Top Ten Blog Hits by the $3 Billion California Stem Cell Agency

The California stem cell agency produces a blog called "The Stem Cellar," which regularly features fine pieces on stem cell matters in general as well as articles about its own activities.

This week the agency produced a list of the most popular postings on its site. Here is the rundown on the top 10.

• "New stem cell treatment for ALS may slow disease progression
• "Can stem cell therapies help ALS patients
• "Stem cell study holds out promise for kidney disease
• "Your guide to awesome stem cell conferences in 2018
• "Young man with spinal cord injury regains use of hands and arms after stem cell therapy
• "jCyte shares encouraging news update about clinical trial for Retinitis Pigmentosa
• "Stem cell patch restores vision in patients with age-related macular degeneration
• "The 10 most popular stem cell stories of 2017 (is that cheating to include a story about the most popular stories of 2017 in a blog about the most popular blogs of 2018?)
• "Could stem cells help beat multiple sclerosis
• "One-time lasting treatment for Sickle Cell Disease may be on the horizon according to new CIRM-funded study"

California Stem Cells, 'Rapture' and a $5 Billion Bond Measure

This past weekend brought news about a "rapturous agreement among Republicans and Democrats" to support development of new therapies by financing biomedical research with billions of dollars.

The New York Times article indicated that the rapture could have something to do with the fact that many key political leaders on Capitol Hill are "aging in place."

The piece by Robert Pear also carried implications for the $3 billion California stem cell agency, which has virtually endorsed a yet-to-be-written, $5 billion bond measure to stave off its own death.

Pear wrote on Sunday:

"For the third straight year, lawmakers (in Congress) are planning to increase the budget of the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion. In the process, they have summarily rejected cuts proposed by President Trump.

"The push for additional funding reflects a fascination among legislators with advances in fields like molecular biology, genetics and regenerative medicine, even as they wage bitter battles over just how large a role the government should play in financing health care and providing coverage."

Pear continued, 

"Why is medical research so much less contentious than fundamental issues like health insurance coverage?

"Anthony J. Mazzaschi, a lobbyist at the national organization representing schools of public health, said that 'the charisma of the cure, the hope and promise of curing disease, seems to excite members of Congress,' including some in their 70s and 80s who are 'facing the prospect of disease and disability head-on.'"

The Times piece said, 

"The challenges facing patients and policymakers were illustrated this past week when a Philadelphia company said it would charge $850,000 for a new gene therapy to treat a rare inherited form of blindness. (The company, Spark Therapeutics, said it would pay rebates to certain insurers if the medicine, given in a one-time injection, did not work as promised.)"

California's stem cell agency is running out of money. It is looking at a November 2020 ballot measure to fill its shrinking coffers with $5 billion more. But such public policy decisions involve trade-offs concerning the health of Californians.

Several questions (among others) arise theoretically and otherwise:

• Would it be better to spend $5 billion to provide much needed, immediate health care to poor Californians, including mothers and children, which could provide a quicker payoff in improved health. 
• Is it better for the state to spend $20 million to help reduce infant mortality rates in Fresno and Mendocino that are nearly twice the statewide average or give the cash instead to a stem cell researcher (and his employing institution) who can also win the cash from the NIH. 
• The impetus for creation of the California stem cell agency was based on a restriction in federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. That restriction no longer exists, but could be restored by the Trump administration. But should California spend its billions when researchers can seek funding at the federal level? 

These are sort of bottom-line policy questions that ignore the fact that bond issues generally are used for long-lived assets, such as prisons, educational buildings, highways, etc., -- not services such as health care. The bond measure that provided the stem cell agency with its only significant cash was an historic exception.

Nonetheless, in the public's eyes the stem cell agency is all about health. As the campaign that created the agency in 2004 noted, medical problems that affect nearly half of California families "could benefit from stem cell research."

The likely cost of the therapies that are being developed in the agency's clinical trials are almost never discussed in public. Yet many are likely to be as expensive as the Spark Therapeutics blindness treatment. One can only imagine the kind of opposition advertising that is likely to surface in a campaign for a $5 billion bond measure: "Vote No on Million Dollar Cures for Billionaires!" On the other hand, that pitch might seem too harsh and blow back on agency opponents.

