Does the Failure of a Big Bond Measure Earlier This Month Mean Bad News for $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Proposal?

Tax fatigue: A problem for bond measures?

Was voter rejection of a $15 billion school bond measure a bad omen for another bond measure that would save the California stem cell agency from financial extinction? 

The question arises because the failure of the school bond proposal shocked its backers. The measure was considered nearly a certainty by some. However, it turned out to be the first state school bond measure to be rejected by voters in nearly three decades, despite almost non-existent organized opposition.  

Some attribute its March 3 downfall to "bond/tax fatigue," along with confusion. If so, the rejection of measure may not augur well for the proposed, $5.5 billion bond measure to refinance the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the stem cell agency is formally known. 

CIRM began life in 2004 with $3 billion provided by voters. It is now down to its last $27 million. The doors will begin closing in November if fresh financing is not found.  

CIRM's backers say there is a significant difference between what happened earlier this month and what may happen in November with the stem cell measure. 

In response to a question from the California Stem Cell Report, stem cell campaign spokeswoman Sarah Melbostad released a statement that said, "California voters did not have an emotional connection to Proposition 13," the school bond measure.

On the other hand, the statement indicated that the stem cell measure has emotion in abundance.

"Investing in the future health of our families and loved ones is one of the most important investments we can make today," the statement said.  "In the November 2020 election, California voters will have the opportunity to continue forging a pathway for life-saving treatments and cures." (Underlining by this writer)

The statement acknowledged the several reasons bandied about for Proposition 13's loss, including confusion.

"As many experts have noted, voters likely confused the ballot number with the well-known Proposition 13 from 1978 and voted no as a result." 

(Proposition 13 limited increases in property taxes, which stirred much concern in the 1970s and which continues to this day.)

Confusion could play a role as well in November on the stem cell measure. That is, confusion involving the research financed by CIRM and the dubious activities of unregulated clinics that purport to sell "stem cell" therapies that can cure everything from sexual dysfunction to bad knees -- all with the same product. 

The federal government has attempted to crack down on the "snake oil" clinics with mixed success. In California, both state medical regulators and legislators have not moved significantly on the clinics, whose treatments have led to lawsuits and accusations of physical and financial harm.  

That said, headlines also appear regularly on the Internet and elsewhere dealing with "miraculous" stem cell cures from the clinics. Many of claims are related by celebrities, including William Shatner (Capt. Kirk of Star Trek fame), sports figures and even a former Trump administration cabinet member/former Texas governor, Rick Perry. 

That attention could cut two different ways. One side could conceivably help build support generally for stem cell therapies by telling stories of success. The other side could lead to concern that all stem cell work is questionable. Ultimately, the old P.T. Barnum saying -- "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right." -- may come into play.

The election this month was also politically different than the presidential election next fall. Major elections, with their higher turnout, generally are regarded as more favorable for bonds. Plus the California voters have a 34-year, overall history of approving about 90 percent of the bond measures on the ballot. 

Here is the full text of the statement from Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments and Cures.

"Public polling data from PPIC consistently showed that Proposition 13 had only a very slim margin of support among likely voters.

"As many experts have noted, voters likely confused the ballot number with the well-known Proposition 13 from 1978 and voted no as a result.

"California voters may have also experienced school bond fatigue with the number of different school bonds passed in recent years — and are looking to the Governor and state legislature for other options.

"California voters did not have an emotional connection in regards to Proposition 13. Proponents of the ballot measure failed to demonstrate how funds would effect local communities and school districts.

"Investing in the future health of our families and loved ones is one of the most important investments we can make today—in the November 2020 election, California voters will have the opportunity to continue forging a pathway for life-saving treatments and cures.

"California voters’ breakthrough investment in 2004 firmly established the state as the global leader of stem cell research, we must continue to support these efforts in researching and developing new therapies, treatments and cures for chronic diseases, conditions and injuries.

"Patient advocates, leaders in medical research, revered medical practitioners and Nobel Prize winners support this Initiative because they all agree it is the most viable path to real treatments and cures for diseases that touch nearly all Californians – from cancer and diabetes to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s."

