CIRM Rejects Grant Applications in Wake of Director Conflicts

The California stem cell agency, already under fire because of one conflict-of-interest flap, today dumped 10 applications for grants of up to $3 million annually as the result of additional violations of its conflict of interest policy by members of its board of directors.

The announcement followed a report in the San Francisco Chronicle (see below) this morning that disclosed the problems with grant applications from UC San Francisco, UC San Diego, UCLA and the University of Southern California.

The newspaper said that applications from those institutions included letters of support from the deans of those schools who also sit on the board of directors for the $3 billion program. Members of the board of directors are barred from attempting to influence a decision regarding a grant.

CIRM's announcement did not mention conflicts of interests. Nor did it mention the names of the schools, which may submit more than one application on behalf of their researchers. It also did not indicate whether more institutions than the four were involved.

The problems are connected to an $85 million faculty award program aimed at supporting top-flight, young researchers for several years. CIRM said that with the rejection of the 10 applications, the size of the program could shrink by about $15 million. Awards are scheduled to be approved by directors next week in Los Angeles.

Interim CIRM President Richard Murphy said that "checks and balances" at CIRM detected the problem. According to the Chronicle, CIRM staffers identified the conflicts. Murphy said the problem was the result of an "innocent misunderstanding."

CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of similar problems. They include more review of applications prior to issuance, special guidance to board directors and "specific guidance on access to counsel" concerning applications.

Klein, an attorney, was involved in the earlier conflict problem involving the Burnham Institute. He advised John Reed, a CIRM director and president of the Burnham, to write a letter in August lobbying CIRM staff to overturn a negative decision on a grant to Burnham. The case has attracted international attention online in scientific journals and has generated a call for an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, said CIRM made the right decision in rejecting the 10 applications. But he said in a news release:

"The only way to fix this is complete transparency. People have a right to know which board members still don’t understand conflict of interest rules."

Simpson continued:

"It’s simple: stem cell board members cannot take part in any way in grants to their institutions. The board is not some old-boys’ club for the benefit of the state’s universities. They are public officials and stewards of the public interest. Perhaps a few of these deans need to enroll in Ethics 101 at their universities and get the basics down."

Both Simpson and California's top fiscal officer, state Controller John Chiang, have called for the FPPC investigation in the Burnham case.

The Chronicle said that applications for the faculty award grants required a letter of support signed by the dean of the medical school or the departmental chair.

In addition to the four schools identified by the Chronicle, other institutions have top academic officials, including deans, represented on CIRM's board. They include Stanford, UC Davis and UC Irvine. CIRM refuses to disclose the names of institutions that apply for grants on the grounds that those rejected might be embarrassed.

However, it is reasonable to assume that at least one of those three schools applied for the faculty award program and did not submit a letter that would be a conflict of interest.

In response to a question from the California Stem Cell Report, Simpson said,

"They need to make clear what institutions and board members are involved. And they need use the words "conflict of interest violation. Even if they don't do that, the (CIRM news) release was gobbledygook."

Murphy, also in response to questions, said that all 10 applications were eliminated for the same reason. He said,

"ICOC members and CIRM staff are, like all government officials, aware of and sensitive to conflict of interest concerns. This is precisely why CIRM has acted so cautiously in this case. The concerns about the submissions in response to the new faculty (awards)arose out of an innocent misunderstanding of what was allowable in terms of the sign off of institutional support letters by ICOC members."

Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society, writing on the organization's blog Biopolitical Times, said, the Burnham conflict case and today's suggest "a board culture that does not take conflicts of interest seriously. The picture seems even sharper in light of CIRM board members' personal financial interests in companies that are invested in stem cell research, documented in a CGS report in April 2005."

Reynolds continued,

"This meddling is symptomatic of the deep flaws of Proposition 71, which created CIRM. It mandates that the CIRM board be dominated by high-ranking representatives of the institutions vying to maximize their slice of the public funding pie. These developments should stimulate the California legislature to alter the law to reform the board structure, and more."

No Improper Influence: CIRM Defends 'No Actual Conflicts' Claim

Earlier this month the California Stem Cell Report  published an item that said:

“In the wake of recent considerable criticism concerning conflicts of interest at the $3 billion California stem cell agency, its leaders have taken to saying 'no actual conflicts' have been found at the agency.

“That assertion is simply not true.”

We asked the stem cell agency if it would like to respond and said that its response would be carried verbatim. The agency's comments are below. Our take on the response follows the CIRM comments, which were authored by Kevin McCormack, the agency's senior director for public communications and patient advocate outreach.

In David Jensen’s recent blog about the stem cell agency he claims to “debunk” claims that there have been no actual conflicts in CIRM’s funding decisions saying “the agency has a long history of problems involving conflicts of interest, 'actual' and otherwise.” In fact, in the cases cited by Mr. Jensen, show 'otherwise' is the appropriate word here because as we’ll show CIRM’s conflict procedures worked and the funding decisions were not affected by any improper influence.

Let’s take it case by case, looking at each instance of a “conflict” cited by Mr. Jensen.

John Reed

In 2007, John Reed, a member of the stem cell agency’s Governing Board, contacted staff in his capacity as the president of the Burnham Institute after the Board approved a SEED grant award to a Burnham investigator. Dr. Reed did not participate in the Board’s decision to approve the award and played no role in that decision. All he did was send a letter to CIRM staff after the Board meeting to provide factual information in response to technical questions raised by CIRM staff concerning the investigator’s eligibility for an award. Those questions ultimately led staff to reject the grant. Because the Board had already made the decision to award the grant, it did not occur to Dr. Reed that the conflict rules would prevent him from contacting staff to provide relevant information. And why would it? The decision was made so there was nothing to influence. After CIRM staff received Dr. Reed’s letter, they informed Dr. Reed that he must refrain from participating in any way in CIRM's consideration of the Burnham grant. In addition, CIRM staff did not consider the letter in conducting their administrative review of the Burnham grant and their determination that the investigator was not eligible did not change. The FPPC determined that, although Dr. Reed’s conduct raised ethical concerns, he had not violated conflict of interest laws because he attempted to influence a decision that had already been made. Furthermore, Dr. Reed’s conduct did not affect a CIRM funding decision because the grant was rejected by CIRM staff.

