National Controversy Snares California Stem Cell Firm; Congressional Investigation, Presidential Politics Involved

A California stem cell firm is enmeshed today in a national flap linked to abortion, buying and selling body parts and the 2016 presidential race.

The firm is StemExpress of Placerville, just east of Sacramento in the Sierra Nevada foothills. It was mentioned in a YouTube video that was recorded secretly by abortion foes who were posing undercover in a discussion with Planned Parenthood officials.

The video has been viewed nearly two million times as of this writing. The New York Times, the Washington Post and other major news outlets are covering the story.  It has triggered virulent headlines on anti-abortion and conservative web sites.

One headline on inquisitor.com said in red type,

“Buying And Selling Aborted Fetus Body Parts For $30 To $100? ‘Stem Express’ Website Down After Undercover Video Exposes Planned Parenthood” 

StemExpress provides researchers with “high-quality stem cells they need for their research,” an employee of the firm told the California Stem Cell Report in an email last May.  The firm also supplies “human blood, tissue products, primary cells and other clinical specimens to biomedical researchers around the world,”

Reporter Sammy Caiola wrote today in The Sacramento Bee,

“The eight-minute undercover clip, which has garnered over 1 million views (as of yesterday) and inspired the popular anti-abortion Twitter hashtag ‘#PPSellsBabyParts,’ is edited in a way to suggest Planned Parenthood and its affiliates profit from fetal tissue and organs procured during abortions, which is against federal law.”

Caiola said that the video contains “a supposed image of the StemExpress website (that) shows an order form, where users can designate type of order, number of specimens, tissue type and shipping options.”

Caiola continued,

“In a statement released by Planned Parenthood, spokesman Eric Ferrero said that while many women who undergo abortions choose to donate fetal tissue to scientific research, there is no financial benefit for either the patient or Planned Parenthood. Sometimes, Planned Parenthood is reimbursed for the cost of transporting the tissue to labs, he said.

“’We do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does – with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards,’ Ferrero said.” 

The California Stem Cell Report this morning asked StemExpress for comment and will carry it verbatim when it is received. However, all of the news stories so far say that the company has not responded to similar requests.

(The company responded -- see here for full text -- just as this item was posted and said,

"StemExpress prides itself on complying with all laws. Our compliance protocols and donor consents have been established by an FDA-compliant Independent Review Board. Written donor consent is required for any donation, including bone marrow, tissue of all types or blood."

(The company also said,

"Everything we provide is solely at the request of the nation’s and the world’s great research institutions. Producing the isolated cells researchers need from donated tissues requires the development of complicated, often unique, research techniques using millions of dollars of scientific equipment. We are hopeful the events of the last few days will not diminish our efforts to support the research community or hinder our partners from continuing their important work.")

The company was founded in 2010 by Cate Dyer.  Inc. magazine ranked the firm 363rd on Inc. magazine’s list of the fastest-growing private companies in America last year.

Ariana Eunjung Cha of the Washington Post wrote that GOP presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson and Bobby Jindal all have spoken out on the controversy.

In Congress, Republican leaders have ordered an investigation. Jackie Calmes and Nicholas St. Fleuer of the New York Times said,

"House Republican leaders on Wednesday announced a congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood, a day after anti-abortion activists released a video of an unsuspecting official from the organization explaining how it provides fetal tissue to researchers.
 "Echoing the activists’ allegation, Speaker John A. Boehner and other top Republicans suggested that Planned Parenthood was selling fetal parts, which is illegal if done for profit. But Planned Parenthood said that while it charges for expenses such as processing and transporting, it makes no money from the fetal tissue donated by women who get abortions. The official shown in the video repeatedly says something similar to two activists posing as biotechnology representatives."

'De-risking' Stem Cell Therapy with Government Cash and Assistance

Nature Biotechnology this month took a crack at what it called “therapies of the state,” three government- financed efforts at turning stem cells into cures.

The piece by Beth Schachter discussed “thorny technical challenges,” safety issues and regulatory and IP risk – not to mention the dreaded “reimbursement” risk. (Reimbursement is a PR euphemism that revolves around industry fears of losing money.)

