With more than 3.0 million page views and more than 5,000 items, this blog provides news and commentary on public policy, business and economic issues related to the $3 billion California stem cell agency. David Jensen, a retired California newsman, has published this blog since January 2005. His email address is djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
More on Floyd Bloom
We have run across some additional details on Floyd Bloom, the latest appointee to the CIRM Oversight Committee, that are of some interest. He fills the position once held by David Baltimore, a Nobel Laureate and former president of Caltech. Bloom, in addition to being professor emeritus at Scripps, is executive director for science communications at that institution. Our earlier item on Bloom also mentioned Neurome, a firm he co-founded. Bloom told us that firm went out of business in September 2006.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Hitching Up Down Under
Alan Trounson, the incoming president of the California stem cell agency, says it will be a "very low key affair" with a few friends and a small reception.
You might call it a stem cell wedding. But not exactly one contemplated six months ago.
Trounson (see photo) and his partner for the last 19 years, Karin, will be getting married. As we all know, Trounson has taken a job in the United States. But Karin – not to mention their children -- will not be able to come along with him unless they perform the nuptials. So say US immigration authorities, despite Karin's Swedish and Australian citizenship and dual passports.
The couple have two boys: Karl, 16, and Alex, 6. Trounson has two other children, Kylie, a 30-year-old lawyer, playwright and actress, and Justin, 27, who has international interests in the tourist industry.
Trounson said Karin has a Ph.D. in women's health and would like to continue her career in California.
He told the California Stem Cell Report:
"We are very comfortable and supportive partners and have no problem in getting married."He added,
"Karin thinks the event is worth celebrating but our commitment to each other is larger than this ceremony. The kids are joining in on the fun."We figure the wedding feast will include roasted koala and aquavit. And the music? Well, probably didgeridoos and accordions.
Our congratulations to them both. Actually, congratulations to all four or is it six?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Rose Petals vs. Stem Cells
The case of the embryo vs. the California stem cell agency has been kicking around a couple of years or more – one of the reasons we did not pay much attention to it when it surfaced again recently.
But Kristen Philipkoski of Wired.com demonstrated the bizarre nature of the suit in an item last week.
Among other things, during a hearing in Pasadena, Ca., Philipkoski wrote that the attorney for the embryo "proceeded to scatter rose petals on the courtroom floor, saying they represented the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine destroying life." Philipkoski said that the judge "rolled her eyes."
But Kristen Philipkoski of Wired.com demonstrated the bizarre nature of the suit in an item last week.
Among other things, during a hearing in Pasadena, Ca., Philipkoski wrote that the attorney for the embryo "proceeded to scatter rose petals on the courtroom floor, saying they represented the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine destroying life." Philipkoski said that the judge "rolled her eyes."
CIRM Praised on California Political Blog
The New West Notes blog has taken a brief look at the life and times of the California stem cell agency – a largely laudatory review accompanied by a 9-minute video of California Attorney General Jerry Brown.
Bill Bradley, author of the blog and a longtime observer of California politics, uses the stem cell program as an example of how things can actually be accomplished in state government, as opposed the impasses on health care and water policy, among other issues.
Brown (photo above) is seen on a YouTube taken at what appears to be a campaign appearance last year at Advanced Cell Technology in Alameda. The video, although lengthy, has been edited to focus on Brown's stem cell remarks. In the video, he promises to be a "champion" of stem cell research in California and nationally. "I will do whatever I can to alleviate suffering," he says.
One of the interesting aspects of Bradley's item are the numerous comments on it from readers.
One, NickM, said,
"The embryonic stem cell research bond was one of the biggest special interest giveaways in history.
"Companies that stood to make hundreds of millions or billions APIECE by having the taxpayers fund their R&D (and their investors)donated millions to convince the taxpayers that this research wouldn't happen without billions in taxpayer support. It worked.
"So now the biotech conglomerates and VC firms have a huge subsidy, and we're all supposed to feel good about it.
"It's the Donald Trump model: convince someone else to pay your costs while you reap the benefits."
Labels:
CIRM overview,
media coverage,
public opinion
New CIRM Director No Intellectual Shrinking Violet
Consider the following from Floyd Bloom, the latest appointee to the board of directors of the largest single source in the world of funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
"A growing problem of major proportions has been staring us in the face for many decades. Until solved, this long-neglected problem presents a gigantic obstacle to the application of the discoveries flowing from biomedical research into deliverable standards of medical practice that could benefit all of society, both in the United States and globally. This problem is the imminent collapse of the American health system. Unless steps are taken soon to undertake a comprehensive restoration of our system, the profound advances in biomedical research so rapidly accruing today may never be effectively transformed into meaningful advances in health care for society.Bloom made the statement in 2003 when he was was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. While some on the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency may share his sentiments, few have expressed them so publicly and eloquently. Indeed, Bloom's views seem, in many ways, a departure from the standard operating procedure at CIRM, which is somewhat wary of flying in the face of established scientific and medical culture.
"Today's term for such evolutions of discovery into application has been dubbed 'translational research'. The appealing notion that research advances travel from bench to bedside is laudable, but conceptually flawed."
Bloom (see photo) was appointed this month by state Treasurer Bill Lockyer to fill a vacancy on the 29-member CIRM Oversight Committee. Lockyer said that Bloom has "dedicated his life to biological science research and is responsible for numerous breakthroughs in neuroscience understanding."
Bloom retired in 2005 as chairman of the Scripps Research Department of Neuropharmacology in La Jolla, Ca. At the time, he said he planned to devote more time to Neurome, Inc., a La Jolla biotechnology firm involved research into human neurodegenerative diseases. Bloom co-founded the firm in 2000.
At one stage in his youth, according to an article on Molecular Interventions, Bloom was encouraged to go into journalism because of his penchant for telling stories. In 2002, he became editor-in-chief of Science, the AAAS journal. He spoke with Molecular Interventions about his views on running a magazine:
"The best thing is to have controversy in an intellectual manner because people read it. They like to see the Christians fight the lions, right? And so if you can engage in an intellectual discussion, then you attract readers and at the same time people get informed from the debate because they'll learn parts of alternative arguments."Bloom, who also served both as president and chairman of the AAAS, carried his views beyond the pages of scientific media. A few years ago, he told the New York Times:
"I'd like for us to consider health care to be regarded as something like a public utility. To me, if we agree that universal coverage is something to be desired, is that really much different than the fact that we've all agreed that everyone in the country is entitled to have electricity, water, telephone connections, if they can pay for it. We have all kinds of ways to help people get those basic provisions of life.