New Faculty Awards

When a candidate applies for a CIRM New Faculty Award it is standard practice for them to include a letter of support from the institution where they hope to be working. In December 2007, during a review of applications for New Faculty Awards, CIRM staff discovered that ten applications were accompanied by letters of institutional support signed by members of the Board. This was due to a miscommunication by staff, a poorly drafted memo to Board members leading them to think it was OK to sign the letters of institutional support. The error was discovered before the Board considered any of the applications. CIRM staff determined that the letters could be perceived to create a conflict of interest and so, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, CIRM staff disqualified the ten applications. As a result, the applications were not presented to the Board for its consideration, thereby avoiding any potential for a conflict of interest in a funding decision.

John Sladek

In 2011, while preparing the public summary for Basic Biology III applications, CIRM staff discovered that Dr. John Sladek was one of several co-authors on scientific publications with a researcher who was listed as a consultant on a CIRM grant application. This is a technical violation of the Grants Working Group (“GWG”) conflict policy, which prohibits a member of the GWG from participating in the review of an application if the member has co-authored papers with a salaried investigator listed on a CIRM application within a three year window. It should be noted, however, that Dr. Sladek’s participation in the review of the application would not have constituted a conflict of interest under state conflict of interest laws because Dr. Sladek did not have a financial interest in the application. In addition, the amount of funding involved – approximately $3,000 of salary per year for three years, less than one percent of the total award – was not material, and Dr. Sladek did not stand to receive any financial benefit from the application. Finally, Dr. Sladek’s participation in the review did not affect the outcome because the application was not recommended, or approved, for funding.

The three instances cited by Mr. Jensen share two common features. First, CIRM staff identified the potential for a conflict before any funding decision was made. Second, CIRM’s funding decisions were not affected by any improper influence.

Ted Love

Mr. Jensen also cites the service of Dr. Ted Love, a member of the Board who volunteered his time to assist CIRM in offering his scientific and medical expertise, as evidence of a conflict of interest. Although Mr. Jensen insinuates that Dr. Love’s service constituted a conflict of interest, he does not cite any facts, except Dr. Love’s “deep connections to the biomedical industry.” But the fact that Dr. Love has experience in the biotech industry does not constitute a conflict of interest, and as a member of the Board and as a volunteer to CIRM, Dr. Love abided by CIRM’s conflict of interest policies.

In the past Mr. Jensen has criticized the stem cell agency for its lack of connections and engagement with industry. In this case he criticizes us precisely because of our connection and engagement with someone who has industry experience.

Venture Capital Firm

Mr. Jensen also suggests that a conflict of interest arose from the fact that “iPierian,Inc., whose major investors [a venture capital firm] contributed nearly $6 million to the ballot measure that created the stem cell agency, has received $7.1 million in awards from the agency.” While it is true that Proposition 71 involved a multi-million dollar campaign, the funding for the campaign came primarily from individuals who had a family member who suffered from a chronic disease or injury, including individuals associated with a venture capital firm. The firm itself did not contribute to the campaign, nor did the campaign accept contributions from biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, the venture capital firm did not invest in a CIRM grantee; rather, it invested in a different company which subsequently merged with yet another company to form an entity that later applied for, and was awarded a CIRM grant.

Stem Cells, Inc.

Mr. Jensen cites CIRM’s award to Stem Cells, Inc. as another source of a conflict. In support of this claim, Mr. Jensen’s references Bob Klein’s support of the award, as well as the fact that Irv Weissman, PhD, appeared in an ad for Proposition 71 in 2004. However, neither Mr. Klein’s support for the award nor Dr. Weissman’s support for Proposition 71 constitutes a conflict of interest. First, Mr. Klein, like any member of the public, has the right to express his views to the Board. The state’s revolving door laws do not apply to a former member of the Board who, like Mr. Klein, is not compensated for making an appearance. As for Dr. Weissman’s support for Proposition 71, nothing in state law prohibits a member of the public from seeking CIRM funding even though he supported the measure during the campaign. In fact, it would be reasonable to expect that most stem cell scientists in California (and elsewhere) supported Proposition 71. Disqualifying individuals from receiving funding because they supported the law would leave few, if any, eligible applicants.

Allegation of Conflict at Board Meeting

As further evidence of an “actual conflict”, Mr. Jensen cites another instance in 2008 in which a representative of a for-profit applicant publicly complained at a Board meeting that a member of the GWG had a conflict of interest “from a business perspective.” As provided for by CIRM’s regulations, the applicant had filed an appeal, claiming that the reviewer had a conflict of interest because he had a financial relationship with another company that was not an applicant for CIRM funding. CIRM’s legal counsel reviewed the appeal and determined that there was no conflict of interest under CIRM’s policy.

Saira Ramasastry and Laurence Elias

Mr. Jensen cites two instances in which CIRM’s hired consultants in support of his claim that CIRM has “actual conflicts of interest.” In 2010, CIRM retained a partner at Life Sciences Advisory, LLC, Saira Ramasastry, to assist CIRM’s External Advisory Panel, which completed its work in December 2010. In 2012, Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., nominated Ms. Ramasastry to serve on its Board of Directors. Although Ms. Ramasastry continued to provide some consulting services to CIRM through fiscal year 2011-12, none of her work for CIRM involved Sangamo or any CIRM program in which it was involved. Ms. Ramasastry’s services on behalf of CIRM did not create any conflict of interest. The same is true of the second instance cited by Mr. Jensen. In 2010, CIRM hired Dr. Laurence Elias, a former Geron employee and an accomplished clinical development professional, to provide CIRM with technical and regulatory input to ensure that the clinical elements of an RFA were technically complete and accurate. The concept for RFA had already been approved and as such Dr. Elias was not in any position to influence the overall scope or structure, nor did he have any role in evaluating applications. CIRM staff and Dr. Elias complied with all conflict of interest requirements. Neither contract led to an “actual conflict of interest”.

Diane Winokur

Mr. Jensen’s laundry list of “conflicts” also includes a reference to the recent appointment of Diane Winokur to serve on CIRM’s Board. Mr. Jensen quotes a representative of the ALS Association who said that Ms. Winokur will be “a tremendous asset in moving the ALS research field forward through CIRM funding." Of all the insinuations made in his blog this is perhaps the cheapest shot, taking aim at a woman who has dedicated her life to fighting a deadly disease, one that claimed the lives of her two sons. Mr. Jensen knows very well that the ALS Association does not speak for Ms. Winokur or CIRM and while we expect that Ms. Winokur will bring her expertise as an advocate for people suffering from ALS to the Board, she, like all members of CIRM’s Board, represents all Californians, not just those suffering from a particular disease. Ms. Winokur’s appointment does not create a conflict of interest.

