California's StemCells, Inc., Flatlines; A Look at the Implications

StemCells, Inc. stock price performance -- Google chart

Highlights
Layoffs, clinical trial closed
Conflicts of interest
Implications for CIRM
Risk and stem cell research
Twenty years ago, StemCells, Inc., was more than riding high. Its stock price (split adjusted) had skyrocketed to $2,160 in January of 1996. Its outlook was ebullient. But times have changed. Today the company's stock plummeted as low as 51 cents after it announced that it was closing its doors.

The company said yesterday that it is possible that its shareholders will wind up with nothing. Its 50 employees will lose their jobs this summer. And its latest clinical trial for spinal cord injury has been cancelled because the results do not merit spending any more money.

The company's sudden shutdown surprised and shocked some, but it also demonstrated the level of risk in stem cell research and offered implications for California's $3 billion stem cell agency, which is pushing aggressively to bring a stem cell therapy to market.

StemCells, Inc., was co-founded by two respected academic stem cell researchers, Irv Weissman of Stanford, and Fred Gage of the Scripps Institute. The Newark, Ca., firm, however, has a checkered history, particularly involving the $3 billion California stem cell agency, which once awarded StemCells, Inc., a record $40 million in 2012.

Conflict-of-interest controversies involving the business and the agency's former president, Alan Trounson, and its first chairman, Robert Klein, have surfaced in past years. Trounson was named to the StemCells, Inc., board seven days after he left the agency. In his first and only lobbying appearance before his former board, Klein was successful in winning approval of a $20 million award to the firm despite the fact that it was rejected twice by the blue-ribbon reviewers of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM), as the agency is formally known. It was the only time that the CIRM board has overridden its reviewers in such a fashion. (For more on Trounson and Klein, see the links at the end of this item.)

In its final days, StemCells, Inc., no longer enjoyed financing from the agency. The last award was terminated in 2014 because of poor results. But the outlook for the firm appeared brighter during the past 12 months when its stock climbed to $9.19 and stock analysts were bullish. So how did the company slip into liquidation?

The headline on an item on Barron's by Ben Levisohn said it was a "lesson in biotech risk."

Sam Maddox, writing on the blog on the Web site of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, which has a special interest in spinal cord injury, commented on the firm's final clinical trial,

"So what happened? You can read the full, depressing press release here. The gist of it is that yes, there was a measured effect of the stem cell injections but the 'magnitude' of effect over time did not trend well enough to spend more money running the trial." 

Larry Goldstein of UC San Diego told STAT reporter Meghana Keshavan,

“Biotech is like prospecting for gold — only a small fraction of companies make it through the gauntlet. Disappointing clinical trial results happen all the time. … You can’t get too alarmed when one thing, such as StemCells Inc., fails.”

One longtime observer of the stem cell world said the company's failure indicated that the state stem cell agency should be wary of  cozy engagement with industry, citing the profit imperatives that drive companies. The observer, who must remain anonymous, told the California Stem Cell Report,

"Academic institutions at least do not exist at the whims of investors, they can manage risk of failure (it happens all the time), and grant money goes much further."

UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler, writing on his blog The Niche, said the company's demise was "sad." He added,

 "A fair question today is how we should now process (the agency's) sizable investment in (the firm). Is there anything that can be learned from it for the agency and the field?"

Irv Weissman, who was on the StemCells, Inc., board at the end, said in a statement reported by the San Francisco Chronicle by Victoria Colliver,

“Given the collective strength of past data with these cells, we sincerely hope others will pick up the many questions we have about the variability of results seen in the Pathway Study (dealing with spinal cord injury).” 

And the California stem cell agency released this comment from Kevin McCormack, its senior director of communications:

"It’s always disappointing when a company that has been trying to pioneer treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s or conditions like spinal cord injury fails. We know how hard everyone at the company worked to develop treatments addressing conditions that right now have no viable alternatives. It is the nature of science that not every experiment will work yet even in failure we can learn a lot, and it’s our hope that the lessons learned from StemCells, Inc.'s work will help inform other researchers and ultimately lead to effective therapies." 

Here are excerpts and links to some previous articles dealing with StemCells, Inc., and the California stem cell agency.

