California's New $200 Million Stem Cell Spark

Directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency this month will attempt to supercharge some of their major research programs and push stem cell therapies more rapidly into the marketplace and the clinic.

Sir John Bell
Academy of Medical Sciences photo

The move is part of a $200 million effort approved only last December and was recommended by the agency’s blue-ribbon scientific advisory board, chaired by Sir John Bell of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. 

Awards in the first phase of the program – dubbed an “Accelerated Development Pathway” -- will range up to $25 million each. The effort will also involve more assistance and streamlined procedures from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known.

The awards are scheduled to be approved publicly on Sept. 10 at the directors’ meeting at the Claremont Hotel in Berkeley, Ca. Winners will be culled from a select group of researchers already funded by the agency.

The number of applicants was not immediately available from CIRM, but they were limited to individuals and institutions that have already received the agency’s signature disease team or strategic partnership awards. Also unknown was whether any businesses were among the applicants. Applicants rejected in next week’s round will have a chance to apply in upcoming, new “pathway” rounds.

According to the request for applications (RFA) on the CIRM Web site, the agency is seeking “high potential” research that can achieve “clinical demonstration of an acceptable safety profile and proof of concept during or before 2017.”

The RFA continued,

“For example, a team could propose additions to an ongoing CIRM-funded clinical trial that would accelerate development decisions such as including the testing of a biomarker they identified in correlated research work or adding a patient group based on data from an unblinded safety study. Other examples of accelerating activities could include changes in manufacturing processes or delivery devices, based on novel ideas that emerged from the activities of the initial award or related research that could require comparability studies to facilitate development of the candidate therapeutic. In addition, the Accelerated Development Pathway would also consider the possibility of funding a future clinical trial to demonstrate clinical proof of concept in the approved therapeutic indication, ‘subject to satisfaction of milestones and conditions.’”

The “pathway” program was approved by CIRM directors after its new Scientific Advisory Board recommended its creation. The advisors said the agency should move “at speed” to turn research into treatments.

Creation of the panel of advisors was recommended by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in a $700,000 study funded by CIRM. The IOM report said the panel would be invaluable in helping the agency to “make fundamental decisions about dealing with challenges that cut across particular diseases, decide which discoveries should progress toward the clinic and determine how best to engage industry partners in developing new therapies.”

(See here for the names of the members of the advisory panel. The full text of their report can be found at the end of this link.)

The panel has held only one meeting, and that was behind closed doors.

California Stem Cell Meeting: CIRM Directors Decide to Press Harder on Therapy Development

Directors of the California stem cell agency today voted to intensify their focus on a handful of projects most likely to advance through clinical trials despite concerns that other efforts by the agency could suffer as a result.

On a unanimous roll call vote, the board approved a motion to create a priority system as recommended by its new Scientific Advisory Board.

"It is time for us to be brutal," said CIRM Director Sherry Lansing, a former Hollywood studio chief and former chair of the University of California board of regents. She said,

"Unless we have a home run in something...it will be extremely difficult to get more funding."

The agency is expected to run out of cash for new grants in 2017. It is in the process of trying to devise a plan for some sort of private-public financial partnership. Discussion at the meeting also made it clear that another bond ballot measure has not been ruled out by some directors, who emphasized the need to show results to voters.

Several directors expressed concern that by making a decision to establish priorities the agency would be forgoing efforts to create "the strongest possible foundation" for stem cell science. They questioned whether the agency should behave like a business "trying to hit a home run." However, no votes were registered in opposition to setting priorities.

During this morning's meeting in Los Angeles, CIRM staff briefed directors on the status of CIRM research. The governing board was told that six to eight projects could be selected out of 23 with the goal of accelerating them into phase one and phase two clinical trials.

A figure of $200 million was mentioned as a possible set aside to help the projects move ahead, but the directors this morning did not approve a specific amount. That may come later today.

Several directors commented that today's meeting on priorities and future funding plans may well be the most significant in years.

The board is now at lunch.

California Stem Cell Researchers Fight for Shared Labs

Twenty California stem cell scientists are seeking to save the state's heralded, $72 million “shared” stem cell lab program, arguing that it is vital to research and necessary for the continued training of scientists.

The researchers made their appeal in a letter (full text below) expected to be presented tomorrow to the governing board of the $3 billion stem cell agency, which funds the effort. The agency's new Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) has recommended the program be discontinued and more emphasis placed on a handful of clinically oriented projects.

In a very brief recommendation that has been accepted by CIRM staff,  the advisory board said that “the importance of these resources to the mission of CIRM and achieving sustainability of earlier investments is not as compelling (as when the program began).