Critics Unmoved by Economic Report; Still Say No More Billions for California's Stem Cell Agency

This week's relatively rosy report on the economic impact of California's $3 billion stem cell research program has not convinced longtime critics to change their positions and support giving it an additional $5 billion.

In the eyes of some opponents, the stem cell agency is still a boondoggle, a waste of money and an inappropriate use of state bonds, the borrowed money that is the only significant source of cash for the program. Other critics recommended moving the program to the University of California and restricting it to "breakthrough medicine."

The agency, known formally as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), expects to run out of money for new awards this month. It is hoping that voters will see value in its efforts and approve -- in November 2020 -- a $5.5 billion ballot initiative that would refinance the agency.

The 2004 initiative that created CIRM was handily approved by 59 percent of the voters following a campaign that created expectations that nearly miraculous therapies were right around the corner. The agency has yet to back a treatment that is widely available to the public.

The California Stem Cell Report queried a smattering of CIRM's critics following the release of the economic study, which said the agency has provided a "handsome dividend" to the state. The report from USC said, among other things, that CIRM-generated benefits exceed $10 billion and have led to nearly 60,000 jobs.

That was not good enough for state Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa. He said,

"It was a boondoggle when it started and it still is. It's held up by emotional appeals, sustained by empty promises, and now rationalizing to extend its existence."

He continued,

"This study does not bring to light anything new. Doling out $3 billion to any entity or entities would generate the same economic metrics. The study is a shell."

"CIRM did not produce or sell anything of substance. It was not a stadium that created jobs around it, like restaurants, bars, and hotels."

Marc Joffe, a senior policy analyst at the Reason Foundation, said,

"I oppose the use of state general obligation bonding authority for any purpose other than building well-conceived civil infrastructure projects. The fact that spending bond proceeds generates economic activity is not surprising and not a reason to support a new bond in 2020. Similar studies have been released in support of the ill-conceived high-speed rail project: We might not get a usable system that takes many passengers out of their cars, but at least we created a lot of jobs in the Central Valley! This is not a persuasive argument for imposing more debt on our children, who already have the challenge of paying for Baby Boomer retirements."

Joe Rodota also responded. Rodato has worked for two Republican California governors. He and Bernard Munos, a senior fellow with FasterCures and the founder of the Innothink Center for Research in Biomedical Innovation,
have advocated a change in California's stem cell program that would restrict funding to businesses with a significant California presence and move the effort to the University of California.

Rodota said,

"Under our proposal, in exchange for providing funding to private companies engaged in developing stem-cell therapies, the University of California would receive shares, alongside any shares sold to private investors. Although the report categorizes equity sold to private investors as part of the 'economic stimulus created by CIRM funding,' that equity is held by private investors, not the University of California."

You can read the full text of the critics' remarks here. 

Full Text: Critics on Economic Impact Report on California Stem Cell Agency

Here is the full text of the email responses of stem cell agency critics to the report on the economic impact of the agency over the last 15 years.

State Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, who responded directly to questions from the California Stem Cell Report (CSCR):

CSCR: "Does the USC study bring something to light that is new to you?"
Moorlach: This study does not bring to light anything new. Doling out $3 billion to any entity or entities would generate the same economic metrics. The study is a shell.
"CIRM did not produce or sell anything of substance. It was not a stadium that created jobs around it, like restaurants, bars, and hotels.
"CIRM spent $3 billion and it's costing the taxpayers that much, plus $800 million-plus in interest."
CSCR: "Does it lead you to modify your thinking about the California stem cell program?"
Moorlach: "The new report has not modified my thoughts on CIRM. It was a boondoggle when it started and it still is. It's held up by emotional appeals, sustained by empty promises, and now rationalizing to extend its existence."
CSCR: "What is your overall view of the agency at this point?"
Moorlach: "Stem cell research is important, but best left to the private sector. This was style drift and extremely expensive, including the necessity to raise taxes with Propositions 30 and 55."