Press Releases

Finally, Mr. Jensen cites a Board debate from 2006 involving a requirement in CIRM’s intellectual property regulations regarding press releases. Under Health and Safety Code section 125290.30(g)(1)(C), the discussion of standards does not create a conflict of interest, and the Board’s debate was enriched by the participation of members who brought their expertise and experience to bear.

Mr. Jensen says that one of the reasons why the IOM did not report any instances of conflict of interest in its report is that it did not look for any conflicts of “inappropriate behavior,” But Mr. Jensen was present in the public hearing at UC Irvine in April of 2012 when the IOM panel asked Stuart Drown, Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission that also looked into allegations of conflict of interest at CIRM, if he could cite any actual instances. Mr. Drown said he could not. Nor did Mr. Jensen offer any when it was his turn to talk.

The view from the California Stem Cell Report:

Generally speaking, CIRM's response about “actual” conflicts of interests is a reiteration of what the California Stem Cell Report carried at the time of each incident and does not add much new to the discussion of the issues. All of the agency's earlier responses could be found in the links in the “debunking” piece. Additionally the agency confuses what are clearly actual conflicts with other instances that could involve either actual or perceived conflicts, which the IOM noted can be as deadly as the real thing. However, in the most egregious cases involving Reed and later the five medical school deans, the agency would like the public to believe that these were not serious matters because the staff detected and caught the conflicts before the grants were made.

That is like saying a burglar who was caught in the act before he escaped with his booty committed no offense.

The acts were committed by members of the CIRM board, and they were violations of conflict of interest standards. In the case of the five deans, that is why the agency voided 10 applications totaling $31 million from their five institutions. If there had been no actual conflict of interest, that would not have been necessary.

As for blaming the staff for “miscommunications,” the applications that the five deans signed were quite clear and offered them the option of having another person at their institution sign the grant proposal. Other deans on the board did not sign applications in the same round. Those applications were then handled in the normal fashion. One might ask how in the world could the head of a medical school who was also serving on the CIRM board NOT recognize a conflict of interest when asked to sign a request for cash from the board on which he served?

Regarding John Reed and his conflict of interest violation, both he and then CIRM Chairman Robert Klein have acknowledged Reed's actions were wrong. Klein, an attorney who directed the writing of the 10,000-word measure that created CIRM, advised Reed to contact CIRM staff to lobby on behalf of a grant that was approved by the board but was about to be denied by staff.(See here, here and here.)

CIRM's response contends that Reed's 6 ½ page letter was nothing more than “factual” information dealing with technical matters. That is hardly the case. In fact, Reed explicitly “emphasized” (Reed's word) that failing to comply with his letter would damage the future of the stem cell agency. Denial of the grant, he said, “will surely discourage clinical researchers from participating in the CIRM mission to advance stem cell therapies.”   

Reed's action was inappropriate, and the California Fair Political Practices Commission warned Reed about his actions. The journal Nature reported,

“California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPCC) decided that Burnham Institute President violated conflict-of-interest rules by writing a letter to the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine appealing a decision that an affiliate of his institute was ineligible for funding.”

The California Stem Cell Report's “debunking” piece went beyond "actual" conflicts to describe other instances where conflicts emerged. Readers can go back to the original links for all the details, but the cases of StemCells, Inc., and iPierian, Inc., are worth reviewing again. Both cases involve fund-raising efforts that ran into millions of dollars for the ballot measure campaign that created CIRM. The campaign was run by Bob Klein who later became the agency's first chairman, serving for six years and becoming something of a hallowed figure in stem cell circles. One of the principal jobs of a campaign manager is to raise the millions needed to run a successful statewide election campaign in California. It is common for members of the public to believe that major campaign contributors are rewarded later for their contributions. Whether that was the case in these instances, the reader must decide for himself or herself. But the appearance is less than salubrious for an agency that claims to have never seen an actual conflict of interest as it has handed out $32,000 an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week during the last six years.

The facts are that about 90 percent of the $1.7 billion awarded by the CIRM board has gone to institutions tied to present and past members of its governing board. The agency, however, does work hard to be sure legal conflicts do not arise during board action on grant applications, using a voting procedure that is so convoluted that the actual vote on nearly all applications is not even announced at board meetings. Sometimes the procedure means that only a handful of governing board members can participate in debate or vote. In the case of the five medical school deans, as the board struggled to deal with the fallout in 2007, only eight of the 29 members of the board could participate in the discussion because the rest had conflicts.

As for CIRM's comments about “insinuations” and “cheap shots” by the California Stem Cell Report, we naturally differ with that characterization. The case in point involved what the chief scientist for a patient advocate group said she expected as the result of a recent appointment to the board. The scientist's remarks were offered as example of the type of expectation and entitlement that can arise when governing board members must be picked from specific constituencies, as is the case with all 29 CIRM board members.

And as for my testimony at the IOM hearing last April, here is a link to my statement, which includes a discussion of conflicts of interest.  

California To Give $85 Million to 25 Researchers

The California stem cell agency meets next Wednesday in Los Angeles to give away $85 million to as many as 25 stem cell researchers at rates of up to $3 million a year each.

The five-year "faculty award" program is aimed at drawing the best and brightest into stem cell research in California and not just embryonic stem cell research. Arlene Chiu, CIRM's former top scientist, said earlier this year,

"These grants are designed to encourage newly independent investigators to pursue bold and innovative studies across the full range of stem cell types – human and animal, embryonic and adult. We will consider providing successful applicants salary and research funding for up to five years, ensuring that they have stable, secure financial support as they begin their independent scientific careers."

Applications for the grants came from researchers at 28 organizations. Eleven University of California and California State University campuses are represented. (The California State University system is separate from UC). Four private universities submitted applications. Thirteen non-profit research institutions also applied. However, none of the names of the institutions or the individuals were publicly released, in keeping with CIRM's policy of secrecy on grant applications.

The faculty program is the main item on the agenda for next week's meeting, but other noteworthy items are including. Some details of what is to be considered are currently available on CIRM's web site, well in advance of the meeting. Sometimes the agency has been remiss in providing information in a timely fashion, but the early posting of information is essential if the agency is to engage the public and keep its constituencies and backers truly informed.

Here is a quick run-down on the agenda and the status of the supporting information:

--Grants administration policy for grants to private businesses – key item for the private sector – Draft of policy posted

--Boost in compensation for scientists reviewing grants from $500 daily to $2,000 per meeting, regardless of the number of days – background posted along with short bios on new scientific members of the Grants Working Group, which is the group that reviews research applications

--$300,000 annual conference program to be controlled by the CIRM president – background posted

--Research standards – background posted on "consent calendar" item

The following items have no background posted on CIRM's web site at the time of this writing, five business days prior to the meeting:

--$85 million faculty award program

--Additional funding for $227 million lab grant program to be awarded next year

--Compensation and relocation allowance for incoming president Alan Trounson

--Intellectual property policy for grants to businesses – This is a major item for the private sector.