The SAB continued,

“These resources should operate on a revenue-neutral basis through recharge mechanisms and gain other needed support from the host institutions.” 

The lab program began as a $50.5 million effort in 2007 and was given an additional $21.5 million in 2011 after CIRM staff cited its "exceptional" performance. Former CIRM Chairman Robert Klein praised the effort, citing its ability to leverage funding. He said,

“The $4 million awarded, for example, to Stanford for its shared lab have enabled its scientists to successfully compete for $35 million of grants from numerous sources, with another $15 million in process.”

Responding to the SAB recommendation, supporters of the labs said that without them, “development of protocols for generation of clinically needed cell types will not be possible.” Their letter said the 17 labs have been “vital to current and future CIRM-funded efforts.” There is “no alternative place' for the type of research underway at the labs, said the scientists.

The researchers signing the letter were from institutions throughout the state, including UCSF, Stanford, UC Berkeley, USC, UCLA, Salk, Scripps, Sanford Burnham, UC Irvine and UC Santa Barbara.

The letter, which was made available to the California Stem Cell Report,  said,

“In the worst case scenario, the loss of indirect cost support to the institutions will mean that the core lab space will be reallocated (a certainty for many independent research institutes), effectively dismantling the Shared Laboratories and putting CIRM equipment into storage. Shared Laboratory personnel provide support not only for the millions of dollars of CIRM purchased equipment, but often also the additional equipment that has been funded by other sources as a result of the CIRM infrastructure investment but often also the additional equipment that has been funded by other sources.... 

“Even in the best cases, there will be no means to support the staff and maintain the equipment. Some institutions may be able to provide space without indirect costs, but will not fund personnel and equipment maintenance. Thus, the original CIRM investment in infrastructure will be lost, and CIRM’s highly successful training programs for new workers (CIRM Bridges and Training Grants), will be left without homes.”

Here is the full text of the letter and a summary of survey of activity at the shared labs.

California Scientists Back Endangered Stem Cell Lab Program

Survey on California's Shared Stem Cell Lab Program posted by DavidJensen

December Decision on Sharper Focus at California Stem Cell Agency?

A key panel at the $3 billion California stem cell agency has set the stage for action next month on recommendations that it move “at speed” to sharpen its focus to on six to eight projects likely to come closer to turning research into cures.

The governing board's Science Subcommittee met last Friday to discuss the recommendations from the agency's new Scientific Advisory Board. The proposals were first heard by CIRM directors in early October. No action has been taken so far but the advisory board's report comes up again Dec. 11.

Responding to an inquiry, Kevin McCormack, spokesman for the agency, today said last week's meeting gave the subcommittee and staff a chance to discuss the recommendations and possible action. Some of the recommendations could mean a lessening of financial support for some CIRM programs.

The agency has awarded $1.9 billion and has about $600 million in unallocated funds. It will run out of cash for new awards in 2017 and is working on a plan for future financial support. A consultant is expected to suggest a plan to the board also at its December meeting.

The full text of the recommendations and the staff's response can be found here.

Scientific Advisors to Stem Cell Agency: Time to Move 'At Speed'

John Bell, chair of CIRM SAB
Academy of Medical Sciences photo

The $3 billion California stem cell agency is preparing to take a close look at recommendations from key advisors that it should focus more sharply on a handful projects in order to transform research rapidly into commercial therapies.

The governing board's Science Subcommittee on Nov. 22 will examine the proposals by its new Scientific Advisory Board(SAB), created last summer as the result of a $700,000 Institute of Medicine study. Among other things, the advisory board said CIRM directors should zero in on six to eight projects that would lead to early stage clinical trials.

The recommendations come as the agency, known as CIRM, is wrestling with its own mortality. Cash for new awards will run out in 2017. The directors next month will hear a consultant's report on a plan for financing the agency's future. It is expected to involve some sort of public-private funding, which will only be forthcoming if the agency demonstrates research results that resonate with possible funding sources.

At last month's governing board meeting, CIRM director Sherry Lansing, a former Hollywood film studio chief, former chair of the UC regents and a prodigious fundraiser, sounded an urgent note.

She said that the agency is “trying desperately to get a win.” She raised the possibility of putting out a “do-you-need-help” RFA which would target applicants that have well-developed projects that could be moved ahead rapidly with some cash.

The Oct. 9 board meeting was the first time that Lansing and the other 28 CIRM directors had seen the recommendations, which were prepared outside of public view. They were only received by the agency staff two days before the board meeting.

The agency has yet to post on the Internet the full SAB document. However, the California Stem Cell Report asked for a copy, and the complete text can be found at end of this item.