From Marc Joffe, senior policy analyst with the Reason Foundation:

"I oppose the use of state general obligation bonding authority for any purpose other than building well-conceived civil infrastructure projects. The fact that spending bond proceeds generates economic activity is not surprising and not a reason to support a new bond in 2020. Similar studies have been released in support of the ill-conceived high-speed rail project: we might not get a usable system that takes many passengers out of their cars, but at least we created a lot of jobs in the Central Valley! This is not a persuasive argument for imposing more debt on our children, who already have the challenge of paying for Baby Boomer retirements."
"Also, for what it’s worth, I don’t oppose the existence of CIRM. If it can be financed privately, that would be wonderful. I just don’t think it should be imposing burdens of future taxpayers."

From Joe Rodota, who worked for Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"This sentence (from the study) caught my attention 

"The estimates in the report are based on the economic stimulus created by CIRM funding and by the co-funding that researchers and companies were required to provide for clinical and late-stage preclinical projects. The estimates also include:
"Investments in CIRM-supported projects from private funders such as equity investments, public offerings and mergers and acquisitions, 

"Our (Rodota's) proposal, as outlined here, includes this language:
"In exchange for the funds they receive, companies would tender to the University of California shares of their common stock, with an estimated value as determined by the most recent outside valuation or price set by investors. These shares would become part of the UC endowment -- and the University of California be free to sell or leverage these shares, or acquire additional shares, as it sees fit.

"Under our proposal, in exchange for providing funding to private companies engaged in developing stem-cell therapies, the University of California would receive shares, alongside any shares sold to private investors. Although the report categorizes equity sold to private investors as part of the 'economic stimulus created by CIRM funding,' that equity is held by private investors, not the University of California."

Pluses and Minuses: The Cases For and Against $5.5 Billion More for California's Stem Cell Agency

BURLINGAME, Ca. -- It was a case of dueling op-ed arguments -- one describing the state's $3 billion stem cell agency as a waste of money and the other touting its success and its current and future impact on human lives.

The articles appeared online on the web site of the San Diego Union-Tribune on the eve of a daylong conference here to lay out possibilities for the agency over the next several years. 

The articles and the meeting come at a critical point for the agency, known formally as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). The nearly 15-year-old enterprise expects to run out of cash for new awards this year. It is hoping for a $5.5 billion infusion in November 2020 if California voters approve another bond measure for the agency.

The op-ed articles embodied many of the arguments -- pro and con -- that are likely to surface in the ballot measure campaign next year, a campaign that is expected to cost its supporters $50 million. 

In the San Diego newspaper, the case for giving the agency more billions was made by Larry Goldstein, a professor at UC San Diego; Aileen Anderson, a professor at UC Irvine, and Malin Burnham, chairman of the Burnham Foundation. The case against CIRM was made by state Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa.

Moorlach argued that the agency has "produced close to no results." He cited articles in the journal Nature and the San Francisco Chronicle as evidence. Moorlach called CIRM a "dry hole." He wrote.

"Not only was the $3 billion for the research a bust, but taxpayers will be paying interest on the principal until 2039. California Treasurer Fiona Ma’s office told me the cost of the interest on the $2.59 billion of principal already spent will be $836.6 million. Interest rates lower than anticipated in 2004 kept that below the original $3 billion estimate."

Goldstein and his co-authors argued that more than 50 children have had their lives "given back" as the result of clinical trials funded by CIRM. They said, 

"CIRM funding has established an impressive pipeline of new stem cell-based therapies being tested in 78 human trials directly funded by CIRM or based on CIRM-funded research. CIRM funding has also led to over 3000 published medical discoveries." 

They continued, 

"In 2020, Californians can continue their commitment to the best forms of stem cell research and therapy development. While there are no guarantees in medical research, if prior achievement is any indication, the next initiative will push many breakthrough therapies across the finish line. Considering the potential benefits to Californians and the opportunities to improve lives and alleviate suffering, there is little to lose, and an incredible amount to gain."

Trump Action on Fetal Tissue Research: Likely Impact on $5 Billion More for California Stem Cell Agency

President Trump today sharply cut back on federal funding for fetal tissue research in a move denounced as both politically motivated and destructive of the hopes of millions of Americans suffering from life-threatening diseases. 