Nonetheless, Americans believe drug costs are too high, something that will come into play during a 2020 campaign. According a recent Gallup poll, 78 percent of the people also say total health care costs are too expensive. Drug costs have become an easy litmus test for the expense of staying healthy.

The New York Times story noted the importance of age as helping to create support for spending on medical research. California is headed for a sharp increase in the numbers of seniors in the next decade. One study is even projecting a "silver tsunami" of cancer in older patients nationally. Generally, however, older voters are considered more likely to be conservative. and may not buy into more government spending. How that plays out in California is not clear when it comes to stem cell research or the hope for stem cell cures.

Hope is one of the more powerful products of the California stem agency. Ultimately that could be the deciding selling point. But the November 2020 election is 34 months away, and much is likely to change.

A Half Full Stem Cell Cocktail on Twitter

From a Twitter feed today

It was an interesting juxtaposition today on Twitter -- a vision of stem cell hope vs. a reality check.
The apparent contradiction is not uncommon in health science news.

It is a variation of the glass half-full or half-empty expression. But the stakes are not trivial. They involve deep emotions and the finances of the patients who face decades of impairment and death.

The perspectives also involve the mindsets of researchers and entities such as the $3 billion California stem cell agency. It has been wrestling for 12 years with the problem of producing a viable stem cell therapy for any sort of affliction. Its funds could well run out -- as expected in about three years -- with no cure to demonstrate for California voters who created the program in 2004.

Should the agency and researchers surrender because the task is enormous and is likely not to bear real fruit during their lifetimes? Should they move on -- if they could -- to something that would provide a more immediate, major public health benefit.

Can or should taxpayers support what some might call dreamy scientific aspirations while the state could use the billions to improve education and daily medical care for the poor?

Some may be able to come up with firm, black-and-white answers to these sort of policy and personal -- at least for researchers -- questions. This writer cannot.

As for the agency, its funds are legally locked for stem cell research or something akin to it. All the agency can do is spend the money well in that area -- a restriction approved by voters in the ballot initiative process.

Meantime, the public is hit with contradictory messages, becomes cynical and less ready to back research. All part of the challenge that faces patient advocates, researchers and drug companies today.

Timing Right for Sharing the Wealth on Federal Stem Cell Research

How are those folks over at 70 Pine Street in New York City helping those at 1750 Ocean Park Boulevard in Santa Monica, Ca.?

Unknowingly, they are creating a ripe opportunity in the nation's capital to extract a piece of the stem cell action from the recipients of government largess.

The players at 70 Pine are the executives at AIG, fast supplanting Enron as the most reviled company in modern American history. The Santa Monica address houses the offices of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit organization that has called for sharing the profits from any federally funded stem cell or other research.

A year ago, such a pitch would have died aborning. Today, given the scandals concerning AIG and other corporate failures, the political mood has changed and will change more – all in the direction that no one in the business community will like.

Trust in American business may be at its lowest point in history among the "informed public," according to one poll. Only 38 percent say they trust business to do the right thing, down 20 percent from last year. Presumably the figure would be even lower among the general public.

In a letter to President Obama, last week, Consumer Watchdog cited the California stem cell agency as an example for the feds to emulate in terms of sharing the wealth from any therapies that result from government-funded research. Under certain circumstances, CIRM grant recipients must pony up some cash if they bring a product to market profitably. No such requirement exists for the tens of billions of dollars handed out by the NIH.

The bailout brouhaha creates a golden opportunity for Consumer Watchdog and like-minded organizations to enact share-the-wealth requirements for federal research grants. The logic is compelling. Venture capitalists demand their share of the booty when they fund individuals or businesses. Why shouldn't the government, especially in these difficult financial times.

Consumer Watchdog and its allies could even make the case for attaching such requirements to the $10 billion biotech stimulus package being pushed by CIRM Chairman Robert Klein and the powerful Podesta lobbying group.

CIRM Proposes 50 Percent Pay Range Hikes; Watchdog Says They are Unjustified

The California stem cell agency is set to boost the maximum salary ranges of its top executives by 50 percent, a move that one watchdog group says flies in the face of California's budget crisis.

Under the proposal to be considered Wednesday by a subcommittee of the CIRM board of directors, the top salary range for the president would skyrocket more than $200,000 -- from $412,500 to $618,750. The salary range would also apply in the case of the chairman of the agency, Robert Klein, a multimillionaire real estate investment banker. However, Klein has declined to accept a salary.