"And health benefits could be viewed in exactly that same utilitarian way. It could be a corporate network like water power and electricity, with regulatory agencies that set the rates for profit."
Friday, October 19, 2007
Position Change: CIRM Now Permitting Public Comment at $85 Million Hearing
The California stem cell agency today reversed itself and decided to permit public comments prior to two days of closed hearings next week on requests for $85 million in grants to California researchers.
The change in position came quietly today as the agency posted a new agenda for the hearings on the CIRM web site that did not mention that it had been revised. The new posting specifically stated that public comment would be allowed. It also removed this sentence from the agenda::
The change in position came quietly today as the agency posted a new agenda for the hearings on the CIRM web site that did not mention that it had been revised. The new posting specifically stated that public comment would be allowed. It also removed this sentence from the agenda::
"An open session will not be held for the meeting of October 23-24, 2007 as business will be limited to review of grant applications."The change in public access followed disclosure earlier today by the California Stem Cell Report of the ban and subsequent complaints by at least one member of the CIRM Oversight Committee, David Serrano Sewell (see item below).
Labels:
CIRM management,
CIRM overview,
CSCR,
faculty grants,
openness
Comment on Ban on Public at $85 Million CIRM Meeting
David Serrano Sewell, a member of the CIRM Oversight Committee, sent the following on the "Public Barred" item below.
"Just read your item regarding the public being barred from the upcoming Grants Working Group meeting. To my recollection, those agendas have always included an opportunity for the public to address the working group. The failure to include such an item for this agenda was probably a honest mistake that must be corrected. I (and the the patient advocate working group members) support the public attendance at working group meetings. Thanks for catching this!"Our comment: The agenda for the meeting in question contains a sentence that we cannot recall ever seeing before on a CIRM agenda:
"An open session will not be held for the meeting of October 23-24, 2007 as business will be limited to review of grant applications."
Labels:
CIRM management,
CIRM overview,
faculty grants,
openness
Interstate Stem Cell Issues Coming Up in Public Session Next Week
The Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research, which once ousted a member of the public from a meeting in California, will hold two days of open public meetings in Massachusetts next Wednesday and Thursday.
The agenda (see item below) for the group, operating under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, includes a host of major issues that states are grappling with across the country. They include model language for the term "acceptably derived," payment issues and health care for egg donors, certification of stem cell lines from other states and countries and the grant review process.
We applaud the decision to make the meeting public. Billions of dollars in public resources are involved along with the need to maintain confidence in embryonic stem cell research. Closed door meetings and secret processes generate suspicion and encourage the worst sort of speculation.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, was the man ousted from last May's meeting. He says,
The agenda (see item below) for the group, operating under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, includes a host of major issues that states are grappling with across the country. They include model language for the term "acceptably derived," payment issues and health care for egg donors, certification of stem cell lines from other states and countries and the grant review process.
We applaud the decision to make the meeting public. Billions of dollars in public resources are involved along with the need to maintain confidence in embryonic stem cell research. Closed door meetings and secret processes generate suspicion and encourage the worst sort of speculation.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, was the man ousted from last May's meeting. He says,
"I'm glad to see the change of heart. Too often the scientific establishment has displayed a paternalistic 'trust-us-we-know-best' attitude that in fact undercuts public support for science. Scientists need to engage and educate, otherwise we end up with the know-nothing attitude too often exemplified by the current administration."
Agenda for Public Meeting on Interstate Stem Cell Issues
Here is the agenda for next week's public interstate stem cell meeting.
Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research
British Consulate
Cambridge, MA
October 24-25, 2007
Agenda
October 24
12:00 pm Lunch (at Consulate)
1 pm Welcome and Introductions
Warren Wollschlager, Chair, Office of Research and Development, State of Connecticut and Fran Sharples, National Academies’ Secretariat for IASCR
Introduction of other participants
The purpose of this meeting is to review progress on the working group assignments made at the May 23-24 Irvine, CA meeting and to identify additional issues the IASCR needs to address.
1:15 pm Governance Issues - preliminary discussion: Warren Wollschlager
1:30 pm Report of Working Group on the development of a Glossary of Stem Cell Terms: William Lensch (Tab 1)
2:15 pm Report of Working Group on an IASCR Website: Fran Sharples, Susan Stayn, Eli Zupnick (Tab 2)
3:00 pm Break
3:15 pm Report of Working Groups on Developing Model Language for “Acceptably Derived;” Payment Issues and Health Care for Donors; and Certification of Stem Cell Lines from Other States and Countries (formation of standing committee): Marianne Horn, Geoff Lomax, Melissa Lopes, Susan Stayn, Ann Willey, Eileen Naughton, and Alta Charo (by phone) (Tab 3)
5:15 pm Adjourn meeting for the day
6:00 pm Reception (on site)
October 25
8:30 am Breakfast (at Consulate)
9:00 am Report of Working Group on Grant Reviews: Marianne Horn, Warren Wollschlager (Tab 4)
9:45 pm Report of Working Group of Legal Counsels on Role of Regulations vs. Guidelines and Policy Documents: Marianne Horn (Tab 5)
10:30 am Break
10:45 am Summary discussion of Working Group next steps
12:00 pm Working Lunch: Roles of International Society for Stem Cell Research: Jonathan Auerbach and Heather Rooke (Tab 6)
1:15 pm Governance Issues
Officers
Membership in IASCR
Budget
Roles of IASCR: information resource vs. policy development
Product branding
2:00 pm Recruitment of additional states and other members: discussion
2:30 pm Break
2:45 pm Working Group breakouts
3:30 pm Other agenda items TBD
4:00 pm Adjourn
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.
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.
Labels:
CIRM management,
CIRM overview,
conflicts,
faculty grants,
openness
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Aussie Stem Cell Probe Highlights Need for Maximum Openness at CIRM
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights of Santa Monica, Ca., is one of the more diligent watchdogs of the California stem cell agency, which is funded by taxpayers to the tune of roughly $6 billion (including interest).
Simpson (see photo) and his organization support human embryonic stem cell research, but they also have concerns about CIRM, an organization unlike any other in California history. It is virtually untouchable by the governor or the legislature, a distinction enjoyed by no other state agency.