Greg Bonfiglio
Proteus photo

In addition to California’s $3 billion effort, Schachter wrote about Cell Therapy Catapult in the UK and Canada’s Center for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine, whose board is chaired by Greg Bonfiglio, who is also founder and managing partner of Proteus Venture Partners of Palo Alto, Ca.

Schachter said that all three are to attempting to “de-risk the perilous process of advancing cell therapies that show potential in animal studies through human testing to commercialization.”

The Nature Biotech piece said that until recently Big Pharma and venture capitalists have steered clear of the cell therapies coming out of academia. Schachter wrote,

“For one thing, big pharma’s business model is very different from what is needed to translate cell therapies into practice. The pharma model involves mass manufacturing of products that can be stored in warehouses and distributed through pharmacies to large markets of patients. Cell therapies, on the other hand, may be highly individualized, are incompletely characterized, are expensive to produce, have a short shelf life and onerous supply chain, must be transplanted into patients by skilled healthcare workers and have complex regulatory requirements. These challenges, along with a dearth of cell-therapy successes, have kept away investors, too.”

As for the stem cell agency in California, Schachter wrote,

“In developing (its) extensive program, the CIRM has, in a sense, been standing in for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It has also been taking the role that venture capital might have assumed, had the US government given the go-ahead on human embryonic stem cells, thereby building a robust preclinical/translational research program. As Bonfiglio it, ‘CIRM galvanized the industry, putting regenerative medicine on the map, both in terms of what the politicians and the lay people saw and in terms of maintaining scientific training in that arena.'” 

Schachter said that it is not clear how long taxpayer cash will be needed or wanted. She wrote,

“Also not clear is how each of the governments will assess the success or failure of these programs. How will governments know when the time is right to wean the programs from public monies? Will they consider job creation, the number of companies spun out, or launching successful products in the marketplace? Given the complexity of cell therapies and regulatory uncertainty, none of these things may happen for decades. Perhaps a better measure is whether any of the companies created gets traction with big pharma. That might indicate that the commercial promise of these therapies is finally evident.”

StemCells, Inc., Nails Down Controversial, $19 Million Award from California Stem Cell Agency

The stock price of StemCells, Inc., price today jumped as much as 9 percent after the company disclosed it had finally concluded an agreement with the California stem cell agency for a $19.3 million forgivable loan for research twice rejected by the agency's scientific reviewers..

The stem cell agency governing board seven months ago approved the loan to the Newark, Ca., firm. But the cash was withheld until the financially strapped company could demonstrate that it could match the size of the loan, as promised in its application.

The StemCells, Inc., (SCI) application was nixed two times in 2012 by the agency's scientific reviewers who gave it a score of 61. In a controversial move, the 29-member board approved the award in early September on a 7-5 vote after former agency chairman Robert Klein intervened publicly on behalf of the firm. It was the first time that Klein had lobbied the board publicly on behalf of an application. It was also the first time that the board approved an application that was rejected twice by its reviewers, a panel of internationally recognized stem cell scientists.

In a press release, Martin McGlynn, CEO of StemCells, Inc., said,

"With CIRM's support, we are now able to lay the groundwork that could result in the world's first neural stem cell trial in Alzheimer's patients."

Both the company and the $3 billion state research agency were tight-lipped about the nature of the matching funds from the company, which reported losses of $28.5 million in 2012 on revenues of $1.4 million.

In a brief response to questions from the California Stem Cell Report, McGlynn said, 

 “At this time, we do not intend to elaborate any further on the contents of our press releases or public filings pertaining to the SVB (Silicon Valley Bank) or CIRM(the stem cell agency) loans.”

Earlier this week, the company reported receiving a $10 million loan from Silicon Valley Bank. Both McGlynn and the stem cell agency did not answer a question about whether those funds are being used to back the award from California taxpayers.

The agency confirmed that the firm was providing $19.3 million in matching resources. But Kevin McCormack, senior director of public communications, did not provide any specifics on the nature of the match. He only said,

“The matching  requires them to demonstrate they have enough funds necessary to fund SCI’s share going forward as well as their own operations and other commitments.”