--Changes in CIRM's internal governance policy and review of CIRM's organization chart – This is likely to concern the sometimes tenditious past relationships involving the president and chairman of CIRM, creating a new structure aimed at keeping Trounson and stem cell Chairman Robert Klein happy. It could also involve allocation of additional staff to Klein, which he has been seeking for some months.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this post was garbled. An earlier version also incorrectly reported that the increase in reviewers' honorariums would be to $2,000 per day instead of per meeting.)

CIRM Plan: $85 Million Split Among 25 Stem Cell Researchers

Polish up your resumes, folks. The California stem cell institute is preparing to give away $3 million a year or so to 25 promising, "young" researchers and physician-scientists. The money could be awarded as early as next winter.

The concept for the five-year program was approved by CIRM's Oversight Committee earlier this month. It is aimed at drawing the best and brightest into stem cell research in California -- and not just embryonic stem cell research.

The $85 million proposal encountered virtually no opposition at the Oversight Committee meeting. However, it did shed some light on issues related to have and have-not institutions, quality of grant recipients and spreading the CIRM wealth geographically around the state.

Arlene Chiu, interim chief scientific officer for CIRM, presented the concept to the ICOC. She told the board:

"Independent scientists at this early stage in their careers are very vulnerable...because they face a number of challenges: Tight federal funding pressures to get data and results out quickly, to publish papers, and demonstrate productivity and the potential of their work. They also must get grants to support their fledgling labs. And last, and certainly not least, physician-scientists often have to have clinical service as well. Faced with these challenges, plus the restrictions and uncertainties imposed by the presidential policy on human embryonic stem cells, it's not surprising that many new faculty are discouraged, feel discouraged from rushing into this new field."

Under the plan, the awards would go to persons who hold fulltime, faculty-level positions at academic or non-profit institutions in California and who are "young," meaning in the early stages of their careers. Academic institutions with a medical school could submit four applications in support of new Ph.D.'s and two new physician-scientist faculty members. Institutions without a medical school would be limited to two applications. The grants would go for research, salaries and possibly educational loans. They are akin to Pioneer grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health.

Chiu said the cap on the applications from each institution was needed to keep the total number from become unmanageable given the problems of processing them with CIRM's small staff. Ed Penhoet, vice chairman of the ICOC, said the total could hit 600 or 700 without a cap. He said he was more concerned about the load on grant reviewers, who come from out-of-state.

Philip Pizzo, dean of the the School of Medicine at Stanford, and others advocated no institutional cap on applications. Pizzo said,

"This is a very big award that you're putting forth, that it's best to have the very most outstanding individuals."

Later he said,

"I'll say this carefully, and I hope no one will be offended. I think we must have a very high standard. The tendency that we've had recently is we're trying to spread things around, and I think it's good. We should do that, but we should have a high bar on these grants and not simply come in and say,well, we need to have many more of them to sort of prime the seat. I think that would be going in the wrong direction."

David Baltimore, former president of Caltech and a Nobel Laureate, replied,

"There are only 25 grants. If four of those grants were given to one institution, that would be probably scandalous. For six grants to be given to one institution would certainly be scandalous when it's such a limited resource for the state."

Also speaking for limits on each institution were Oversight Committee Chair Robert Klein, Claire Pomeroy, dean of the School of Medicine at UC Davis, and patient advocates Jeff Sheehy and Sherry Lansing, a former Hollywood film executive. .

At one point, Oswald Steward, chair and director of the Reeve, Irvine Research Center at UC Irvine, supported Pizzo as did Duane Roth, chairman and CEO of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp., who said he favored stringent criteria for the awards.

The discussion of the faculty award program reflected some of the questions recently rippling through CIRM. Do the big, well-established programs continue to receive generous grants? How much should go to institutions without the reputations and facilities that UC San Francisco and Stanford have? Should the location of institutions be a consideration? Does spreading the money around mean that unworthy science is being funded? Does it dilute funding for what is very expensive research, a question raised by Penhoet, who said,

"I just wanted to caution against trying to cut the budgets and spread it around over more people. This is a disease most prevalent at the National Science Foundation. You end up with lots of people with not enough money to do anything important. So I think we're better off to choose the very best people and fund them well rather than try to spread the money further. This research is expensive. Salaries are high, all of these things. It takes a lot of money to do modern cell biology and microbiology."

The questions of sharing the wealth have surfaced particularly during recent sessions of the Facilities group, which is developing criteria for a $200 million research lab construction program. The issues are likely to surface anew on July 12 when that group actually writes the specifics.

As for the faculty awards, Chiu will bring back more specifics to the ICOC in August. Review of applications, which she estimates could come from as many as 35 institutions, is tentatively scheduled for this fall. Approval of grants could come during the holiday season. Consider them a Christmas bonus.

Names of Faculty Award Recipients

Here is a link to the CIRM news release on the names and the institutions of the faculty award recipients. http://www.cirm.ca.gov/press/pdf/2007/12-12-07.pdf

Fifty-nine Scientists Reach for CIRM's Golden Ring

The odds do not appear to be too bad in the California stem cell agency's new and generous $85 million faculty award program. It could make 25 stem cell researchers quite happy this holiday season.

Fifty-nine persons filed letters of intent to apply for the awards that could run as high as $3 million annually. CIRM could give out as many as 25 grants, if it decides it has that many worthy candidates. That, of course, means one out of 2.36 applicants could be funded.

The scientists come from 29 California institutions, whose names were not immediately disclosed. We have asked for the names of the institutions and will carry CIRM's response when it is forthcoming.

CIRM's press release today said,

"New Faculty Awards will fund the research of promising M.D. and Ph.D. scientists in their early years as independent lead investigators and faculty members. They are intended to develop a new generation of clinical and scientific leaders in stem cell research.

"While previous CIRM research grants focused on human embryonic stem cell research, the New Faculty Awards will support research across the full range of stem cell types – human and animal, adult and embryonic."