 The report said,

“(F)or stem cell research to continue to advance at its current pace in California, future potential investors and supporters of stem cell research must perceive a tangible benefit to human health, and this can only happen through a clear success at the stage of clinical proof of concept. It is important that this occurs during the currently projected lifespan of CIRM, so that deserving projects and resources are positioned in the strongest way possible to attract future investments after expiration of the current CIRM funds.”

The agency's scientific advisors, only one of whom is from California, said the agency has a “strong chance of success” in securing additional funding if it moves “at speed.”

The panel, chaired by Sir John Bell of Oxford University in the United Kingdom, said it was “optimistic” that “a clinical proof of concept can be achieved in one or more settings with CIRM projects within the next three years.”

The report contained some comments that indicate that the advisors are not fully aware of all the circumstances surrounding CIRM. The panel prepared its report after being briefed by CIRM staff and four academic recipients who had received CIRM awards. No representatives from industry were heard. The advisors' report said,

“The SAB had a very positive view of the interactions between CIRM and the commercial sector.”

Many in the biotech community, however, have been less than pleased with CIRM, to point of holding a private dinner to air their grievances with then CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, filing multiple appeals of grant reviewer decisions and testifying before the Institute of Medicine. Only a tiny percentage of the $1.9 billion in CIRM awards has gone to business.

The agency, however, is working diligently to improve its industry relations, which are critical to turning research into something that can actually be used in the marketplace.

The advisors, handpicked by departing CIRM President Alan Trounson, praised CIRM's achievements so far as “considerable” and “transformative.” But it noted that the agency lagged behind other funding bodies in terms of “attention and attribution.”

The panel said,

“CIRM has been catalytic in generating many of the scientific advances in this field, but its brand recognition internationally and even nationally is limited and this should be corrected.”

The agency has suffered in the past from PR missteps but has been moving with some success in the past year to gain more favorable attention. However, it remains a relatively young organization. It receives almost no coverage in the mainstream media and very little more in the scientific media. Breaking through the media clutter is difficult, especially given that CIRM has not been part of major stem cell developments that naturally generate front page attention.

The SAB recommendations have been largely endorsed by the agency's staff. Following the Nov. 22 meeting on the proposals, they will go to the full governing board at its December meeting for action. The public can attend the meeting Nov. 22 in San Francisco and a teleconference location in Duarte at the City of Hope. Advance comments can be filed with CIRM via email at info@cirm.ca.gov.

  Scientific Advisory Report California Stem Cell Agency October 2013

Flawed Research, Cursory Peer Review, Perverse Incentives

“Billions of dollars worth of wrong” is how the situation in life science research is described in the Los Angeles Times this week.

Strong words, but supported by findings from Amgen and Bayer HealthCare that may be well known in relatively tiny scientific circles but rarely heard in an outlet such as the Times. It is the largest circulation paper in California and says it reaches 8.6 million adults weekly in Los Angeles via print and the Internet -- not to mention its national pull.

The column on “verifiable facts” and science was written by Pulitzer Prize winner and author Michael Hiltzik.

Among other things, he cited a study by Amgen of Thousand Oaks, Ca., which examined 53 “landmark papers” in cancer research and blood biology. Only five could be proved valid, a shocking result, according to Amgen. Similar results were turned up by Bayer in Germany.

Hiltzik continued,

"'The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they're investigated further,' says Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC Berkeley and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The Economist recently estimated spending on biomedical R&D in industrialized countries at $59 billion a year. That's how much could be at risk from faulty fundamental research.

"Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal — Nature and Science lead the list — encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn't a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws.

"'The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims,' he says. 'And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having splashy papers in Science or Nature — it's not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it's gotten a lot of attention.'"

Hiltzik goes on to discuss the flawed nature of peer review and “perverse incentives” in scientific research along with the new PubMed Commons project at the NIH, which Hiltzik said is aimed at substituting “continuing scrutiny” for “ a cursory, one-time peer review.”

Hiltzik's main piece appeared on the Web yesterday. Today he had a follow-up dealing with the late Richard Feynman's “cargo cult science,” the term physicist used for published research that did not prove valid.

Hiltzik's bottom line?

"The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole. NIH and the rest of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to get back on the right path."

Zeroing in on Therapies at the California Stem Cell Agency

BURLINGAME, Ca. -- Directors of the California stem cell agency today mulled over a recommendation that they focus intensely on a handful of research projects that are most likely to result in commercializing a stem cell therapy.

No decisions were made, but directors raised questions about whether such a move would mean a reduction of funding for other research efforts or affect other projects in a negative way.