CIRM is also an organization with built-in conflicts of interest, all legal because they were approved by California voters in Prop. 71, which created the stem cell agency.
We believe that means that CIRM should operate with more disclosure and openness than any other state agency. Such openness is in CIRM's own best interest, given the impact that even a minor scandal might have.
All that is a preface to Simpson's comments below, carried verbatim, on the Australian-Trounson stem cell research inquiry(see the several items below). Here is what Simpson sent exclusively to the California Stem Cell Report.
"As word makes its way from Australia to the United States about an investigation of a researcher in Alan Trounson's Monash Immunology and Stem Cell Laboratories, one point is already clear.
"There must be complete transparency and accountability in publicly funded research.
"Trounson, who is to assume the presidency of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, is by all accounts not under investigation. A report from a panel of academics who examined the evidence of wrongdoing is 'imminent.'
"Everyone interested in California's stem cell program is waiting for that report to see what degree of culpability -- if any -- Trounson had for things apparently done by others in his laboratory.
"Even before the report's release, the situation once again demonstrates the need for oversight, transparency and accountability in scientific research. Time and time again around the world, too many scientists have bent the rules for their own personal gain. Research simply must not be funded without the highest degree of public scrutiny.
"CIRM staff demonstrated the necessary high standards when after its vetting process, two ICOC-approved research awards were not granted.
"I suspect Trounson will emerge from the Monash probe unscathed, and I hope it will be with an even stronger commitment to the standards of accountability and transparency required by CIRM.
"Nonetheless, the ICOC should review closely the Monash University report when it is available and not allow itself to be blinded by the glitter of a world-class researcher. Even before the report's details emerge, however, the need for transparency and openness in all aspects of publicly funded research is demonstrated yet again."
Does the Trounson Story Have Legs?
The Australian stem cell research flap involving Alan Trounson made its North American debut today in a story in the San Francisco Chronicle. It also surfaced in one of the more serious scientific magazines, the Scientist.
Stephen Pincock of the Scientist added some details on the research. He also indicated a conclusion to the investigation is imminent. Sabin Russell's story in the Chronicle pretty much recapped previous material.
A reader on the Scientist web site, only identified as Leah, commented, "Why are there so many scandals around stem cell research? What a waste of money."
A quick resolution of the investigation is in the best interest of the California stem cell agency and Trounson, the incoming president of the $3 billion enterprise. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. The other important point is whether this story has legs. Trounson is not the subject of the investigation, but his name is really what makes it newsworthy. And it is mentioned in every story. The longer the story lingers, the more often Trounson's name will be associated with allegations of dubious activity. Not good for either the agency or Trounson.
Stephen Pincock of the Scientist added some details on the research. He also indicated a conclusion to the investigation is imminent. Sabin Russell's story in the Chronicle pretty much recapped previous material.
A reader on the Scientist web site, only identified as Leah, commented, "Why are there so many scandals around stem cell research? What a waste of money."
A quick resolution of the investigation is in the best interest of the California stem cell agency and Trounson, the incoming president of the $3 billion enterprise. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. The other important point is whether this story has legs. Trounson is not the subject of the investigation, but his name is really what makes it newsworthy. And it is mentioned in every story. The longer the story lingers, the more often Trounson's name will be associated with allegations of dubious activity. Not good for either the agency or Trounson.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Trounson Reports Not Appearing in American Mainstream Media
For the California stem cell agency, the good news is that the Australian stories about an investigation linked peripherally to its incoming president, Alan Trounson, have not really surfaced in the United States.
The usual online searches today failed to turn up any significant stories on the matter in the mainstream American media.
The not-so-good news is that the stories have handed another cudgel to those who would batter embryonic stem cell research. The case in point is an item by J. Wesley Smith(see photo), whose piece was headlined, "New CIRM Director's Research Under a Potential Cloud."
However, after some initial fumbling, the Australian stories have made it clear that Alan Trounson is not under investigation. Rather, another senior scientist involved in the $1.2 million project is the target, according to Australian officials.
The Australian, in a story by Leigh Dayton quoted California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein on the matter.
"I am fully aware of this and it is not Alan's work that is being questioned. My understanding is that this is a data issue that relates to the science carried out by a specific researcher."Dayton wrote that Klein "solidly backed" Trounson. Dayton reported that Klein said that Trounson discussed the matter with the presidential search committee prior to his appointment.
One report from Australia quoted a CIRM spokesman as saying, "We're aware of the situation and have it under careful review." Interim CIRM President Richard Murphy confirmed, for the California Stem Cell Report, that was the agency's position.
Reporter Dan Box of the Australian wrote that Monash University is tossing out all the data from the experiment. He also quoted Monash officials as saying it is not known when the nine-month-old investigation will be finished.
Dayton wrote this about the details of the project.
Specifically, "benchmarking" reports claimed the group had developed a designer mouse that mimicked lung damage from smoking.
The reports also claimed the team had experimental results showing that treatment with adult stem cells reversed respiratory damage in the mouse.
According to the ASCC investigation, neither claim was supported by documentation in the lab's notebooks.
Fresh Comment
David Hamilton has posted a comment on the "Buried News" item below. You can read it by clicking on the word "comments" at the end of the item.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Buried News: William Bowes, UCSB and Jamie Thomson
In the increasingly rarefied atmosphere of stem cell philanthropy, a $3 million gift does not necessarily make big headlines. Especially when it goes to a school outside of the small circle of stem cell stars.
So last week when one of the founders of Amgen, William Bowes(see photo), gave that amount to the University of California campus at Santa Barbara(UCSB), it hardly caused a ripple in the media.
Something similar occurred earlier this year when renown University of Wisconsin stem cell researcher Jamie Thomson became affiliated as an unpaid, adjunct professor with UCSB. It was nearly a non-announcement and received little initial attention. But the school put together a $1 million package for him and is building a lab.
All of which reflects very much on the way the California media works. If it doesn't happen in Los Angeles or San Francisco, it is not likely to receive much notice.
But more particularly none of the news reports on the donation put it together with Thomson's presence at UCSB, which is very much a part-time thing. But it is hard to resist speculating that Thomson and UCSB could draw ever closer.