The schedule calls for the awards to be approved at the board's December meeting. The deadline for applications is Aug. 30 but those who did not file letters of intent are out of luck. Between now and then, the applications will be reviewed behind closed doors by a group of out-of-state scientists and some members of the CIRM Oversight Committee, who have filed public economic disclosure statements. However, the scientists involved in the review do not have to file public statements. They file secret economic disclosure statements with CIRM. Their private statements are also aimed at identifying potential professional conflicts.

CIRM Stingy with Info on Matters Before Directors This Week

With less than three business days left before Thursday's meeting of the directors of the $3 billion stem cell agency, CIRM has not yet produced details for the public on three significant matters that are to be considered.

The agency's failure to provide the information for the biotech industry, researchers, patient advocates, policy makers and the public via the directors' agenda is not a onetime event. It is part of a pattern -- a de facto policy -- that reflects poorly on CIRM. Withholding information about board matters effectively stifles participation by the public and discourages coverage by the media.  It also fails to meet the pledge of CIRM Chairman Robert Klein to adhere to the highest standards of openness and transparency.

However, more information on two items is now available. One involves a $6.6 million, visiting faculty program. Another deals with selection of grant reviewers, something of a sorepoint within the biotech industry.

The CIRM faculty plan states:

"The CIRM Visiting Faculty Award will operate through supplemental awards to existing CIRM-funded research grants, all of which have been peer reviewed and approved by the ICOC. The funds will enable a sabbatical researcher (Visiting Scientist) to work on an existing CIRM-funded research project for 6-12 months. The supplemental CIRM funds will cover up to 50% of the Visiting Scientist's salary and fringe benefits costs, with the remainder being paid by the Visiting Scientist’s home institution."

Applications would be submitted by the recipient of an existing research grant – who would be known as the "host scientist." The proposal envisions up to 30 awards with decisions on awards being made by CIRM staff.

Also before directors are eight proposed new alternate scientific members of the grants review group. None appear to have significant biotech industry experience. The agency has drawn fire from industry for its lack of grant reviewers who have a business background. CIRM's own external review panel said last fall,

"The majority of granting processes are designed on academic models. These processes do not necessarily fit the needs or timelines of industry and/or the realities of managing industry projects. Granting processes and funding criteria could be clarified and streamlined from an industry perspective and timelines for decision-making could be aligned with industry norms."

Regarding the review's sweeping recommendations themselves, CIRM President Alan Trounson said in early December that he would report on how they should be implemented. His report is not on the board's agenda for this month. The next CIRM board meeting is scheduled for March 9-10.

As for the previously mentioned three agenda items lacking information, one is a proposal to subsidize trips to Toronto in June for perhaps hundreds of persons to attend an international stem cell conference. The proposal contains no cost estimate nor does it indicate how many persons would be involved. We calculated a very rough estimate of $3,000 a person, depending on a number of variables. This may be worthwhile effort. We are inclined to think there is considerable value for scientists at such meetings. But so far CIRM has failed to do even a poor job of making the case for the subsidy program.

Another item needs much more explanation about why it is being considered this week. Only 22 words are devoted to it on the agenda although it is an unusual exception to the normal grant approval process. The item concerns an application for $4 million by Fred Gage of the Salk Institute in the early translational round. Decisions on that round were made last October by CIRM directors. Scientific reviewers did not approve the Gage application for funding, but it was set aside by the directors for additional consideration.

This week's agenda provides no hint concerning that background and no clue about why the application is still around. Its history can be unearthed from CIRM documents, although virtually all ordinary users of the CIRM web site would find the task daunting if not impossible. Here is a brief synopsis of the story:

At the Oct. 21, 2010, CIRM board meeting, CIRM Director Joan Samuelson, a patient advocate for Parkinson's and who also is living with the disease, moved to have directors override the negative decision by reviewers. During the discussion at the October meeting, CIRM Director Jeff Sheehy, also a patient advocate and member of the grants review committee, said in support,

"One of the key factors that was very motivating was the stature of the scientist and paucity of people working in Parkinson's in California. Eminent neurologists within the room said we campaigned (in 2004 for Prop. 71) -- we had Michael J. Fox on TV -- we talked about Parkinson's as a target. But one of the problems in our ability to fund this in California is that there's a lack of a sufficient number of outstanding Parkinson's (researchers) -- other diseases are more or better represented, at least this is what is stated, and the opportunity to get this particular eminent scientist into this arena was a value in and of itself."

The discussion at the October board meeting went beyond the specific grant and into procedures of the board and the grant review process, including discussion how of exceptions are made.

Ultimately the board asked CIRM President Trounson to look into the grant and report back on his views.

Researchers, patient advocates and others interested in CIRM funding would be well-advised to read the discussion, which covers about 17 pages of the transcript beginning on p. 144. Also of interest at the Thursday meeting concerning funding is an appeal by a Stanford researcher, Stefan Heller, in the tools and technology round that is before directors.

The third matter that is shy of information involves changes in the agency's biotech loan program and its payback provisions. We wrote earlier about what those might involve. Our take can be found here.

Strong Interest in $41 Million CIRM Faculty Award Program

The California stem cell agency's effort to boost "young" researchers with grants of up to $2 million has attracted 55 letters of intent, nearly as many as the first round of program last year.

The faculty awards are designed to develop relatively young and promising researchers and particularly physician-scientists at a critical stage in their careers – providing them with salary and research funding for three to five years.

The $41 million grant program comes on top of a similar program last year that drew 59 letters of intent. Ultimately, the agency gave away only $54 million to 22 researchers out of the $85 million allotted in 2007. The grants were curtailed because five CIRM directors violated the agency's conflict-of-interest policies by writing letters on behalf of applicants from their institutions.

CIRM said the letters resulted from an "innocent misunderstanding." CIRM disqualified the 10 applications involved. The directors involved suffered no CIRM penalty, although some reportedly took steps to ease the economic or professional pain of applicants who were affected.

In December, CIRM directors ordered up a second round of faculty awards in order to give another chance to applicants disqualified last year because of their deans' conflict violations.

The names of the institutions and researchers submitting letters of intent this month were not disclosed by CIRM, which keeps them secret. Only the winning applicants names are released and then only after they are approved for funding.

In response to a query, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, released the number of intent letters and said 31 institutions were represented. He did not provide a breakdown for numbers from academic institutions and nonprofit research organizations.

CIRM has directed applicants in the second round not to disclose whether they competed in the first. Disclosing such information in this round could mean disqualification of the applicant.

Grant reviewers, however, are not likely to have too much trouble identifying applicants who are making their second run – unless their latest applications are totally different than the first or the reviewers' memories are faulty.