The action has long been sought by anti-abortion activists who say tax dollars should not go to create a "marketplace for aborted baby parts."

Trump's moves immediately cost UC San Francisco a $2 million grant aimed at new therapies for HIV. It also drew reaction from California's $3 billion stem cell agency. 

Asked for a comment, Kevin McCormack, senior director of communications, said the Trump action will not have any impact on the agency. He said in an email, 

"Because our money comes from California this does not affect any project we fund or our ability to fund any projects."

Trump's action echoes a situation that played a major role in the ballot initiative campaign of 2004 that created the stem cell agency, known formally as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). 

In one of their key arguments, backers of the stem cell measure said it was needed because of then President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

Today's action by Trump is virtually certain to be cited as justification for an additional $5 billion for the agency, which will run out of money for new awards around the end of this year. CIRM supporters expect to mount another ballot initiative in November 2020.

The scope of Trump's move was described by the New York Times, which wrote, 

"As of last year, the N.I.H. spent about $100 million of its $37 billion annual budget on research projects involving fetal tissue. The tissue is used to test drugs, develop vaccines and study cancer, AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, birth defects, blindness and other disorders. For much of that work, scientists say there is no substitute for fetal tissue."

Sam Hawgood, chancellor of UC San Francisco and a former member of CIRM's governing board, said in a statement that the decision was "politically motivated, shortsighted and not based on sound science.”

Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor specializing in public health law at Georgetown University, told the New York Times that the federal action "is akin to a ban on hope for millions of Americans suffering from life-threatening and debilitating diseases." 

Scientist Jeanne Loring, who is with Scripps Research and Aspen Neuroscience in the San Diego area, said in response to a query, 

"Fetal brain tissue transplants containing immature dopamine neurons laid the groundwork for the Parkinson’s disease neuron replacement therapy we are developing now  The outcomes were inconsistent, but some patients recovered from the disease.  Without that pioneering work in the 1990s, I wouldn’t be so confident about the potential of our planned therapy using dopamine neurons derived from Parkinson’s patients’ own induced pluripotent stem cells.

"This is one specific instance of how fetal tissue profoundly changed our view of degenerative disease.  I think that going forward, most of the regenerative therapies will be based on pluripotent stem cells, which weren’t available 30 years ago. But I don’t like to rule out the possibility that there is still pioneering work like this to be done, and so I hope that some researchers will not lose access to fetal tissue for groundbreaking medical research."

(Editor's note: Look for additional news tomorrow on the impact of the Trump decision in California and elsewhere on the California Stem Cell Report.)

Cash and the California Stem Cell Agency: A Critique Notes August Deadline for New Funding Initiative

California's $3 billion stem cell program is facing a cash crunch this year, and the latest commentary on its financial fate raises a host of questions. 

The critique comes from the Center for Genetics and Society, a Berkeley group that has long been critical of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the state stem cell agency is known. 

Writing on the center's blog, Pete Shanks briefly recapped the history of CIRM and its current financial situation. The agency expects to run out of funds for new awards this year and is  trying to raise privately more than $200 million. The cash is intended to bridge the gap between now and presumed voter approval of an additional $5 billion in November 2020. 

Quoting CIRM board transcripts, Shanks wrote: 

"They are still looking for an 'anchor investor,' who might encourage others (as an anchor store draws people to a shopping mall). Which makes CIRM board member Jeff Sheehy (long-term AIDS activist and former San Francisco Supervisor) sound prescient, since in September 2017 he had suggested that savvy voters might say (pp. 78–9 ): 

'So you went to fund-raise. You didn’t get enough to keep you going, so you’re coming back to me with your hand out. So why didn’t you get enough? Why did the people who you’ve been asking for money not think you were a good investment? Why should I?' 

"Good point. Indeed, some of the board members were over-optimistic in that 2017 assessment."