The press release from school, which stands on the cliffs overlooking the Pacific just north of Santa Barbara, quoted Michael Witherell, UCSB vice chancellor for research, as saying:
"UCSB is bringing to stem cell research its characteristic approach of integrating science and engineering in a single center. The Ruth Garland Chair is central to this approach, because it allows us to attract a researcher of national stature to lead the new center."The $3 million donation was given by Bowes in memory of his mother, Ruth Garland. She was born in Santa Barbara and raised in nearby Ojai. Her grandparents settled in Santa Barbara in 1855. Educated as a physican at Stanford , she participated in a major diabetics study with William Sansum in Santa Barbara. A nonprofit research facility in Santa Barbara bears his name. It was one of the first places in the United States to do studies on insulin after it was discovered.
We asked Dennis Clegg, chairman of the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology Department and director of the Training Program in Stem Cell Biology at UCSB, about the donation. He replied,
"The gift will allow us to bring in senior talent in the stem cell field to be director of a new center, which will allow us to build on our rapidly growing program in stem cell research, and we are really excited about it. We have had interest in the position from the US and abroad. We have already formed a search committee and will be inviting candidates for interviews in the near future."Incidentally, UCSB has received nearly $3.5 million in funding from the California stem cell agency during the past two years. You can see Thomson's talk that he gave at UCSB last spring by going to this web page.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Australian News Story Erring on Details
An Australian news report about an investigation involving Alan Trounson and a stem cell research project is apparently not entirely correct on some of the details.
Here is what we have been told concerning Trounson's role on the project (see item below). Trounson was the leader of the respiratory research program, which had three principal investigators (PI) and 16 scientists. The person being investigated was a PI (senior research fellow).
The story in the Daily Telegraph did not make it clear that there were three PIs and as many 16 scientists.
Here is what we have been told concerning Trounson's role on the project (see item below). Trounson was the leader of the respiratory research program, which had three principal investigators (PI) and 16 scientists. The person being investigated was a PI (senior research fellow).
The story in the Daily Telegraph did not make it clear that there were three PIs and as many 16 scientists.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Trounson Stem Cell Project Under Investigation in Australia
An Australian newspaper is reporting that Monash University is investigating "inconsistencies" in a $1 million research project involving Alan Trounson, the incoming president of the California stem cell agency.
Reporter Carly Crawford of the Daily Telegraph said the stem cell research project "is under investigation after it was scrapped for delivering highly doubtful results." Crawford quoted a university spokesman as saying the investigation involved "possible inconsistencies."
Trounson was quoted as saying through a spokesman,
The matter involves interim findings from lung regeneration research conducted at Monash with public funds, according to Crawford, apparently from the Australian Stem Cell Center, which Trounson co-founded and which is scheduled to receive $115 million in government funding over a 10 year period.
According to the newspaper, Trounson was the principal investigator on the project, which involved 13 scientists. Investigators were required to submit 90-day progress reports to keep the grant funding flowing. The story said that "inconsistencies" were found by the Australian Stem Cell Center in multiple progress reports that were signed by Trounson and an unnamed senior researcher.
(Editor's note: Later information (see item above) indicated that Trounson was the leader of the respiratory research program, which had three principal investigators (PI) and 16 scientists. The person being investigated was a PI (senior research fellow).
The story did not make it clear when the inquiry began. It said that the Stem Cell Center referred findings to Monash last December. The story also said the project was abandoned in February after inconsistencies were found.
The newspaper said it "understands lab records contradicted assertions contained in the reports that said agreed research benchmarks had been met."
Reporter Carly Crawford of the Daily Telegraph said the stem cell research project "is under investigation after it was scrapped for delivering highly doubtful results." Crawford quoted a university spokesman as saying the investigation involved "possible inconsistencies."
Trounson was quoted as saying through a spokesman,
"I will not comment on this matter while it is being investigated by the university."The newspaper said Trounson was not being investigated by Monash University but that he had been interviewed.
The matter involves interim findings from lung regeneration research conducted at Monash with public funds, according to Crawford, apparently from the Australian Stem Cell Center, which Trounson co-founded and which is scheduled to receive $115 million in government funding over a 10 year period.
According to the newspaper, Trounson was the principal investigator on the project, which involved 13 scientists. Investigators were required to submit 90-day progress reports to keep the grant funding flowing. The story said that "inconsistencies" were found by the Australian Stem Cell Center in multiple progress reports that were signed by Trounson and an unnamed senior researcher.
(Editor's note: Later information (see item above) indicated that Trounson was the leader of the respiratory research program, which had three principal investigators (PI) and 16 scientists. The person being investigated was a PI (senior research fellow).
The story did not make it clear when the inquiry began. It said that the Stem Cell Center referred findings to Monash last December. The story also said the project was abandoned in February after inconsistencies were found.
The newspaper said it "understands lab records contradicted assertions contained in the reports that said agreed research benchmarks had been met."
Fresh Comments
Larry Ebert has posted a new comment on the "Nobel" item below. David Jensen, the author of this blog, has posted a comment on the "CIRM Says No" item in response to the one by CIRM Oversight Committee member Jeff Sheehy. Sheehy's position is that the public disclosure of statements of economic interests by grant reviewers is not necessary. Our position is that we should not give the enemies of stem cell research any new cudgels. You can read the comments by clicking on the word "comments" at the end of the items.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Nobel Prize, Stem Cells and WARF
Some of the reports earlier this week on the Nobel prize in medicine did not highlight its key link to human embryonic stem cell research or, indeed, how it plays into the WARF stem cell patent challenge.
The connection was something that initially eluded this sometimes science-challenged writer. But we asked Jeanne Loring of the Burnham Institute (soon to be of the neighboring Scripps Institute) to elucidate.
She said it was "a spectacular day" for embryonic stem cell researchers.
In April, Loring wrote an op-ed piece in the Wisconsin State Journal, commenting on the justification for the challenge and the early negative findings by the federal government.
She said,
The connection was something that initially eluded this sometimes science-challenged writer. But we asked Jeanne Loring of the Burnham Institute (soon to be of the neighboring Scripps Institute) to elucidate.
She said it was "a spectacular day" for embryonic stem cell researchers.