The award was originally for $20 million. We have queried the agency about the smaller figure announced today.

The company's stock price rose as high as $1.87 earlier today after closing at $1.71 yesterday. It stood at $1.77 at the time of this writing. Its 52 week high is $2.67, and its 52 week low is $0.59. The loan from Silicon Valley Bank gives the bank warrants to purchase 293,531 shares of the company at $1.70 over the next 10 years.

The 10-year loan from CIRM is low risk for the company, which said its “obligation to repay the loan will be contingent upon the success” of the research. If a product is developed, it will take years before it could hit the market.

The award to StemCells, Inc., put the stem cell agency in a touchy situation involving the company's decision last month to reject an additional $20 million award from the agency.( It was the first time a recipient has rejected an award.) Neither the company nor the agency would give a reason for the rejection of the loan for a spinal injury project . However, the award also required a $20 million match, which undoubtedly tested the company's resources.

The spinal injury application was scored at 79 by agency reviewers and was routinely approved by the board. With its withdrawal by the company, the agency, which prides itself on funding only the best science, was left supporting research (StemCells, Inc.'s Alzheimer's project) judged significantly inferior by reviewers with its score of 61.

In response to a question about that situation, CIRM's McCormack said,

“Our goal is to always fund the best, most promising science. This is not the first time that our board has voted to fund a project that the Grants Review Group had not recommended (this has happened in around 2% of cases) The board did so for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that this was the first disease team application that had a goal of  moving a promising stem cell therapy for Alzheimer's towards clinical trials.”

The round in question, however, had another application dealing with Alzheimer's which was scored at 63, two points higher than the one from StemCells, Inc. Reviewers also did not recommend funding that application.

The action last September by the agency board came only after it publicly said the funds would not be distributed until the StemCells, Inc., could show it could provide the match, still another first for the agency.

The award triggered a column in the Los Angeles Times by Pulitzer Prize winning writer Michael Hiltzik, who said in October that  the process was “redolent of cronyism.” He said a “charmed relationship” existed among StemCells, Inc., its “powerful friends” and the stem cell agency.

StemCells, Inc., was founded by Stanford researcher Irv Weissman, who was a major fundraiser for Proposition 71, which created the stem cell agency in 2004. Klein headed the ballot campaign, which spent more than $30 million to win voter approval. Weissman sits on board of directors of StemCells, Inc., and holds 124,608 shares in the firm, including 8,630 he reported this month receiving.

Surfing the Wave of Good Stem Cell Vibrations

The House vote on federal embryonic stem cell research has created a fresh wave of good feeling for the stem cell industry, and at least one California firm is moving quickly to capture its momentum.

Advanced Cell Technology of Alameda issued two news releases this week, specifically citing the current political climate. One announced a national conference call Friday for investors during which ACT executives will promote their company and point of view.

The company also announced that it had received a "momentous" $204,439 NIH research grant in conjunction with a project involving one of the company's academic partners, the Burnham Institute in the San Diego area.

The news release quoted William M. Caldwell, chairman and CEO of ACT, as saying:

"This grant is momentous in part because it reflects the changing political climate and the federal government’s move toward considerably greater support for research into embryonic stem cell science. Increases in federal funding can trigger very significant growth in our industry, and grants such as these help companies like Advanced Cell deliver stem cell-based therapies to the bedside."

The release also quoted Mark Mercola, professor in stem cells and regeneration at Burnham, as saying:

"There are considerable opportunities in the field of regenerative medicine to use embryonic stem cells to develop therapeutic products to treat diseases where healthy cells may be used to replace those lost to injury or disease. This grant will allow us to build on our collaboration with Advanced Cell to use phage display as a tool to discover novel molecules for directing stem cells to form useful cell types and tissues."

It is fair to say that the releases are as much – if not more – about creating a "good story" for investors about ACT than the science. Nothing wrong with that. That's the way business works. The maneuver is not much different than what the governor of California did last summer when he announced his $150 million CIRM bailout in the wake of the president's veto. It certainly behooves the industry to piggyback on the positive vibrations out of Washington, even if the federal government's position on ESC research remains unchanged.