Shanks also raised other questions about the nature of CIRM's private fund raising effort and looming deadlines for qualifying a bond measure, along with a ballot initiative that will likely retool the existing law that created the agency in 2004. 

Shanks concluded,

"Propositions take considerable time to be approved. The deadline for submitting a proposed measure to the attorney general that’s intended for the November 2020 election is August 20, 2019 . In practice, that means that the proposition is probably being written now, or will be completed very soon, and preliminary backers have likely been identified and contacted already. Unless, of course, such funders cannot be found. 

"Will CIRM’s problems be solved? We’ll soon know."

California Stem Cell Opposition: Conservative Writer Declares Golden State Efforts a 'Bust'

In a preview of what is likely to be a heated ballot campaign next year,  a conservative writer declared this week that California's efforts to develop stem cell therapies are "a scientific and financial bust." 

"Back in 2004, the $3 billion California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, Proposition 71, promised life-saving cures and therapies for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other diseases. The cures and therapies, in turn, would send money flowing into state coffers, so the project, in effect, would pay for itself. It didn’t exactly work out that way," said Lloyd Billingsley on two different web sites.  

"CIRM proved itself a scientific and financial bust, and almost completely off limits to state oversight."

Billingsley has written in the past about the agency, known as CIRM and formally as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. His latest columns appeared on the California Globe, which was founded by Ken Kurson, who has ties to the Trump family and Rudy Guiliani, and The Beacon.  

Billingsley likened the agency to the troubled bullet train project in California and efforts to solve some of California's water problems by building a tunnel under the California delta east of San Francisco. 

CIRM expects to run out of cash this year for new awards and hopes to survive with voter approval of a proposed, $5 billion bond measure on the November 2020 ballot.

It could be a hard-fought campaign, but conservatives and other likely opponents could well be diverted if President Trump is on the ballot. 

See here and here for more on Kurson, founder of the  California Globe, and here for the advisors to the Beacon web site and its parent organization.

A Harsher Look at California's Stem Cell Program: No More Cash Without Changes

California's $3 billion stem cell experiment received a host of accolades last week at a state legislative hearing, but one strong, critical voice was not heard in the proceedings.

That came from the Biopolitical Times, a blog operated by the Center for Genetics and Society of Berkeley, a longtime foe of the agency. 

In a piece written by Pete Shanks, the agency was taken to task for a number of reasons. And he argued that it should not receive additional funds as it is presently constituted.

Shanks wrote, 

"At one time, CIRM had a deserved reputation for funding buildings , some of them at private universities, and was heavily criticized for that, but the $270 million “major facilities” budget approved in 2008 has all been spent. Some of the conflict of interest scandals are largely in the past, though ripples persist , and some of the institutional ones remain; several universities that receive large grants are still represented on the board . But there has been a new regime in place (“CIRM 2.0”) for several years.

"Things have improved, though not enough."

Shanks noted that the agency has failed to finance any therapies that are available for widespread use. He noted that the interest expense on state bonds that support the agency boost the cost to taxpayers to $6 billion from the $3 billion in awards.

He said the hearing last week was largely "a promotional vehicle." (Shanks' piece was published on Aug. 14, the day before the hearing by the Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology.)

Shanks concluded:

"Going forward, there are two separate questions to consider: Is continued state funding of stem cell research at a rate of roughly half a billion dollars a year the best use of state funds?

"If it is, should those funds be spent through CIRM as it is presently constituted?
Is continued state funding of stem cell research at a rate of roughly half a billion dollars a year the best use of state funds? If it is, should those funds be spent through CIRM as it is presently constituted? 

"The first question is debatable; the second deserves a flat “No.” There is something obviously wrong when an agency is funded by public money but never has to submit a budget to the legislature, and can even go 13 years without appearing before an oversight committee. Two major reports, in 2009 by the Little Hoover Commission and in 2012 by the then Institute of Medicine (now part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine), both concluded that the governance structure of CIRM is seriously flawed."

Fire, Fury and $5 Billion: A Mini Preview of a Ballot Campaign for the California Stem Cell Agency

California's stem cell research effort, which is pinning its survival hopes on a proposed $5 billion bond measure in a couple of years, was slammed in a national publication last week as a "multi-billion dollar money suck."