"The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to three pioneers in embryonic stem cell research. Dr. Martin Evans and his colleagues accomplished a scientific coup in 1981, creating the first embryonic stem (ES) cell lines. Dr. Mario Capecchi and Dr. Oliver Smithies developed a way to alter genes in the ES cells, and for the last 20 years, scientists have used these scientific procedures to create hundreds of valuable new strains of laboratory mice. Some of these mice contain human disease-causing mutations, and are used all over the world for research on cancers, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and dozens of other diseases. These mouse 'models' of human disease are invaluable for pharmaceutical development and have had a dramatic effect on accelerating the pace of new drug development."Loring is one those challenging WARF's patents on stem cells, a matter that has troubled some in the research community, including the incoming president of the California stem cell agency, Alan Trounson.
In April, Loring wrote an op-ed piece in the Wisconsin State Journal, commenting on the justification for the challenge and the early negative findings by the federal government.
She said,
"WARF's executives are understandably unhappy about the patent office's decision because they think they will lose money.(For unknown reasons, Loring's piece does not appear in a routine search of the Wisconsin newspaper. If you would like a copy, please send an email to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.)
"But they could save an enormous amount of money, and gain a great deal of good will, by quietly dropping their claims to human embryonic stem cells and allowing the judgment of the patent office to stand. If they did this, they could be seen as a supporter, not an exploiter, of scientific research.
"If Sir Martin Evans of Scotland, who was one of those who first made embryonic stem cells in 1981, were to be awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery, as is expected, WARF could gracefully take credit for helping scientists build on his landmark research."
Work to Begin on Stem Cell Training Grant Concepts
California stem cell agency officials seem ready to dissect a $31 million proposal to train thousands of persons to work in the stem cell industry and use it as the framework for competitive bidding on efforts to beef up the biotech workforce.
The proposal from the California State University and community college systems came up for a brief discussion at last week's Oversight Committee meeting.
Richard Murphy(see photo), interim CIRM president, told committee members that CIRM funds should be awarded on a competitive basis. However, he said more discussions will be held with officials at CSUS as the CIRM staff works out concepts for RFAs.
The CSUS and community college systems, assuming they remain focused on CIRM, are likely to win their share of the grants.
CSUS officials presented their plan to the Oversight Committee last August. No other options were laid out at the time, although Oversight Committee members raised a series of questions. CSUS responded with a lengthy report prior to last week's meeting.
Training is an important part of the CIRM's strategic plan. especially in the next year or two. The plan designated about $38 million for technical staff training and about $35 million for scientific personnel development.
The technical training component seems to be more aligned with the CSUS proposal. The plan stated:
"The growth of this industry will require an educated and well-trained workforce. CIRM will support training of technical staff with essential skills for stem cell research such as cell culture, microscopy, fluorescence-activated cell sorting and analysis, micromanipulation techniques, surgical techniques, and good laboratory practices (GLP). Training will be supported at the undergraduate and masters levels with certificate or degree programs. Successful biotechnology training programs have already been implemented at several California colleges and universities as a means of supporting the broader research community. CIRM will seek to support similar programs that focus efforts towards maintaining an adequate supply of technical staff for stem cell research.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Sewell Praises Bee, Criticizes Hall
David Serrano Sewell, a member of the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency, is lauding an article by The Sacramento Bee on the selection of Alan Trounson as the agency's new president.
It is somewhat unusual to find praise coming from CIRM for The Bee, which has taken a critical view editorially of many of CIRM's action. But those editorials are written in a department that operates independently of the newsroom, which in turn operates independently of the editorial department. It was a news article that Sewell praised.
Sewell's comments came in a letter published in today's Bee in which he also took issue with the comments of former CIRM President Zach Hall, who was quoted in the Trounson piece
Sewell (photo above) said Hall
"...was dead wrong in his assessment that the (CIRM) management structure presents some 'challenges.' The challenges are not in the agency's governing structure; rather, they originated from Zach's inability to effectively work with the entire board. Happily, those 'challenges' are behind us. Dr. Trounson is a breath of fresh air!"There is a bit of history involving Sewell and Hall. Last April Sewell confronted Hall during a public meeting of the agency's Facilities Working Group, in a manner which some members of the Oversight Committee found disturbing. One said later she could not believe "the tone of contention, sarcasam and aggression toward Hall."
Following the meeting, the chairman of the working group quit with no explanation. And Hall announced he was moving up his previously announced plans to retire.
Correction
The Biotech Bank Plan item on Oct. 4 incorrectly identified Michael Goldberg as chairman of the Biotech Loan Task Force and Duane Roth as chairman of the Finance Subcommittee. Roth actually heads the task force and Goldberg the finance panel.
Fresh Comment
Jeff Sheehy, a member of the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency, has posted a hefty rebuttal to the item "CIRM Says No" below. He disagrees with the California state auditor and the position of this author. Sheehy says public disclosure of the economic interests of the individuals who make critical recommendations on multimillion dollar grants of public money would amount to "draconian overkill for a hypothetical problem (that) could severely slow the grantmaking process and delay needed therapies and cures." Your attention is invited to his comments. You can find them by clicking on the word "comment" at the end of the "CIRM Says No" item. .
Sunday, October 07, 2007
CIRM Says No to Auditor's Conflicts Concerns
Elaine Howle, the California state auditor, knows a great deal about the mischief that goes on in state government. And make no mistake about it, mischief does occur even when the multibillion dollar battle ground is in public and the economic interests are on full display.
She also knows that the mischief can grow even greater when the doors are closed and the financial interests of the major players are hidden from the public, such as in the case of grants awarded by California's $3 billion stem cell agency.
So Howle (photo above) recommended last spring that the California stem cell agency, with its $3 billion research effort, do more to ensure that its conflict of interest code is followed. Her suggestion was rather modest considering the stakes: CIRM should ask the state attorney general for an opinion about whether the men and women who make the basic decisions on hundreds of millions in dollars in grants should be required to publicly disclose their economic interests.
CIRM's answer to the state auditor came last month: No.
"It is not appropriate," said the agency in letter to Howle. The letter came only 10 days before one institution withdrew its request for $2.6 million, a pitch that was approved by grant reviewers in secret last March without turning up the fact that the applicant was tied to an international scientific flap.
Richard Murphy, interim president of CIRM, wrote to the state auditor,
"We have given careful consideration to your recommendation and have decided it is not appropriate to implement at this time. In almost three years of operation and approval of four rounds of grants, the recommendations of the CIRM working groups have never been routinely and/or regularly adopted by the ICOC. Until the time that such a pattern is detected, the question you suggest we raise with the attorney general is entirely hypothetical, and is therefore not appropriate for submission. We will, however, continue to monitor approvals for such a pattern and will reconsider our decision if one emerges."Murphy has some interesting lines of reasoning here, ones that clearly had the influence of a skillful attorney.