The recommendation and others came from agency's new scientific advisory board(SAB), appointed by CIRM President Alan Trounson at the behest of an Institute of Medicine study. The agency received the panel's report only on Monday and cobbled together staff responses for today's directors' meeting.

The SAB proposals were bad news for the agency's shared labs program, which costs CIRM $7.5 million a year and is set to expire in 2014. The panel recommended an end to the program after that date. CIRM agency staff agreed, declaring that the original rationale was no longer valid and that the program could be wrapped into the recipient institutions' budgets, if they wished to continue with it.

The SAB, which has only one California member, said the stem cell agency should focus on six to eight projects that would lead to early stage clinical trials involving safety and proof of concept(stage one and 2A).

Discussion of the plan came after Ellen Feigal, senior vice president for research and development, briefed the directors on 70 agency grants that are moving well along the clinical development pathway. She told them, however,

“We are not going to take 70 projects forward.”

The agency currently has $600 million in uncommitted funds after handing out $1.9 billion over the last nine years. However, it could come up with more funds if it decided to “uncommit” some grant rounds conceptually approved but for which applications have not been solicited. CIRM is scheduled to run out of cash for new grants in 2017.

Feigal said that the SAB proposal could have “downstream implications” if extra money is required to intensify efforts on six to eight projects. However, she also said the agency could simply provide an “expedited pathway.”

CIRM Director Sherry Lansing noted that the agency is “trying desperately to get a win.” She suggested putting out a “do-you-need-help” RFA which would target applicants that have well-developed projects that could be moved ahead rapidly with some cash. 

Director Jeff Sheehy said the agency needs to “talk about sustaining what we have built.” He said,

 “It is not like our folks are going to graduate from our funding to NIH funding.”

The NIH is already suffering from a major cash crunch.

The recommendations from the SAB and staff reaction will be heard by the directors' Science Subcommittee, chaired by Sheehy, before the directors' December meeting. The December meeting is also expected to include a briefing on a proposal for creation of a “strategic roadmap” for future CIRM funding.

Here is the Power Point summary of the recommendations and staff responses. We have asked the agency for a copy of the original document from the SAB.

Stem Cell Directors to Discuss Advisors' Proposals for Changes

BURLINGAME, Ca. -- Directors of the California stem cell agency will be working through their lunch today. When they regroup in a few minutes, the first item on the agenda is expected to be the recommendations of the new scientific advisory board.

The advisory board was selected by the agency, but it has some proposals for changes and refocusing efforts at the agency. Discussion of the proposals will continue at the agency's board meeting in December, when it is also expected to discuss its road map for funding beyond 2017, when money for new grants will run out.

The Power Point presentation of the recommendations can be found here. The information was not available to the public until this morning.

CIRM's Scientific Advisors Laud California Stem Cell Agency

BURLINGAME, Ca. -- Although the California stem cell agency's new scientific advisory board recommends a number of changes at the enterprise, the board's bottom line is that the agency has had a "transformative" impact on stem cell science.

The conclusion from the panel, which was selected by the agency, was contained in a Power Point summary offered by the agency at its meeting here today. Here is an excerpt.

"The case that CIRM has been transformative in this exciting emerging field of  biomedical science seems self-evident to the SAB(scientific advisory board). The level of activity in this field in California is extraordinarily high and there are many excellent programs being supported by the CIRM that would have failed to be supported given the limited amounts of funding available for this field when CIRM was established. The program has yielded a large number of extremely well trained students and investigators supported directly or indirectly by the CIRM, there is a critical mass in a number of the major academic centers around California that has allowed it to compete internationally in this field, and the commercial environment for regenerative medicine in California has thrived as a result of CIRM intervention. 

"SAB noted that CIRM, despite its considerable achievements, had not received the attention and attribution that many equivalent funding bodies would have had for their contribution to successful science. SAB strongly suggests that CIRM ramps up its outreach activities, both to improve the California public’s awareness of CIRM’s uniqueness in the world, its successes so far, and the potential of stem cell research to advance treatment of diseases and injuries. Its brand recognition internationally and even nationally is limited and this should be corrected."

Trounson to Make London Appearance

Alan Trounson, president of the California stem cell agency, is scheduled to speak later this month in London at King's College.

The event is slated for Oct. 28. Trounson will be hosted by Fiona Watt, who is a member of the stem cell agency's newly created scientific advisory board and director of the Center for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine at the school.

Trounson's topic is “The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine: How to invest $3 billion in stem cell research.”