The column in the conservative magazine National Review, which has about 90,000 circulation and a significant online presence, was a tiny preview of the fire and fury that is likely to erupt around the likely pitch to California voters in 2020 to give more cash to the agency.

Formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the agency was created by a ballot initiative in 2004 and backed with $3 billion in state funds. It expects to run out of money for new awards by the end of next year.

Wesley J. Smith, a longtime critic of the agency, wrote in the National Review piece,

"The mendacious (2004) campaign promised Cures! Cures! Cures! with embryonic stem cells and therapeutic human cloning — even promising that disabled children would get out of their wheel chairs and walk. Good grief, campaigners also claimed that the money earned from all the coming cures would reduce California’s health-care budget.

"Some $2 billion later, none of it came to pass. Tens of millions were spent on a fancy-dancy building. Conflicts of interested have abounded. But the supposed point of the CIRM was not achieved. There have been extremely few human trials with embryonic stem cells — mostly dealing with eye conditions — and not all were CIRM-funded."

It is fair to say that Smith's characterizations omit much information about what CIRM calls its value proposition. Nonetheless, his points are likely to resonate with a substantial portion of California voters, who have seen little mainstream media coverage of CIRM. 

Even the institutions and recipients of multi-million dollar research awards regularly fail to note CIRM's contributions in their news releases about state-backed scientific discoveries. (See here and here.)

As of today, the agency has invested in 49 clinical trials, the last stage before a therapy is approved for widespread use. A discovery or treatment that would captivate the public could emerge from those trials between now and the election in November 2020. Meanwhile, given the nature of today's financially struggling media and limited science coverage, the agency and its backers are likely to find it tough to break through the news clutter and convince voters to cough up more cash.   

State Lawmaker Aims to End California Stem Cell Program, Calls It a 'Boondoggle'

State Sen. John Moorlach in video from his office

A California legislator has launched an effort to terminate the $3 billion California stem cell agency, which is already set to go out of business in about three years.

Republican state Sen. John Moorlach of Costa Mesa said in a video,

"It's time to shut this down....We as taxpayers need some protection. We need to stop the boondoggle."

Moorlach has authored a proposed constitutional amendment that has been referred to the Senate Health Committee. No hearing date has been set. The measure would strip from the state constitution the language that created the agency in 2004.

The proposal, SCA7, requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature and approval by a vote of the people. Given the Democratic dominance of the legislature, that makes the chances of enactment of SCA7 unlikely.

Nonetheless, Moorlach's effort reflects the sentiments of a certain segment of the public. It also provides ammunition for those seeking to fund the agency with another $5 billion, which would additionally be placed before voters, probably in November 2018.  It is useful for campaigns for such measures to be able to point to what they consider threats to science and medical progress.

Backers of a $5 billion bond measure are proposing it because the agency is slated to run out of cash for new research awards by June 2020.

Moorlach's office produced a short statement in support of elimination of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine or CIRM as the agency is formally known. It said,

"California voters approved a ten year stem cell program that they thought would produce widespread cures and save thousands of lives. They were also promised revenue-producing intellectual property that would help the state financially. These remain empty promises.

"More than thirteen years after its passage, around $2 billion in funds have been dispersed and $1.2 billion has been spent on servicing the principal and interest of the debt . With a $1.6 billion dollar budget deficit and crumbling infrastructure, we need to stop the issuance of bonds on an ineffective and unaccountable agency. Scarce taxpayer funds could be of better use elsewhere."

Asked for a comment on the legislation, an agency spokesman, Kevin McCormack, said,

"We are aware of the bill and are monitoring it." 

CRISPR and Anti-HESC Updates from UC Davis Researcher

UC Davis stem cell scientist and blogger Paul Knoepfler has been busy this week, posting updates on CRISPR and two persons who have been behind the drive against the research use of human emrbryonic stem cells.

First, the information about the embryonic stem cell opponents, James Sherley and Theresa Deisher.