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

StemCells, Inc., Wins Another $20 Million From California Stem Cell Agency

Following a second impassioned pitch by its former chairman, Robert Klein, the governing board of the California stem cell agency approved a $20 million award to a financially strapped biotech firm, StemCells, Inc., of Newark, Ca.

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Arm-twisting and Emotion: Stem Cell Directors Move to Reform Appeals on Multimillon Dollar Grants

Frustrated with politicking, “arm-twisting,” lobbying and “emotionally charged presentations,” the governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency today approved short-term changes in its grant appeal process and ordered up a study to prepare long-term reforms.

Monday, September 10, 2012

California Stem Cell Firsts: From Emotional Appeals to $40 Million Awards

During the last few months, the $3 billion California stem cell agency, which is approaching its eight-year anniversary, has chalked up a number of important firsts.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Los Angeles Times: StemCells, Inc., Award 'Redolent of Cronyism'

The Los Angeles Times this morning carried a column about the “charmed relationship” between StemCells, Inc., its “powerful friends” and the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

Friday, April 05, 2013

StemCells, Inc., Rejects $20 Million from California Stem Cell Agency

When does a financially struggling biotech company turn down a $20 million forgiveable loan?

Thursday, April 11, 2013

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.

Sunday, May 05, 2013

Cash and Favors: Robert Klein Gives $21,630 to the California Stem Cell Agency

A seemingly innocuous $21,630 gift to the California stem cell agency has kicked up new questions about a controversial $20 million research award and generated a wave of special favors for the donor that stretched out to include a gold mining multimillionaire from Canada.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Klein, StemCells, Inc., and $31,000 in Consulting Fees for Torres

The Robert Klein-StemCells, Inc., affair has taken another turn with the disclosure that a vice chairman of the California stem cell agency was paid at least $31,000 over a two-year period by Klein and also voted on behalf of Klein's effort to win approval of a $20 million award for StemCells, Inc.

Monday, July 07, 2014

Former CEO of California Stem Cell Agency Named to Board of Firm that Received $19 Million From the Agency

Alan Trounson, the former president of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, today was named to the board of a company that has received $19.4 million from the agency, raising fresh and serious questions about conflicts of interest at the state-funded research program.

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

California Stem Cell Agency Bans Some Communications with its Former President; Conflict of Interest Feared

The California stem cell agency today banned its employees and governing board from communicating with its former president, Alan Trounson, about matters involving StemCells, Inc., which holds a $19.4 million award from the state program.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Los Angeles Times: Flawed Investigation Magnifies California Stem Cell Scandal

The Los Angeles Times is carrying another column excoriating the $3 billion California stem cell agency, and it involves the same set of players, the agency’s former president and a San Francisco area stem cell company.

A USC Researcher's Perspective on the Grant Round Involving StemCells, Inc.

A USC scientist late today sent an email that dealt with the 2012 decisions that resulted in the award of $19.3 million to StemCells, Inc., by the California stem cell agency. The award was made on a close vote (7-5) despite being rejected twice by the agency’s reviewers.

It was the first time that the agency’s 29-member board had approved an application that was turned down twice by its respected reviewers. 

The circumstances surrounding the award were unusual in other respects, and we are providing links to stories carried by the California Stem Cell Report at the time to provide additional context. The links are at end of the scientist’s email.

The author of the note is Lon S. Schneider, a professor of psychiatry, neurology and gerontology at the Keck School of Medicine at USC.  He was co-PI on an application in the same round as the StemCells, Inc., proposal. His application was rejected by the CIRM board despite having a higher score than the StemCells, Inc., application. 

Then-CIRM President Alan Trounson recused himself from the public discussion of the proposal by StemCells, Inc., because of his relationship with Stanford researcher Irv Weissman, who sits on the company’s board.  This month, Trounson was named to the StemCells, Inc., board seven days after leaving the stem cell agency, triggering a flap over conflicts of interest.

Here is Schneider’s note:

“In view of the CIRM’s comment today that they commissioned their own lawyers to investigate and find no conflicts, I thought that I’d share some thoughts with your readers based on my experiences with CIRM.  An investigation of CIRM’s actions during the last month or so would – almost by definition – not reveal a serious conflict because the alleged conflicting behavior would have occurred at the time that the StemCells, Inc. contracts were awarded, if it happened at all.  Bending milestones after a contract is awarded and when one’s foot is out the door is of little concern and can be corrected.