One part of his response refers to "routine and regular" actions. Another says the whole matter is hypothetical, implying that hypothetical possibilities are not worthy of public action. Let's examine CIRM's contentions.
First, should hypothetical situations to be ignored by government agencies? The possibility of contracting small pox or polio is hypothetical. Does that mean that children should not receive vaccinations against those diseases? Or that the government should not require them to be vaccinated in certain situations? The possibility of a terrorist boarding a plane with a bomb is hypothetical. Does that mean inspections of passengers boarding aircraft should cease?
The point about PUBLIC disclosure of the economic interests of grant reviewers is to prevent serious problems. A scandal involving conflicts-of-interests among persons who make critical judgments on the requests for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds could be crippling to the stem cell agency. It is in the agency's best interests to inoculate itself against that possibility. It is most certainly in the public's best interest.
As for the routine ratification of reviewer recommendations, the Oversight Committee, which has ultimate legal authority on grant approval, has modified the reviewers' recommendations from time to time. We are sure that CIRM's able legal staff has counted the occasions and is prepared to make the case that the Oversight Committee does not routinely give grants a rubber stamp.
However, from seeing the board in action and reviewing transcripts, we come to a different conclusion, although we have not yet counted and assessed each individual vote. Reviewers are making de facto decisions. Most grants are routinely approved with little discussion by the Oversight Committee. Only a relative handful have been changed by that group.
Asking for a formal opinion from the attorney general is a serious matter. Such opinions have the force of law, for most purposes. CIRM would not want to seek such an opinion if it were uncertain of a favorable result. It is also fair to say that unless something changes, CIRM is not likely to ever detect a pattern of "routine and regular" approval of reviewer recommendations. To do so would open the agency to other legal perils, such as lawsuits alleging that the Oversight Committee is failing to perform its duties as required by law.
(The CIRM response on this matter is part of a document filed as part of the six-month response to the entire state audit. The response is not available on the Internet. If you would like a copy, please send an email to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.)
Labels:
audit,
Grant-making,
openness,
overview,
transparency
$122 Million Disease Team Effort, $25 Million for New Pluripotent Lines
Crank up those grant-writing machines. Another 147 million in California stem cell dollars are going to start moving into the pipeline this fall.
The Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency last week approved concepts for two new research efforts – one to develop new pluripotent human stem cell lines and another for planning grants for disease team research.
The disease team research effort is the largest at $122 million and most complex. So this fall – probably November -- the agency plans to seek applications for up to 20 planning grants for a total of $1 million. Funding approval is expected next spring.
The idea behind the disease team approach is stimulate proposals that would use strongly managed, diverse teams to accelerate development of therapies into actual use. The teams would also have clear-cut milestones on which they would be measured.
All of you team-oriented folks -- and what scientist is not (a little humor there) – can find a short document here that was presented to the Oversight Committee last week about the effort. The approach is also discussed in the strategic plan. Available at last week's meeting, but not on the CIRM web site at this point, is another important, 59-page document called "Disease Team Workshop: Information Gathering Session (July 25-26, 2007)." If you want that one, send an email to info@cirm.ca.gov.
Receiving a planning grant is not a pre-condition to winning an actual disease team grant later, CIRM staff said. And at the insistence of some of the medical school deans who serve as CIRM directors, the Oversight Committee also added a 10 percent indirect cost allotment in the planning grant(that is the change from the short document you will find on the web).
As for the new stem cell lines, the RFA on that $25 million program will come up this fall with approval for funding also in the spring. The grants are aimed at supporting generation of new lines of pluripotent cells, said CIRM,
In addition to the document from last week's meeting, you can find more on the subject in the CIRM strategic plan.
Both programs will have limits on the number of applications from each institution.
The Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency last week approved concepts for two new research efforts – one to develop new pluripotent human stem cell lines and another for planning grants for disease team research.
The disease team research effort is the largest at $122 million and most complex. So this fall – probably November -- the agency plans to seek applications for up to 20 planning grants for a total of $1 million. Funding approval is expected next spring.
The idea behind the disease team approach is stimulate proposals that would use strongly managed, diverse teams to accelerate development of therapies into actual use. The teams would also have clear-cut milestones on which they would be measured.
All of you team-oriented folks -- and what scientist is not (a little humor there) – can find a short document here that was presented to the Oversight Committee last week about the effort. The approach is also discussed in the strategic plan. Available at last week's meeting, but not on the CIRM web site at this point, is another important, 59-page document called "Disease Team Workshop: Information Gathering Session (July 25-26, 2007)." If you want that one, send an email to info@cirm.ca.gov.
Receiving a planning grant is not a pre-condition to winning an actual disease team grant later, CIRM staff said. And at the insistence of some of the medical school deans who serve as CIRM directors, the Oversight Committee also added a 10 percent indirect cost allotment in the planning grant(that is the change from the short document you will find on the web).
As for the new stem cell lines, the RFA on that $25 million program will come up this fall with approval for funding also in the spring. The grants are aimed at supporting generation of new lines of pluripotent cells, said CIRM,
"new clinical grade lines of hESCs and other pluripotent human stem cells suitable for future clinical use or other biomedical applicationsMore specifically, the awards will be made to "support two areas of derivation: the generation of new human lines using excess embryos from in vitro fertilization, and derivations from other sources using new and novel methods."
"new hESC lines generated using improved methods that may be optimal for differentiation along selective lineages or for studies of disease
"disease-specific, pluripotent stem cell lines to support the study of the effects of genetic variation on disease development and response to treatment
"the discovery and implementation of alternative methods for generating pluripotent human cells."
In addition to the document from last week's meeting, you can find more on the subject in the CIRM strategic plan.
Both programs will have limits on the number of applications from each institution.
Friday, October 05, 2007
CGS on CHA: Pushed or Jumped?
That was the headline on a piece on Biopolitical Times concerning the $2.6 million grant from the California stem cell agency to a Los Angeles subsidiary of a Korean business, headed by a controversial scientist.
Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society wrote skeptically about the explanations involved in the withdrawal, declaring that they "seemed a bit disingenuous."
"Regardless," he said, "the outcome is the right one."
Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society wrote skeptically about the explanations involved in the withdrawal, declaring that they "seemed a bit disingenuous."
"Regardless," he said, "the outcome is the right one."
CIRM Bonds: 3.55 Percent vs. 5.168 Percent Interest
When Prop. 71 was passed, even well-informed voters believed that the new California stem cell agency would use $3 billion in NON-taxable bonds to finance its activities.
The issue is significant because it costs the state a great deal more to use taxable bonds, which were exactly what was used on Thursday.
The California Stem Cell Report asked the state treasurer's office for a comparable rate if the bonds had been tax-exempt. Spokesman Tom Dresslar replied that the rate would have been around 3.55 percent. That compares to the 5.168 percent rate that the bonds were sold at, a rather hefty boost.
The total interest cost for the $250 million in bonds is expected to be $31.941 million.
CIRM and the state treasurer's office are seeking an opinion from the IRS that they hope will allow CIRM to use non-taxable bonds, but it is not clear when that will be forthcoming.
If it can't use the cheaper financing, the state faces close to another $1 billion in interest costs, according to some estimates. That is beyond the $3 billion that non-taxable bonds were expected to cost. (Yes, the figure is nearly identical to the amount of bonds authorized under Prop. 71.)
The issues of the cost of CIRM bonds and what could be generously described as a lack of candor during the campaign on the part of California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein are currently backburner issues in the Capitol and California. But given the magnitude of the costs, they are likely to surface anew in the not-to-distant future.
The issue is significant because it costs the state a great deal more to use taxable bonds, which were exactly what was used on Thursday.
The California Stem Cell Report asked the state treasurer's office for a comparable rate if the bonds had been tax-exempt. Spokesman Tom Dresslar replied that the rate would have been around 3.55 percent. That compares to the 5.168 percent rate that the bonds were sold at, a rather hefty boost.
The total interest cost for the $250 million in bonds is expected to be $31.941 million.
CIRM and the state treasurer's office are seeking an opinion from the IRS that they hope will allow CIRM to use non-taxable bonds, but it is not clear when that will be forthcoming.
If it can't use the cheaper financing, the state faces close to another $1 billion in interest costs, according to some estimates. That is beyond the $3 billion that non-taxable bonds were expected to cost. (Yes, the figure is nearly identical to the amount of bonds authorized under Prop. 71.)
The issues of the cost of CIRM bonds and what could be generously described as a lack of candor during the campaign on the part of California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein are currently backburner issues in the Capitol and California. But given the magnitude of the costs, they are likely to surface anew in the not-to-distant future.
Text of CHA Statement
Here is the complete text from Jean Yi, CEO, CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute, concerning her firm's withdrawal of its application for a $2.6 million grant from the California stem cell agency. The statement was supplied by Tony Knight of Sitrick and Company, a PR firm working for CHA. (See the "grant withdrawn" item below.)
"CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute (CHARMI) more than adequately addressed the baseless criticism leveled at the CIRM selection process by submitting documentary evidence of CHARMI's status as a registered non-profit corporation in California and tax exemption approvals by federal and state authorities. We think the process was needlessly politicized by CIRM's critics. Nevertheless, we are withdrawing because the last thing we want to do is be the source of any impairment to CIRM's current level of well-earned public support."
Klein, Trounson, Hall: The Bee Looks Briefly at Leadership
The Sacramento Bee today carried an account of the recruitment of Alan Trounson as president of the California stem cell agency, including commentary on the future working relationship between him and California stem cell chairman Robert Klein.
Klein and former President Zach Hall sometimes appeared at loggerheads, if not worse, although the management and policy disputes were largely papered over in public.
Trounson told Bee reporter Jim Downing that he has "no concerns" about working with Klein. Trounson said,
Klein and former President Zach Hall sometimes appeared at loggerheads, if not worse, although the management and policy disputes were largely papered over in public.
Trounson told Bee reporter Jim Downing that he has "no concerns" about working with Klein. Trounson said,
"I think our skills are complementary and we are well suited for a very productive partnership. Bob Klein has a wealth of experience in finance, law, bonds, political connections and advocacy. That is worth tapping for the timely delivery of our outcomes."Klein told Downing that he anticipated a smooth relationship.
"Dr. Trounson ... views this board as a resource that he can jointly make decisions with. Dr. Hall was accustomed to being a deputy dean at a medical school, where what he said goes. I deeply respect the contribution made by Dr. Hall, but ... his was a difficult leadership style."Hall characterized Trounson's selection as a "wonderful, wonderful appointment." Hall said,
"The good news is that Bob (Klein) has recruited him and Bob has spent a lot of time with him. So I'm very hopeful the two of them will be able work together effectively. I think that's extremely important."The Bee's story comes long after the appointment was announced. One reason for that is the poor media handling of the Trounson announcement. In this case, The Bee, a large and influential newspaper in the state capital, was not notified in time to participate in the the news conference, The announcement, controlled by Klein, came late Friday afternoon, one of the worst days and times for generating good news coverage and maximum attention. In fact, Friday afternoon is when many skilled media relations persons release bad news as part of an effort to minimize attention. In this case, the Trounson announcement was a "good news" story that could have received considerably more attention if properly handled.
Labels:
CIRM management,
media coverage,
presidential search
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Fresh Comment
An anonymous comment has been posted on the item below, saying a copy of the treasurer's press release can be found on the CIRM web site at this location.
Stem Cell Fanciers Snap up More Than $100 Million in Bonds
California today sold a whopping $102.8 million of its stem cell bonds to individual investors, more than triple the amount expected by the state.
The size of the sale, 41.1 percent of the $250 million total, testified to the powerful lure of stem cell research for a large segment of the public. The number probably could have been higher if publicity had been generated earlier among the patient advocate and other sympathetic groups.
The taxable bonds were sold at a 5.168 percent rate, which is 1.15 percentage points higher than today's rate on three-year U.S. Treasury notes. Institutional investors purchased what individuals did not.
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer (see photo) said in a news release,
"The investment by individuals far exceeded our expectations and shows how strongly Californians believe in the promise of stem cell research to cure diseases and relieve suffering,"California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein said,
"Certainly many of the investors are patients suffering from debilitating disease or injury. They’re making an investment in their future – not simply their financial future, but their future quality of life."Lockyer also noted that it was the first time California bonds have been used to directly finance the development of intellectual capital.