Other proposed salary increases would see the top of the range climb from $270,000 to $405,000 for vice chairman, chief scientific officer and chief operating officer, a new position that is currently unfilled. The top of the salary range for general counsel and intellectual property attorney (another new, unfilled position) would jump from $225,000 to $337,500.

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights said the increases "are unjustified in the face of a state budget crisis."

In a statement prepared for release Tuesday, John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the group, said CIRM was "tone-deaf" in proposing the pay hikes. He said,

"CIRM doesn’t operate with some financier’s private stash of cash. CIRM is a state agency funded by taxpayer dollars. It needs to act like one.”

Simpson also said that CIRM's general counsel already received a 41 percent pay increase in December after only 10 months on the job, boosting her salary from $160,000 to $225,000.

The CIRM document proposing the other executive salary range increases did not offer a rationale nor did an accompanying salary survey paid for by CIRM. We asked Ellen Rose, spokeswoman for CIRM, what the justification was for the increase, She said,

"We are re-aligning the maximum of the ranges to be slightly above the 75th percentile data Mercer provided to be consistent with our Compensation Philosophy."

No further rationale was provided by CIRM for the top pay increases, which amount to more than an average of 16 percent a year since 2005 when the first salary schedule was approved by CIRM directors. At that time, CIRM salaries generated considerable heat because of what critics called their extravagance.

CIRM is a tiny agency with only 26 employees, although it hands out grant money at a rate exceeding $20,000 an hour. It is limited by law to only 50 employees. Its operating budget this year is running about $8 million, about $5.5 million of which is salaries.

The proposed pay raises would have no impact on the state budget. CIRM operates outside of the normal realm of state budget matters. CIRM's budget cannot be cut by the governor or the legislature. CIRM spending (which is financed by state bonds) is untouchable because of constitutional changes approved in Prop. 71. That fact is not likely to be understood by the public. Beyond that, the increases are a symbol of governmental profligacy that will not sit well with many persons, regardless of their position on stem cell research. The pay hikes additionally will hand another cudgel to foes of human embryonic stem cell research.

The chair of the CIRM subcommitteee considering the pay increases on Wednesday is Sherry Lansing, a former Hollywood film studio executive and currently a member of the University of California regents. Several years ago, as a regent she went through a major flap concerning excessive compensation for top executives at many UC campuses.

That episode reflected poorly on UC, and CIRM is likely to suffer the same fate.

(The subcommittee meeting begins at 3 p.m. The public may participate in the sessions at locations in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Carlsbad and Irvine. You can find the specific addresses here.

Stem Cell PR, John Scully and Stanford

What a difference Arnold makes.

Stanford announced on Wednesday that investment banker John Scully was giving it $20 million for stem cell research, among other things. News coverage was modest, especially compared to the outpouring that resulted from an identical donation from Eli Broad to UCLA last year.

At that time, a Google search on the term "UCLA stem cell million broad" generated 244,000 hits by the afternoon following the announcement. In comparison a search at noon today on "Stanford stem cell million Scully" generated 11,500 hits.

The biggest single difference in terms of the coverage was the appearance of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an event at UCLA announcing the gift from Broad. It generated a wide range of stories including TV spots from the stem cell labs on the Westwood campus.

As we pointed out at the time, huge donations offer an opportunity to not only tout the institution and recognize the donor, but also to promote the field of human embryonic stem cell research.

When 55 percent of the public nationally says it has little or no knowledge of stem cell research, the field still needs major help. Donations provide a chance to tell a positive story – one that does not involve warnings of expensive therapies, dubious results or even research fraud much less conflicts of interest.

We should also note that the donation will probably give a boost to Stanford's bid for a multimillion dollar CIRM lab construction grant. One of the important criteria for the grants is a big fund match from the applicants.

Here is a link toe the Stanford news release on Scully (see photo) and a story in the San Jose Mercury News. The San Francisco Chronicle does not appear to have carried a story.

(An earlier version of this item incorrectly identified Scully as the former CEO of Apple.)

Stem Cell Snippets: Toes, Public Support and Looking Forward

WSJ on Stem Cells – Columnist Robert Lee Hotz wrote today in the Wall Street Journal about non-federal stem cell research efforts and reprogramming of stem cells. He quoted Richard Murphy(see photo), interim president of CIRM, as saying that research on human embryonic stem cells must continue. "We need to sort out the realities," Murphy said. The piece also contained a forward-looking number that is increasingly turning up in articles involving CIRM. That is the figure of $519 million, which is what CIRM expects to have approved for stem cell research by the middle of this year.