Fourteen grants are expected to be approved this summer following a closed-door review of the applications by the same CIRM panel that reviewed the first round of the grants. Scientists on that panel do not have to publicly disclose their financial or professional interests. Instead their disclosures are made privately to CIRM.

The application deadline is April 3, although no one can apply unless a letter of intent has already been sent.

$59 Million Bonanza For California Stem Cell Researchers

Twenty-three California scientists hit it big today when the California stem cell agency awarded them grants that totaled as much as $3.2 million each.

In all, directors of the agency gave away $59 million in its second round of Faculty Awards, which are designed to support "young" researchers and develop more talent in the area of human embryonic stem cell research,.

The grants will support the recipients for as long as five years. They come at a time when competition for grants at the federal level is increasingly competitive. In a news release, CIRM Chairman Robert Klein noted that the average age of a researcher receiving his first grant from the National Institutes of Health is 43. Presumably, today's CIRM recipients are younger, but the agency did not specify their average age in its news release, which contains the names of the recipients and their institutions.

Grant reviewers decided 20 grants were unequivocally worth funding. Directors added three more from the second tier of applications, which reviewers say are worth approving if funds are available. Nine more grants remain in that category and will be considered at next month's directors meeting. A final vote will also be held then on the 22 applications not recommended for funding by reviewers. Fifty-four applications were received.

Today's grants come on top of a similar round approved last December. CIRM gave away $54 million then to 22 scientists. However, that round was tainted by conflict of interest violations by some CIRM directors, that caused the agency to reject 10 applications. Directors then decided to go ahead with another round of Faculty Award grants.

Initially CIRM budgeted $41 million for 14 recipients in the latest round of Faculty Awards. CIRM did not explain the rationale for increasing the program in its news release today.

(Editor's note: This item originally contained a sentence noting that CIRM's original press release said there were 55 applications although internally the numbers totalled 54. We queried CIRM about the matter. CIRM said that 55 was a mistake and that only 54 applications were received.)

CIRM Directors Meet to Mull More Faculty Awards, Mega Millions for Labs

Coming up in the middle of this month is the $263 million California stem cell lab construction bonanza, but some other items are also up for consideration by directors of the state's stem cell agency.

CIRM has posted the agenda for the two-day session beginning Jan. 16. Besides the largest round of grants in CIRM history, the Oversight Committee is scheduled to take up a proposal to "make whole" -- sort of -- the 10 scientists who suffered as a result of breaches of CIRM's conflict of interest policy by the deans of their medical schools.

No details are yet available on the posted agenda, but CIRM plans to offer a new round of faculty award grants. Initial discussions indicated that it would be open to all (with qualifications)– not just the those who were dumped from last month's $54 million round.

Also on the agenda are compensation changes, travel policy and new plans for conferences and meetings. Some of those will mean increased spending, although no details are yet available on the CIRM website.

As for the "Mega Millions Jackpot" – whoops, that is another California state program -- for lab construction, if CIRM holds to past practice, sometime between now and Jan. 16, we should see the postings on the public summaries of the grant reviews for 12 institutions that were anointed earlier. Given the complexity of the proposals and staff turnover at CIRM, we would expect to see the summaries later rather than earlier, which would make it difficult for the public or other interested parties to review them and prepare comments for the Oversight Committee meeting.

California Stem Cell Agency Hands Out $41 Million

The California stem cell agency has awarded $32 million to researchers to help them devise technology to overcome obstacles to development of stem cell therapies, part of $41 mllion in spending approved today.

In approving 19 tools and technology grants, CIRM directors rejected four appeals of negative recommendations from reviewers. That included a petition by Stanford researcher Stefan Heller that raised a number of policy questions that went beyond purely scientific issues. A fifth rejected application by Martin G. Martin of UCLA was sent back to the grant review group for additional consideration including new information.

According to CIRM's news release, three businesses and seven institutions were among the recipients. some of which received more than one grant. The businesses are Gamma Medica-Ideas, Inc. of Northridge, Ca., $1.5 million; GMR Epigenetics of Palo Alto, Ca., $1.5 million, and Fluidigm Corp. of South San Francisco, $1.9 million. The biotech industry has complained about receiving short shrift on their applications for CIRM cash.

CIRM directors also created a $6.6 million visiting faculty program. According to the agency,

"The CIRM Visiting Faculty Award will operate through supplemental awards to existing CIRM-funded research grants, all of which have been peer reviewed and approved by the ICOC. The funds will enable a sabbatical researcher (Visiting Scientist) to work on an existing CIRM-funded research project for 6-12 months. The supplemental CIRM funds will cover up to 50% of the Visiting Scientist's salary and fringe benefits costs, with the remainder being paid by the Visiting Scientist’s home institution."

Applications will be submitted by the recipient of an existing research grant – who would be known as the "host scientist." The proposal envisions up to 30 awards with decisions on awards being made by CIRM staff.

Directors also approved a $2 million grant to Fred Gage of the Salk Institute in the early translational round. The application, which deals with Parkinson's Disease, originally totalled nearly $4 million when directors considered it last October. Scientific reviewers initially did not approve the Gage application for funding, but it was set aside by the directors for additional consideration. CIRM staff and a representative of the review group negotiated the scaling back of the grant size.

Additionally approved was a $250,000 program to subsidize attendance for about 80 recipients of CIRM training grants and 40 patient advocates at an international stem cell conference in Toronto in June. The program was originally proposed at $200,000 but was boosted to $250,000 by directors.

Public Barred from Any Comment at $85 Million CIRM Meeting

Two days of closed-door meetings will be held in the San Francisco Bay area next week to consider the 59 applications for $85 million in faculty award grants to be handed out in December by the California stem cell agency.

The agency's Grants Working Group will meet next Tuesday and Wednesday at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel in Burlingame to make decisions on which grants to recommend to the Oversight Committee.

The agenda explicitly states there will be no open sessions at which the public can comment. That bars the public from even appearing to protest or comment on the lack of public access, which seems to be the first such ban by CIRM, an agency that has vowed to uphold the highest standards of openness and transparency. Previously, such meetings, including the very sensitive meetings involving the search for a new president, have included at least a brief session during which the public could comment.

Here is a list of the members of the Working Group, whose economic and professional links to applicants are secret. Also being withheld by CIRM decree are the names of the applicants for the state funding and even the institutions (including state-funded universities) where they are employed along with a general summary of the research they are proposing.

The Oversight Committee is scheduled to give out as many as 25 awards, making the odds pretty good for the 59 applicants. The awards could total as much as $3 million a year. Twenty-eight unnamed organizations are represented among employers of the individual applicants.