Scientific Advisors Take First Look at $3 Billion California Stem Cell Agency

Directors of the California stem cell agency on Wednesday will hear the first recommendations from a newly formed scientific advisory board, created to provide “cohesive” advice that a blue-ribbon study said has been lacking at the agency.

Formation of the panel was recommended last December by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its $700,000 report on the performance­ of the stem cell agency. The IOM said a scientific advisory board would be invaluable in helping the agency to “make fundamental decisions about dealing with challenges that cut across particular diseases, decide which discoveries should progress toward the clinic and determine how best to engage industry partners in developing new therapies.”

The report from the eight-member panel is not yet available to the public although only two business days remain before the agency's governing board meeting in Burlingame, Ca.

The panel was created last July and has held at least one meeting, which was not noticed publicly. The members include only one Californian, Corey Goodman, co-founder of venBio, a San Francisco biotech venture capital firm. According to an article by Bernadette Tansey on Xconomy, his current advice to biotech industry executives is:

 “Don’t do what I did. That worked then—it won’t work now.”

The other scientific advisors are: Sir John Bell, Oxford University, Great Britain; Christine Mummery, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands; Sean Morrison, Children’s Research Institute at UTSW, Texas; Stu Orkin, Harvard Medical School, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Mass., and also a member of the IOM panel that studied CIRM; Fiona Watt, Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King's College London; John Wagner, University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute,who is also a member of the CIRM standards group, and Maria Grazia Roncarolo, San Raffaele-Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy (TIGET).
(More information on each member is available by clicking on their names.)

In response to queries from the California Stem Cell Report, Kevin McCormack, senior director of public communications, said that the members of the board will not receive compensation but will be reimbursed for their expenses. McCormack said that they have been screened for conflicts of interest.

CIRM, as the $3 billion stem cell agency is known, has not yet prepared a written description of its new advisors' duties. McCormack instead referred to the IOM's description of what the board should be doing.

The IOM recommended formation of “a single Scientific Advisory Board, as opposed to multiple advisory boards as proposed in the 2012 strategic plan, (that) would provide cohesive, longitudinal, and integrated advice to the president regarding strategic priorities, which is lacking in the current CIRM organizational structure."

At its July 25 meeting, the CIRM governing board was told by President Alan Trounson that the scientific advisory board “may or may not be supportive completely of our strategic plan, but it will be a recommendation we'll bring to the board for further discussions about how we orient ourselves.”

The IOM cited several areas where CIRM has “made strategic decisions that resulted in the omission of some important areas.” They included “addressing the novel ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical applications of potential stem cell therapies” and preparation of “academic institutions in California for collaboration with the private biotechnology or large pharmaceutical sectors.”

The IOM report said,

“(T)he notable absence of industry representatives on most disease teams demonstrates the inadequate emphasis of CIRM’s translational/development RFAs on what is needed to enable regulatory approval for cell-based therapies.”

Also scheduled for Wednesday's governing board meeting is a review of its translational grant portfolio. That report is also not yet available publicly. In the past, such reports were often limited to a Power Point outline and not available to the public until their presentations were underway during the board meeting.

Here is the text of the IOM's summary of its recommendation for creation of the scientific advisory board.

“CIRM proposes to create a Clinical Advisory Panel and Industry Advisory Board. Although the committee supports CIRM’s intent to establish advisory boards, it recommends that one Scientific Advisory Board be established. Striking the proper balance in research across the portfolio of basic, translational, and clinical studies will require that CIRM solicit broad input in executing its strategic plan. The committee believes the proposed Scientific Advisory Board could serve an invaluable role in this process.

“Recommendation 4-1. Establish a Scientific Advisory Board. CIRM should establish a single Scientific Advisory Board comprising individuals with expertise in the scientific, clinical, ethical, industry, and regulatory aspects of stem cell biology and cell-based therapies. A single Scientific Advisory Board, as opposed to multiple advisory boards as proposed in the 2012 strategic plan, would provide cohesive, longitudinal, and integrated advice to the president regarding strategic priorities, which is lacking in the current CIRM organizational structure. The majority of the members of the Scientific Advisory Board should be external to California, appointed by and reporting to the CIRM president. Such an external board would be invaluable in vetting ideas for new RFAs, suggesting RFAs that otherwise would not have been considered, and helping CIRM maintain an appropriate balance in its research portfolio. Input from this board would help CIRM make fundamental decisions about dealing with challenges that cut across particular diseases, decide which discoveries should progress toward the clinic, and determine how best to engage industry partners in developing new therapies. The board’s reports and the president’s response to those reports should be delivered to the ICOC(the CIRM board) and discussed in sessions open to the public.”