“My interest in Mr. Trounson’s alleged actions is that my colleague and I submitted an Alzheimer's disease grant that was scored higher than StemCells’ Alzheimer’s grant in the same funding cycle. Yet, StemCells’ appeal was funded, while our appeal was not even accepted as an appeal application.  Our recourse was to protest during the public comments part of the CIRM board meeting at which StemCells’ was awarded their contract.  In my opinion, Mr. Trounson and the CIRM staff were clearly antagonistic to us and strongly supportive of StemCells.  Board members were not aware of our appeal.  Indeed, the Alzheimer’s disease advocate on the CIRM board, Leeza Gibbons, who was well-rehearsed in her advocacy for StemCells, Inc, had to be informed during a break on what our grant was about so that she could support it as well.

“StemCell’s sinecure for Mr. Trounson reinforces my opinion that the StemCell/CIRM arrangement was – let’s say -- interesting.  No doubt, others will disagree and point out why our proposal – although rated higher than StemCells – was deficient and should not have been funded while StemCells’ should have been and was.  They, of course, may have a point, and I will continue to believe that the StemCell contract was awarded in no other way than with probity. I thought I would nevertheless share these observations.”

Here are links and excerpts from the 2012 articles.

StemCells, Inc., Wins Another $20 Million From California Stem Cell Agency

Following a second impassioned pitch by its former chairman, Robert Klein, the governing board of the California stem cell agency approved a $20 million award to a financially strapped biotech firm, StemCells, Inc., of Newark, Ca.

An Unseemly Performance: Former Chair of Stem Cell Agency Promotes $20 Million Research Proposal

Bob Klein is nearly an icon in the history of the $3 billion California stem cell agency. And when he appeared before its governing board last month and aggressively touted a $20 million grant proposal already rejected by agency reviewers, his actions raised eyebrows.

Arm-twisting and Emotion: Stem Cell Directors Move to Reform Appeals on Multimillon Dollar Grants

Frustrated with politicking, “arm-twisting,” lobbying and “emotionally charged presentations,” the governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency today approved short-term changes in its grant appeal process and ordered up a study to prepare long-term reforms.

California Stem Cell Firsts: From Emotional Appeals to $40 Million Awards

During the last few months, the $3 billion California stem cell agency, which is approaching its eight-year anniversary, has chalked up a number of important firsts.

California's $40 Million Stem Cell Genomics Award: Irregularities, Complaints and Integrity

A number of firsts were recorded last month as the California stem cell agency gave $40 million to a Stanford-led consortium to put California in the global forefront of stem cell genomics.

Not all of those firsts necessarily enhanced the reputation of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the $3 billion agency is formally known.

The unusual events and irregularities surrounding the award, CIRM's largest research grant, merit additional attention, given their implications about the integrity of the agency's grant review process and how the agency does its business.

The California Stem Cell Report recently asked a number of persons connected with the round and other knowledgeable individuals about the process. Their comments included a judgment that the agency staff “took a lot of liberties behind closed doors.” One of the rejected applicants "unequivocally" disputed assertions by CIRM President Alan Trounson that all applicants were informed by him about the need for matching funds, a key criteria for grant reviewers. The request for applications did not contain such a requirement.

The comments came in addition to earlier complaints by rejected applicants that scores had been manipulated in an “appalling” fashion and that scientific merit was not the first order of business in assessing the top four applications.

Also surfacing was a problem generated by Proposition 71, the ballot initiative that created the stem cell agency in 2004. The measure set up a 29-member governing board, including deans of medical schools and others with ties to research organizations. The board was supposed to exercise its expertise on funding decisions. However, only seven members of the board actually voted in the genomics round. Most of the rest had legal conflicts of interest and were not allowed to even participate in the discussion. It is not unusual for that sort of situation to arise during funding decisions by the board.

The CIRM stem cell genomics story began publicly in a scientifically big way with an article in the journal Nature Biotechnology in January 2012  by Trounson and two members of his staff. In it, Trounson said his proposal was needed so that the agency could take a "firm and lasting grip" on stem cell leadership.

Later that month, the governing board of the agency approved the concept for one or two genomics award. In February 2013, grant reviewers for CIRM, whose identities are withheld by the agency, took a crack at the applications. However, they declined to send any applications forward to the board for final action. It was the first time in the agency's nine-year history that has occurred. The reviewers offered no public explanation for the move.