Conflict Problems Snag $85 Million CIRM Grant Program

Applications from four California stem cell powerhouses for CIRM research grants that could run as high as $3 million a year could be in jeopardy because of concerns about conflicts of interest.

Reporter Sabin Russell of the San Francisco Chronicle disclosed the problem today in a story about the $85 million faculty award program. The grants are scheduled to be awarded next week at a meeting in Los Angeles.

The universities involved are the University of California campuses in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and the University of Southern California. Russell wrote that CIRM may "toss out" the applications because they "included letters of support from deans who also sit on the citizens' board that governs the $3 billion program."

Russell continued,

"Sources close to the grant-making process said that staffers at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine flagged the applications for conflict-of-interest violations, despite a requirement that each request contain a letter of support 'signed by the Dean or Departmental Chair.'"

Russell wrote,

"Although the grant application called for letters of support from the deans or department chairmen, the conflict-of-interest policy for the stem cell institute also specifies that its board members "shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision regarding a grant ...'

"Therefore, schools that followed one set of state instructions may well have violated another set of rules - putting at risk millions of dollars in potential research. Institutions not represented on the board, or that had department heads rather than deans write the support letters, avoided the problem.

"The apparent contradiction in the rulebook is the kind of problem that critics say was built into the stem cell initiative passed by voters in 2004. Concerned about avoiding even the appearance of conflicts of interest, the governing board debated its rules extensively during a meeting in April 2005."

CIRM told Russell that it had no comment on the matter nor did the insitutions.

The Chronicle story said,

"It remains unclear what will happen if the grant applications are rejected. One option, according to sources, is to simply have the four universities reapply at a later date - a delay of at least six months. Another option would be to reject all of the grants and have everyone update their applications because of the confusion regarding the letter-of-recommendation rules."

Russell's story came on the heels of the disclosure on this web site of an improper attempt earlier this year by a CIRM director, John Reed, to influence the awarding of a grant to his own insitution, the Burnham Institute.

Russell also reported that David Serrano Sewell, another director, said that Reed should resign. Sewell said,

"I've given a great deal of thought to this. It has nothing to do with his abilities as a scientist. But his continued presence on our board undermines our ability to do our job."

Earlier Reed said he did not intend to resign. But a Burnham spokeswoman told Russell that he had not made a decision.

CIRM Hands Out $54 Million to Researchers

Directors of the California stem cell agency today approved $54 million in grants to fund some of the brightest young researchers in the state.

The amount fell far short of the $85 million originally scheduled for the faculty award program. The amount was reduced largely because of violations of the agency's conflict of interest code by five of its directors.

Deans at four medical schools and one research institution wrote letters on behalf of the applications. CIRM then rejected the 10 applications that were affected. It appeared that seven of them would likely have been funded.

Directors also told CIRM staff to prepare another grant proposal for consideration in January that will give the 10 affected scientists another chance. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said additional funds should be added to that round.

CIRM staff said such a round would be treated as completely new. Others rejected on Wednesday would have a chance to compete again. Applications could be revised. New scientific reviews will be conducted.

CIRM also released the names of the institutions that submitted "tainted" applications: UCLA, UCSF, USC, UCSD and the Burnham Institute. All except Burnham had been identified by sources earlier.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, praised the release of the names, but said they should have come earlier. He said,

"Holding back the details simply undermines the public’s trust in the stem cell agency. I don’t understand their propensity for secrecy. It serves neither the board nor the agency nor the public."

Names of the institutions and researchers receiving the grants today had not been released by CIRM at the time of this writing.

Loans, Eggs, Contracts, Suppliers and $41 Million Top CIRM Agenda Next Week

Directors of the California stem cell agency will meet next week to hand out $41 million to 14 lucky scientists and wrestle with a host of other matters, ranging from the $2.7 million in outside contracts to a proposed $500 million biotech loan program.

Here is a quick look at the topics on the Aug. 12 agenda, which will probably be posted soon on the CIRM website.

Researcher Bonanza -- This a bit of a "do-over" of last year's $85 million faculty award program. That effort was tarnished when five CIRM directors violated the agency's conflict-of-interest policies by writing letters on behalf of applicants from their institutions. CIRM said the letters resulted from an "innocent misunderstanding," but disqualified the 10 applicants involved. No CIRM action was taken against the five directors. The full board decided to provide another grant opportunity, which was also open to applicants other than those disqualified. The latest effort, modified from the first offering, is scheduled for $41 million for 14 winners, with awards up to $2 million a year. CIRM received 55 letters of intent to apply for the grants but has not released the actual number of applications as far as we can determine.

Outside Contracting – Perhaps the most important item in the $13 million operational budget of the stem cell agency is the $2.7 million it spends for outside contracting. That figure is up 50 percent from last year. It is the second largest item in the budget, behind only salaries and benefits. CIRM will have spent more than $2 million for outside legal help by the end of this year and has spent hundreds of thousands for executive searches. In 2005, directors imposed restrictions on outside contracts and required quarterly reporting after they were surprised by published reports about the size and impact of those dealings. On Aug. 12, it appears that directors will be asked to reduce the reporting from quarterly to annual. That would be a mistake. CIRM's board should keep a close eye on the process because of importance of contracting to CIRM and the ticklish issues of overseeing those contractors. Earlier this year, directors had to retroactively approve additional funding for its main outside counsel, Remcho, Johansen, & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., after work had already been performed. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein also told CIRM directors that Remcho is unique in its abilities, that basically no other firm in the state can perform the work. Thus, Klein reported, the attorney general's office has said the contract does not need to go out for bid. See the Remcho item below for more on Klein's explanation of the relationship between him, Remcho and CIRM and the opinion of the state attorney general. Here is the latest list of outside contracts. Here is the budget for 2007-08.

The $500 Million or So Biotech Loan Program -- The formal agenda topic is "CIRM loan policy." CIRM Chairman Klein earlier this year said he hoped to have the biotech loan program approved this month. But this cryptic agenda item may mean that the board will not be presented this month with the whole package for this ground-breaking and novel effort. See the item below for links to various CIRM documents on the loan proposal. Search this blog on the term "biotech loans" for even more.

Definition of California Supplier – Perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake in this item. It involves the Prop. 71 requirement that California suppliers be given preference on purchases by CIRM grantees. Legislation is being considered in Sacramento along with separate regulatory language being worked out at CIRM. Here is a link to the latest version of the legislation involved and the transcript of the June CIRM directors meeting at which the topic was discussed briefly. This is an area that has changed swiftly and may well again even before next week's meeting.