Bad Poll Numbers – "Strong support" is declining for human embryonic stem cell research, according to a recent poll by the Virginia Commonwealth University. The survey was taken following the latest news on reprogramming of adult stem cells. According to a piece by A.J. Hostetler of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "strong support" peaked in 2005 at 27 percent and has now fallen to 21 percent. Overall support remains at 54 percent. It is the first national poll taken on stem cell research since the announcement of the reprogramming studies in November.

Murphy's Toe? – Reporter Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times put together a bit of an overview of CIRM recently. The main focus was on the conflict of interest problems at the agency. He quoted Richard Murphy as saying, "We stubbed our toe. We all didn't realize we had a problem here." Michael Fitzhugh of the East Bay Business Times also looked at the impact of CIRM activities on companies in the eastern area of the San Francisco Bay region. If you have difficulty obtaining full copies of the articles, please send a request to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com, and we will send them to you.

The Shifting Sands of Stem Cell Support

New Jersey voters on Tuesday sent a message to sanguine supporters of stem cell research in California: Do not assume that the public is always behind you.

Analysis this morning of the election results is a bit preliminary but news reports are characterizing the rejection of the $450 million stem cell research measure as a surprise.

And it is not good news for those in California who find reassurance in the 59 percent voter approval of Proposition 71 in 2004, the measure that created the state's $3 billion stem cell program.

We have pointed out previously that stem cell research is not well understood by the public. Support for it is weak despite often rosy polls that seem to indicate it is a motherhood issue, at least in the eyes of some at CIRM. That is not the case, as shown in a poll by the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life. According to that survey, support dropped from 57 percent nationally two years ago to 51 percent in August this year. It also showed that 55 percent of the public had heard little or nothing about stem cell research.

The New Jersey vote signals that it is imperative for CIRM to move forward thoughtfully and effectively on its public education/PR plans and promptly fill the vacant position of chief communications officer.

The New Jersey vote showed the vulnerability of stem cell research in the political marketplace. Voters can be fickle. To forestall erosion of support in California, CIRM must move to shore up its weaknesses. Those include its penchant for closed doors and secrecy – all of which breed suspicion and provide a recipe for scandal.

CIRM Praised on California Political Blog

The New West Notes blog has taken a brief look at the life and times of the California stem cell agency – a largely laudatory review accompanied by a 9-minute video of California Attorney General Jerry Brown.

Bill Bradley, author of the blog and a longtime observer of California politics, uses the stem cell program as an example of how things can actually be accomplished in state government, as opposed the impasses on health care and water policy, among other issues.

Brown (photo above) is seen on a YouTube taken at what appears to be a campaign appearance last year at Advanced Cell Technology in Alameda. The video, although lengthy, has been edited to focus on Brown's stem cell remarks. In the video, he promises to be a "champion" of stem cell research in California and nationally. "I will do whatever I can to alleviate suffering," he says.

One of the interesting aspects of Bradley's item are the numerous comments on it from readers.

One, NickM, said,

"The embryonic stem cell research bond was one of the biggest special interest giveaways in history.

"Companies that stood to make hundreds of millions or billions APIECE by having the taxpayers fund their R&D (and their investors)donated millions to convince the taxpayers that this research wouldn't happen without billions in taxpayer support. It worked.

"So now the biotech conglomerates and VC firms have a huge subsidy, and we're all supposed to feel good about it.

"It's the Donald Trump model: convince someone else to pay your costs while you reap the benefits."

Stem Cell Media Coverage to Crow About

By many measures, the $20 million gift to UCLA this week brought major media attention to the stem cell research efforts in the Golden State.

The size of the gift by Eli Broad, the presence of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a set-up story Monday morning in the Los Angeles Times all drove the coverage. But so what? Who cares about PR, right?

But when 55 percent of the public nationally says it has little or no knowledge of stem cell research, the field still needs major help. And Monday's event was a chance to tell a positive tale – one that did not involve warnings of expensive therapies, dubious results or even research fraud.