The closed-door review session was marked by a conflict-of-interest violation by Lee Hood of Seattle, Wash., an internationally known genomics specialist, who was recruited by Trounson to be a reviewer in the round. Hood is a close friend of Irv Weissman, who heads Stanford University's stem cell institute. Weissman was named in Stanford's then $24 million application. Hood and Weissman also own a ranch together in Montana.

Trounson has been a guest at the ranch. In 2012, he recused himself during CIRM board discussions of two applications involving Weissman. The applications were from StemCells, Inc., of Newark, Ca., for $20 million each. StemCells, Inc., was founded by Weissman, who still holds a large amount of stock in the firm and serves on its board of directors.

Following the unsuccessful genomics review in February 2013, the applications were sent back to researchers with reviewer comments. The proposals could be retooled for a re-review in the fall, they were told.

After the fall review, the reviewers – minus Hood -- sent the applications to the board with recommendations to fund all four despite the fact that they would cost $146 million, well above the $40 million budgeted for the round. It was the first time that reviewers had made such a decision. Normally they stay within the budget, but they offered no public explanation for their actions in the genomics round.

At that point the CIRM staff, headed by Trounson, became more involved. Under new procedures, the staff may make recommendations concerning applications. In this case, they recommended that only the Stanford application be funded, but only after restoring a provision eliminated by reviewers. Trounson also recommended no funding for the three other top applications in the round. It was the first such major intervention by Trounson and the most aggressive staff move on grant applications.

Trounson offered only a 23-word phrase for recommending the Stanford application and no explanation for rejecting the other three. Stripped from the public review summaries for the three competing applications were the dollar amounts that they had requested. It has been the longstanding practice of the agency to include those figures. The amounts ultimately were made available to the board at its Jan. 29 meeting.

At that meeting, Trounson strongly backed retention of funding in the Stanford application for a project led by Michael Clarke, associate director of Weissman's stem cell institute at Stanford. Following the 2013 conflict violation involving Hood and Weissman, Weissman was removed from Stanford's application. Clarke was included, however. No questions were raised at last month's board meeting about whether Clarke could be regarded as a surrogate for Weissman's interests and whether that would involve a conflict of interest for Trounson.

Late in the meeting, Trounson also said that he had personally told all the applicants, with the exception of Stanford, that matching funds were expected as part of the applications, an assertion disputed following the meeting by Jeanne Loring of the Scripps Research Institute, whose rejected proposal contained no matching funds.

She said in an email,

"During the ICOC (governing board) meeting, Alan Trounson said that he had told us during his visit to all of the first round grantees that it would be important provide money for 'matching' funds. I state unequivocally that he did not tell me or anyone in my lab about this."   (Loring's boldface)

Stanford said its application contained $7 million in matching funds. The agency withheld the figures when they were requested by the California Stem Cell Report prior to the Jan. 29 board meeting, although it has released the figures in at least one other grant round.

Complaints about manipulation of the scores were raised prior to the board meeting by Pui-Yan Kwok,  leader for an application from UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley. He said that the scores of the top to applications were “based on the reviewers removing from consideration the poorest performing center-initiated projects.” He described the situation as appalling.

The agency defended its practices at the board meeting and in response to questions. It said the scoring procedures were permitted under the RFA. It said that while the procedures may be different than those of the NIH so is the stem cell agency. It said that all persons involved had been screened for conflicts of interest under CIRM rules and state law. 

In response to a query by the California Stem Cell Report concerning the process and the questions that needed to be addressed, Loring replied,

“I am concerned about the interference of the CIRM president in influencing the ICOC decisions. He has de facto power to promote or defeat specific applications, and he often wins by promoting one applicant over another. Stanford and Stanford faculty-founded companies such as Stem Cells. Inc., should not be so blatantly promoted over others. The relationship between the president and the head of the stem cell program at Stanford involves personal favors which make him conflicted and he should at the very least recuse himself from any discussion or recommendation of Stanford faculty's applications.”

Loring continued,

“The 29-member board is difficult enough to deal with, but now that most of the members are considered to be conflicted and are not allowed to even discuss the applications, we are left with a small number of non-scientists making decisions about scientific merit.