Sherley is running Asymmetrex, Inc., an adult stem cell firm in Boston. Knoepfler reported,

"I haven’t really seen Sherley out there in the public domain as an activist that much ever since the ES cell court ruling."

The negative ruling came in a federal court case challenging federal financing of human embryonic stem cell research.

Knoepfler cited a piece in Mother Jones magazine for his description of continuing activism on the part of Deisher. She was involved in the secretly recorded video tapes of Planned Parenthood officials. Among others, employees of Stem Express of Placerville, Ca., were also taped without their permission, and the California Department of Justice is investigating whether state laws were broken.

On the CRISPR front, Knoepfler has a series of links to good articles on the ongoing discussion involving the genetic modification technique. The debate continues unabated, although not in the mainstream media.

California's $3 billion stem cell agency held a daylong session on the matter some months ago. The agency is scheduled to take another look at it, but no date has been announced yet.

California's StemExpress Cuts Links with Planned Parenthood in Anti-Abortion Flap

A California stem cell/human tissue firm has severed its ties with Planned Parenthood in the wake of a national, anti-abortion controversy, the Politico Web site reported late today.

Politico writer Jennifer Haberkorn cited a statement from StemExpress LLC of Placerville, which said,

“We value our various partnerships but, due to the increased questions that have arisen over the past few weeks, we feel it prudent to terminate activities with Planned Parenthood. While we value our business relationship with Planned Parenthood, that work represents a small percentage of our overall business activity and we must focus our limited resources on resolving these inquiries.”

The statement has not been posted on the company’s Web site as of this writing.  (Shortly after this item was published, a spokesman released the text of its statement, which can be found here.)

The company has said in court that it has suffered damage and its executives have been threatened with violence as a result of Internet videos that were made surreptitiously by anti-abortion activists. The activists used fake names and a fake company to gain access to Planned Parenthood officials. StemExpress was identified as one of the purchasers of fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood.

Investigations into the company and Planned Parenthood have been launched by the Senate and the House. The issue has come up in the 2016 presidential race. The U.S. Department of Justice and the California attorney general are looking into whether privacy laws were violated by the anti-abortion activists.

The company has been vilified on the Internet. The latest posting involved a video of a former employee of StemExpress, Holly O’Donnell, who said that “she once saw another technician appear to obtain fetal tissue without a patient’s consent,” Politico reported. StemExpress “unequivocally” denied the claim two days ago.

The firm said,

“Like all of their previous material, (the) video by (the activists) is deceptively edited and falsely worded to suggest impropriety or illegality where none exists. (Their) continued efforts to malign StemExpress—a life-sciences company that predominantly supplies adult cells, blood and tissue to the nation’s leading researchers—will only serve to slow the pace of life-saving medical research aimed at curing disease and extending quality of life for millions of Americans.”

Earlier this week, the activists lost a bid to overturn a temporary restraining order against them. StemExpress said they also “refused to produce witnesses for depositions or respond to document requests previously ordered” by the Los Angeles superior court.

Text of Court Documents in the StemExpress-Daleiden Case

Coming up on Aug. 19 in Los Angeles will be the next court hearing on the temporary restraining order obtained by StemExpress against David Daleiden. (See here for a related story.)

Here is the text of the July 2015 request by StemExpress for the order.

  StemExpress Filing for Restraining Order Against David Dalaiden by DavidJensen

Here is the actual text of order that was granted.

   Temporary Restraining Order Obtained by StemExpress Against David Daleiden by DavidJensen

'Praise' for California Stem Cell Agency from Unlikely Corner

The California stem cell agency this month received what some might consider a gesture of approval from a longtime foe – LifeNews.com.

LifeNews is a site devoted to anti-abortion efforts and information and is sharply opposed to research involving human embryonic stem cells.

So it was with some surprise that we read a tacit endorsement of recent CIRM activities in an April 22 piece written by Gene Tame out of Sacramento. It said the most recent $32 million grant round from CIRM “demonstrates – again – where the future of stem cell reserch lies.”