To give you an idea of the sweep of the attention, a Google Web search on the term "UCLA stem cell million broad" generated 244,000 hits this afternoon. That compared to 487,000 for "CIRM" alone. But the institute has been around for nearly three years, and it is naturally going to generate more response. The number of hits on the UCLA/Broad story is likely to climb in coming weeks as other outlets and Web sites pick it up.

The story ran internationally and on television and radio, which are the prime sources of news for most people. Newspapers and the Internet remain a secondary source.

One observer connected to the event, who must remain nameless, provided a summary of the coverage that said the story was

"...featured Monday and Tuesday by the Associated Press, Los Angeles Daily News, City News Service, KNBC-TV, KCBS-TV, KABC-TV, KCAL 9 News, KTTV-TV, KTLA, Bloomberg News, KPCC 98.3 FM, KNX 1070 AM, KFI 640 AM, Telemundo 54, Univision, Chinese Daily News, Sing Tao Newspaper and LA Channel 18.

"Dr. Owen Witte, director of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA, was quoted in English language outlets. Stem cell researcher Luisa Iruela-Arispe, professor and vice-chairman of molecular, cellular and developmental biology, was quoted in Spanish language outlets. Stem cell researchers Yi Sun and Dr. Andy Huang are quoted in Chinese language outlets.

"The AP story also appeared in the International Herald Tribune, Houston Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Pravda, Press-Enterprise, Enterprise Record (CA), Contra Costa Times, Monterey County Herald, San Jose Mercury News, San Luis Obispo Tribune and the Daily Breeze.

"The Los Angeles Daily News story also appeared in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Whittier Daily, Pasadena Star News, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, San Bernardino Sun and the Long Beach Press Telegram. The Los Angeles Times today ran a photo of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at UCLA announcing the gift."

One story helped particularly to drive the coverage, a Los Angeles Times article on Monday morning ahead of the actual event(see item below). The piece put the gift in the broader perspective of stem cell research growth in California, declaring that the donation and others recently "position California universities at the forefront of the promising scientific field." That type of buildup helps to focus the attention of harried TV and radio assignment editors and helps to convince them to give a story major play.

The governor's office announced last Friday that a news event would occur involving the gift, but the size was not disclosed until Monday's story in the Times, which appeared to have it exclusively. Crafty media relations people sometimes provide such key information to an influential news outlet such as the Times in advance of an actual event to help drive coverage media. We do not know whether that occurred in this case, but it is probably a good bet.

Adding frosting to this stem cell cake was the use of researchers who could speak in languages other than English, which is important in a diverse state such as California, but very important as well for international coverage.

Photo Information: The photo above was found on a conservative web site, which seemed to be using it in a fashion that would trigger negative reaction from conservatives. The original source of the photo was not given. Left to right, Broad, the governor and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Stem Cell Snippets: Drooping Support, Farmland, Goldstein's Views and CIRM Scholar

Declining Support for Stem Cell Research –- The Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life has released a public opinion poll that shows weakening support for stem cell research, dropping from 57 percent two years ago to 51 percent in August this year. It also showed that 55 percent of the public had heard little or nothing about stem cell research. The polling question involving support used the phrasing "destroying potential life." The results certainly would have been more negative if the word "potential" had been omitted. "Destroying life" is how many opponents view the issue. The "take-home" point? Support for human embryonic stem cell research is fragile and can easily be undermined by events ranging from a dubious experiment or result or perceived misconduct by those funding stem cell research.

ISSCR and Farmland –- Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society comments critically on the involvement of the International Society for Stem Cell Research in a land development proposal that also proposes the creation of a stem cell research nonprofit. You can read it here.

Stem Cells After Bush -- Lawrence Goldstein, director of stem cell research at the University of California at San Diego, was quoted on CNN Money.com concerning the future of federal funding for stem cell research after Bush. He said. "Personally, I think it's a mistake for the scientific community to assume anything about what the likely policy will be of a government that doesn't yet exist." He also said, "I would not build a business plan based on the assumption there will be federal funding for stem cell research." The article largely covered the perspective from business on stem cell research.

CIRM Scholar – A recent cover story in Nature magazine featured research by a CIRM scholar, Laura Elias at the University of California, San Francisco. She led a neural stem cell study that revealed a mechanism that may play a role in cancer. Elias is a neuroscience graduate student in the lab of senior author Arnold Kriegstein, director of UCSF Institute for Regeneration Medicine.