“I know that at least 5 members of the ICOC were very upset that they were unable to voice their opinions about what should be their mission- to guide CIRM's policies and choices for funding so that they are in the best interest of the voters.”

(For the full text of Loring's remarks see here.)

Other critical comments came from a longtime observer of the agency, who asked not to be identified, and who said,

“It appears that CIRM staff took a lot of liberties behind closed doors in driving this initiative to its final outcome. For example, what happened to require a resubmission and re-review etc. Did they change anything about this initiative in the process?  Were certain criteria shared with some but not all applicants?

“It also appears that the board was taken by surprise and not prepared to deal with the complexities in this initiative.  Clearly staff has not kept them in the loop and they had little access to the details of the process and how reviewers were managed.  They have always funded the vast majority of what the reviewers scored highly, and still did not break the bank.  This is a brand new situation where the reviewers recommended more grants than they could afford to fund.  This happens a lot in the NIH (especially today with severe budget cuts), so NIH has developed many processes to deal with this.  CIRM has not seen anything like this before.”

During the board meeting, some board members questioned parts of the grant review process. The anonymous observer said, 

“The questions (all legitimate) raised by the certain members of the board were by and large not understood or picked up by the other voting members, so they went nowhere. 

“Too many thoughtful board members were conflicted out, leaving the decision-making to a handful who are not prepared to deal with this complex situation.  I blame the IOM (Institute of Medicine) report in giving too much power, without the appropriate process, to staff.  Staff can recommend, but if the board has no information other than what staff provides, then they are acting in the dark.”

(For the full text of those remarks see here.)

In response to the same query, Michael Snyder of Stanford and Joe Ecker of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, co-leaders of the Stanford-led effort, did not raise any questions about the CIRM review process. They said,

“The net result (of their proposal) is that this center will help bring cutting edge technologies to all stem cell researchers in California and along with the funded projects will help keep California at the leading edge of two important fields: stem cell research and genomics, and thereby help accelerate both the science and therapeutics treatments possible in this field, and spur industry and economic development. questions.”

(For the full text of their remarks see here.)

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly said the first name of Michael Clark was William.)

California Stem Cell Firsts: From Emotional Appeals to $40 Million Awards

During the last few months, the $3 billion California stem cell agency, which is approaching its eight-year anniversary, has chalked up a number of important firsts.

Most of them came during the July and September meetings of its 29-member governing board and were related to strenuous efforts by researchers to win approval of awards of up to $20 million each. Several firsts involved the agency's former chairman, Robert Klein, who could be considered the father of the state's stem cell research effort.

So here is the California Stem Cell Report's list of firsts at the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (as CIRM, the stem cell agency, is formally known) for the summer of 2012.

It was the first time that a single company – in this case, StemCells, Inc. , of Newark, Ca. – received two awards in the same round.

It was the first time any company has been awarded as much as $40 million. Again, StemCells, Inc.

It was the first time that Klein has lobbied his former board (see here and here) on behalf of a particular grant application. That occurred in both July and September with one of StemCells, Inc.'s application.

It was the first time that the board has approved an application that has been rejected twice by reviewers, again the StemCells, Inc., proposal backed by Klein.

It was the first time that board has received such a large outpouring of appeals by rejected applicants.

It was the first time that the board has received such lengthy presentations of emotional appeals by patient advocates on behalf of rejected applicants.

It was the first time that action on a grant round has been extended over three months(see here and here). The disease team round began in July. Action will not be completed until the end of October.

It was the first time that the governing board has sent so many applications back for re-review – five, six if the one to be acted on in October is included.

It was also the first time that the board has ordered a full-blown review of its grant appeal process with an eye to making making major changes in it.

Several reasons exist for the number of firsts racked up by CIRM. One is the high stakes involved in the disease team round that began in July and the low number approved by reviewers – six compared to the 12 approved by the board, as of today, out of 21 applications. Another reason involves the increasing understanding on the part of many scientists that they can appeal directly to the board when reviewers reject their applications. However, it is also clear that not all applicants grasp the full range of appeal possibilities. A third reason involves the agency's muddled appeal process, which has been a problem for years. And a fourth reason involves the board's push to drive research into the clinic and commercialization, which applicants are quickly learning how to exploit.

Readers should feel free to add their own firsts to this list. They can do so – even, anonymously – by clicking on the word “comments” at the end of this item.