Tame wrote,

“CIRM has been steadily moving away from its original mission to give preferential treatment to funding for human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR). Instead, after adopting a renewed emphasis on translating research into clinical trials, CIRM has more and more shifted the bulk of its grants towards funding research utilizing adult stem cells and other alternatives to hESCR, such as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).”

Tame continued,

“(T)he lack, once again, of funding for hESCR only serves to highlight how old and dated that approach to finding treatments and cures increasingly seems.”

Tame is correct in his assertion that the stem cell agency has moved a considerable distance from its reason for being – research involving human embryonic stem cells. In 2004, the ballot campaign to create the agency pitched voters hard on hESC research and made no real mention of adult stem cells. Instead, it focused on the threat from the Bush Administration with its restrictions on hESC research, which have been lifted by the Obama Administration. .

In 2010, a study by a Georgia Tech academic, Aaron Levine, reported that through 2009 only 18 percent of California's dollars went for grants that were "clearly" not eligible for federal funding under the Bush restrictions. 

At the date of the study, CIRM had not publicly disclosed statistics on its funding of hESC research.

Today, however, its web site shows that only about 240 of the 595 awards that it has handed out are going for hESC research. CIRM has not made public the dollar value of those 240 awards, but it has given away a total of $1.8 billion. (Following publication of this item, the agency told the California Stem Report that it has funded $458 million in hESC research.) 

A footnote: Levine was a member of the blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine panel that recommended sweeping changes at CIRM.  

Trounson on Cancellation of Vatican Appearance: 'I Am Disappointed'

The California stem cell agency has issued a statement from its president, Alan Trounson, concerning the cancellation of a Vatican stem cell conference at which Trounson was scheduled to speak.

According to the Catholic News Agency, the meeting was terminated because of the scheduled appearances of researchers such as Trounson, who support hESC research. The Catholic church opposes such research.

The news agency last week quoted one Vatican insider as saying the conference had generated a scandal within the higher echelons of the church. However, the Vatican later claimed it was cancelling the meeting because of "organizational, logistical and economic factors."

Trounson's statement said,

"I am disappointed that the decision was made to cancel the conference because it offered the opportunity for a constructive dialogue on all types of stem cell research.

"Open dialogue can enhance the field as a whole and accelerate our efforts to provide new therapies for patients in need."

'Scandal' in Vatican Over Stem Cell Conference: Appearances by Trounson and Others Cancelled

The Vatican has cancelled a controversial scientific conference that would have featured scientists, including the president of the California stem cell agency, who support human embryonic stem cell research.

The conference reportedly created a "scandal" in the Vatican, according to a report by David Kerr of the Catholic News Agency. Kerr wrote,

"'I am infinitely relieved that the Church has avoided a major blunder which would have confused the faithful for decades to come,'” said one member of the Pontifical Academy who asked for anonymity in commenting to (the Catholic News Agency)."

The Catholic church opposes hESC research because of its belief that it destroys human life.

The conference would have taken place at the Vatican April 25-28 and included an audience with the pope. In addition to an appearance by CIRM's Alan Trounson, the key lecture was scheduled to have been given by George Daley of Harvard.

Kerr quoted the member of the Vactican's Pontifical Academy for Life as saying,

"The Holy Spirit has certainly shown to be present through those faithful members who drew attention to the ambiguity of the choice of speakers. I hope and pray that a review will be affected of the basis on which these congresses are planned."

Kerr also quoted another anonymous member of the academy as saying that the presence of speakers such as Trounson and Daley was "a betrayal of the mission of the academy and a public scandal."

Rose Petals vs. Stem Cells

The case of the embryo vs. the California stem cell agency has been kicking around a couple of years or more – one of the reasons we did not pay much attention to it when it surfaced again recently.

But Kristen Philipkoski of Wired.com demonstrated the bizarre nature of the suit in an item last week.

Among other things, during a hearing in Pasadena, Ca., Philipkoski wrote that the attorney for the embryo "proceeded to scatter rose petals on the courtroom floor, saying they represented the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine destroying life." Philipkoski said that the judge "rolled her eyes."