. But little information has surfaced on whether that possibility has advanced. 

Legal Wheels Turn: Ban on hESC Funding Temporarily Removed

The nation's stem cell scientists received a reprieve today, courtesy of a federal appellate court that put a hold on an earlier order to halt federal funding of hESC research.

Gardiner Harris of the New York Times wrote:

"The appeals court ruling could save research mice from being euthanized, cells in petri dishes from starving and scores of scientists from facing a suspension of paychecks, according to arguments the Obama administration made in the case. It could also allow the National Institutes of Health to provide $78 million to 44 scientists whose research the agency had previously agreed to finance."

Rob Stein and Spencer S. Hsu of the Washington Post wrote:

"(T)he appeals court made it clear it was not making a final decision about the case, which means the reprieve could be short-lived and the fate of the funding could continue to be whiplashed by seesawing court rulings."

The next court action is not expected to come until sometime after Sept. 20, the deadline for filing additional arguments in the case.

The legal brouhaha makes clear several facts concerning research funding. If you are a scientist, your research is not secure unless you are paying for it yourself. NIH funding is subject to the vagaries of the courts and Congress. Private funding comes with its own set of strings, which generally are not revealed to the public, but they are there. And despite the assurances of the California stem cell agency, its funding can be threatened under some circumstances, as we saw in 2009. CIRM's resources are clearly subject to the state's ability or desire to borrow money and issue the state bonds that are the agency's only real source of cash.

Time to Let Lawmakers Know What They Need to Do

A UC Davis stem cell researcher has joined in the campaign to change the law that resulted in the court order temporarily halting federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. He is looking for more than a few good supporters.

Paul Knoepfler has posted on his blog a tool that makes it easy for others to join him and write their Washington representatives seeking immediate repeal of the law. It allows readers in any state to look up their elected officials and let them know what needs to be done.

Knoepfler and Don Reed, a longtime patient advocate in California, should get together. Reed also has a blog in which he seeks to create a stem-cell friendly environment nationally and in California. Reed has not yet posted a similar pitch but may well do so.

Reed has been lobbying elected officials for years. His efforts were key to passage in California of a 1990 measure that funded research linked to Geron's spinal cord clinical trials.

That law, however, is in danger of fading from the books. The law is named after his son, Roman, who was paralyzed some years ago in a football accident. Roman also has lobbied for stem cell support and came up with the slogan of the California stem cell agency – “Turning stem cells into cures.”

On his blog, the elder Reed is appealing for folks to write the governor supporting the legislation, which is now on his desk.

Reed writes,

"This law paid for the first state-funded embryonic stem cell research in America, re-insulating damaged spinal nerves. Laboratory rats so badly paralyzed they could only drag themselves are scampering now; that study goes to human trials with Geron. The same research may help cure spinal muscular atrophy, (SMA, a vicious condition which kills children, often before the age of two), multiple sclerosis (MS), and other disorders.

"'Roman’s Law' has helped train new scientists with fellowship grants, and assisted veterans to develop new approaches, from a variation of the petri dish to pioneering new methods of rehabilitation and repair. In addition to 175 published scientific papers, two patents pending which may advance the biomedical industry, and several major scientific breakthroughs, our research brought new money to California."