Grant Appeals – CIRM is wrestling with the issue of how to handle requests for reconsideration of negative recommendations from the Grant Review Committee. Basically CIRM directors follow the recommendations from reviewers and have been uncomfortable with the few public attempts to override the Grants Committee. Two items could be related to this subject: One deals with RFA applicant policies and the other with creation of a policy for dealing with "extraordinary petitions" to directors for grants. Search this blog on the term "grant appeals" for some background stories, including a proposal by CIRM director Jeff Sheehy.

Egg Matters – Directors will be asked to authorize a procedure for using stem cell lines derived before November 2006 in CIRM-financed research. A subtext of this involves the looming question of egg shortages and cash, although it is not formally on the agenda. CIRM President Alan Trounson has said researchers are "floundering" because they do not have enough eggs. If this subject is important to you, you should be at the meeting.

CIRM is likely to post the agenda for the Aug. 12 meeting at Stanford on Monday, which is six business days ahead of the session. We hope to see additional background material posted early as well. That information would help shed light on exactly what the board will be asked to do next week, beyond the brief listings in the initial version of the agenda.

Christmas Coming Early for 25 California Scientists

Fifty-nine "young" California scientists are seeking awards from the California stem cell agency that could run as high as $3 million a year.

CIRM is scheduled to give away $85 million to 25 scientists in December, which should make a fine holiday treat.

Dale Carlson, chief communications officer for CIRM, told the California Stem Cell Report that applications came from researchers at 28 organizations. Eleven University of California and California State University campuses were represented. The California State Univesity system is separate from UC. Four private universities submitted applications. Thirteen non-profit research institutions were included.

The institute refuses to disclose both the names of individual applicants and institutions, even those that are taxpayer-funded enterprises.

The five-year faculty award program is aimed at drawing the best and brightest into stem cell research in California and not just embryonic stem cell research. Arlene Chiu, CIRM's top scientist, said,

“These grants are designed to encourage newly independent investigators to pursue bold and innovative studies across the full range of stem cell types – human and animal, embryonic and adult. We will consider providing successful applicants salary and research funding for up to five years, ensuring that they have stable, secure financial support as they begin their independent scientific careers.”

Correction

The correct number of applications for the most recent round of CIRM faculty award grants is 54. The initial CIRM news release on the subject incorrectly the number as 55, which is actually the number of letters of intent. CIRM has corrected the figure in its news release.

Correction

On Dec. 8, the "CIRM Deflects" item incorrectly indicated that the amount involved in the denial of 10 faculty award grant applications could run as much as $15 million. It appears that the figure is actually closer to $25 million.

Victims and Scapegoats: Focusing on the Facts

The conflict-of-interest mess and its ramifications at the California stem cell agency have obscured two important facts. The victims in the latest episode are 10 talented California researchers, who appeared to be on the verge of collecting $25 million from CIRM. And the creation of that situation lies at the feet of the CIRM directors who signed letters on behalf of those researchers – not the CIRM staff that created the grant application.

To its discredit, CIRM is pointing to its staff in assigning responsibility for actions taken by at least four medical school deans, who should have known better. The application for the faculty award grants was abundantly clear. It required a letter from a dean OR a department head, language that seems to have been designed to accommodate the ethical issues facing medical schools that have representatives on the board. The conflict of interest language was straight forward: Directors must not attempt to influence the awarding of grants. All of that was clear to other medical school deans on CIRM's board who did not sign the letter(see the "Deflecting" item below.)

CIRM's efforts to shift attention away from directors is a classic response on the part of businesses and governmental agencies when they become mired in a crisis that threatens their leadership. Find a faceless, lower level scapegoat and sacrifice it. And hope the problem will go away.

In this case, CIRM's staff identified and caught the problem. The staff also identified the problem in the case of John Reed and his lobbying effort on behalf of Burnham. On the other hand, it was the top person at the agency – Chairman Robert Klein -- who failed to understand the conflict-of-interest issue and, in fact, advised Reed to do something that violated ethical standards at CIRM.

CIRM's decision to dump the 10 tainted applications clearly damages the young scientists seeking the grants. From the language of CIRM's press release Friday, it is reasonable to infer that nearly all of them were highly rated during the scientific review of their proposals and would have been likely to have been awarded grants this Wednesday. The release said the size of the total package of grants was reduced from $85 million to roughly $60 million as the result of rejecting the 10 grants.

One can only imagine the conversations that the medical school deans have had with the applicants. And one can also imagine them reaching deep into their discretionary funds to ease the pain.

A 'Booster Rocket' For Research in the 'Big Tomato'

The headline talks about the "dark side" of stem cells, but the piece was a bit of good news for the University of California, Davis, and particularly one man there who just won $2.2 million from the California stem cell agency.

Reporter Carrie Peyton Dahlberg of The Sacramento Bee reported this week about Paul Knoepfler(pictured), a scientist who recently received a faculty award grant from CIRM that he calls a "booster rocket" that will nearly double the budget of his lab.

Dahlberg wrote:

"His target is a gene that causes tumors – and that can transform adult skin cells into versatile stem cells similar to those in embryos."

She said his hope is to make potential stem cell therapies safer. Knoepfler was quoted as saying,

"I'm very optimistic. I don't think the hurdles we're facing are insurmountable."

Dalhberg also quoted Meri Firpo of the University of Minnesota and Joseph Wu of Stanford, commenting favorable on Knoepfler's work.

The Bee piece triggered one reader remark on its website that expressed appreciation for an objective report. The anonymous commentator said it was one of the few articles that have addressed the cancer risk involved in stem cell therapies.

UC Davis has received $38 million from CIRM during the last three years. The dean of its medical school, Claire Pomeroy, is listed as one of the 100 most powerful persons in Sacramento (along with Gov. Schwarzenegger) by Sacramento magazine. Pomeroy is also one of the 29 directors of the state stem cell agency.

Interestingly, she is not quoted either in The Bee article or the press release from UC Davis on Knoepfler. We assume that is the result of her own choice. Probably a good position to take considering the conflict of interest issues surrounding all the many academic and research executives who sit on the CIRM board and whose employers have benefited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars handed out by CIRM.

(Editor's note: For those of you unfamiliar with California geography, Davis is just west of Sacramento, where the UC Davis medical school is actually located. Sacramento is sometimes known as the Big Tomato because of the vast amounts of tomatoes that are grown in the area. In years past, the Sacramento River would run red in the summer from tomato waste from processing plants.)