He said $48 million of the proceeds will go to pay back the bond anticipation notes that philanthropists purchased to provide funds for CIRM while it was hobbled by litigation. More than $200 million will go for research grants. That means that state is still waiting for repayment of a $150 million loan to CIRM. It also means that a new round of bond financing is likely soon. The agency currently has $850 million in untapped bonding capacity out of the $3 billion authorized in 2004. It can only issue $350 million a year, but unused bonding capacity is carried over year to year.
Lockyer's news release was not posted on the Internet at the time of his writing, but you should be able to find it here later in the day.
Stem Cell Bond Offering Attracts Media Attention
The $250 millon California stem cell bond offering today has triggered some unusual coverage of the state's research agency throughout the country.
Ordinarily the issuance of bonds by California attracts virtually no media attention. But since State Treasurer Bill Lockyer has created a program under which small investors can easily buy the bonds, stem cell bond news has a bigger audience.
Both CIRM and the state treasurer's office were a tad slow on picking up the idea of generating favorable publicity on the stem cell bonds, given that the cause of stem research has some nearly fanatic followers.
But in the last couple of days, press releases rippled across the country, generating stories including one notable video piece on CNBC. The segment was long – seven minutes and 39 seconds – but more than one of the participants needed to do additional homework.
The CNBC anchor who introduced the topic about California issuing stem cell bonds began with this question: "Do they have this right?" No one really answered the question, but, of course, the answer is yes. Another participant said that government is not in the business of funding "speculative" research, apparently not aware of the billions already provided for research by the NIH. As usual with many TV news interviews, some heat was generated during the discussion among the four participants. Perhaps some light also. But for the most part, the CNBC effort demonstrated the shallow level of knowledge about stem cell research and the California stem cell agency.
For those small investors who may have missed out on today's offering, another round is certain to come up probably relatively early next year. Watch this space for details.
Ordinarily the issuance of bonds by California attracts virtually no media attention. But since State Treasurer Bill Lockyer has created a program under which small investors can easily buy the bonds, stem cell bond news has a bigger audience.
Both CIRM and the state treasurer's office were a tad slow on picking up the idea of generating favorable publicity on the stem cell bonds, given that the cause of stem research has some nearly fanatic followers.
But in the last couple of days, press releases rippled across the country, generating stories including one notable video piece on CNBC. The segment was long – seven minutes and 39 seconds – but more than one of the participants needed to do additional homework.
The CNBC anchor who introduced the topic about California issuing stem cell bonds began with this question: "Do they have this right?" No one really answered the question, but, of course, the answer is yes. Another participant said that government is not in the business of funding "speculative" research, apparently not aware of the billions already provided for research by the NIH. As usual with many TV news interviews, some heat was generated during the discussion among the four participants. Perhaps some light also. But for the most part, the CNBC effort demonstrated the shallow level of knowledge about stem cell research and the California stem cell agency.
For those small investors who may have missed out on today's offering, another round is certain to come up probably relatively early next year. Watch this space for details.
Biotech Bank Plan Moves Ahead at CIRM
With no fanfare whatsoever, the $3 billion California stem cell agency – already the largest single source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research in the world – Wednesday took the first step towards extending its life by moving forward on creation of a loan bank for the biotech industry.
Few details were available. They will be worked out by a Biotech Loan Task Force, chaired by Duane Roth, chairman and chief executive officer of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp. of San Diego, Ca., and finance committee, chaired by venture capitalist Michael Goldberg(see photo), a general partner in Mohr Davidow Ventures of Menlo Park, Ca. Both are directors of the stem cell agency.
Members of the CIRM Oversight Committee did not discuss the loan bank, which is the brainchild of Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. They approved creation of the task force and a new finance committee on a unanimous voice vote at a meeting in San Diego, Ca.
Following the meeting, Goldberg told us that he has not yet developed a schedule for his group's hearings, declaring it was too early to discuss details.
As we mentioned earlier, a major lending program operated by CIRM poses a host of questions and also opportunities. One advantage of a biotech bank is that it could create an income stream that could continue to fund CIRM well beyond its bonding capacity, which is only about 10 years if it taps the maximum each year.
The biotech bank also highlights the unusual nature of the agency, which enjoys special capabilities not shared with virtually all other state departments. For example, it can raise funds much like a private nonprofit organization, although fundraising is a tricky business. A case in point was the star-studded fundraiser in May of 2006 in San Francisco, featuring Julie Andrews, which promised to raise $1 million for CIRM. The actual figure was only $250,000, according to CIRM.
(An earlier version of this item incorrectly identified Goldberg as chairman of the Biotech Loan Task Force and Roth as chairman of the Finance Subcommittee.)
CHA Grant Withdrawn, Burnham Grant Denied
A California subsidiary of a Korean firm caught in an international plagiarism flap has bailed out of a $2.6 million grant from the California stem cell agency.
Arlene Chiu, chief scientific officer of the $3 billion California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, told the agency's directors at a Wednesday meeting in San Diego, that CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute of Los Angeles (CHA RMI) withdrew its application on Sept. 28 following a lengthy administrative review.
She did not elaborate on the matter. She referred questions to Tamar Pachter, general counsel for CIRM, who told us that it would be more appropriate to request the CHA information under California's open records law, a process that takes some time. CIRM directors did not comment on the matter.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Foundation of Taxpayer and Consumers Rights of Santa Monica, Ca., told directors that withdrawal of the application and action involving a grant to the Burnham Institute "spoke very well of the staff and their diligence." He said it showed CIRM was "serious about standards."
William Heisel of the Los Angeles Times reported that
Jean Yi, the CHA institute's chief executive, said it withdrew its application because of criticism that it was not a true nonprofit
Heisel continued:
CIRM directors approved the grant to CHA last March following a closed-door review. The review failed to turn up the fact that the parent of CHA RMI, CHA Health Systems, was headed by scientist Kwang-Yul Cha, who was enmeshed at the time in an international plagiarism dispute
Following disclosure of the Cha controversy, Simpson criticized CIRM's secretive grant award process. He said CIRM was "burned" because of its closed door review of the grant applications. Marcy Darnovsky, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society of Oakland, Ca., said, "The leadership of CHA Health Systems has a shadowed recent history, including a lawsuit that alleges the director of its fertility center lied in order to obtain a woman’s eggs."
One of those alleging plagiarism, Alan DeCherney, editor of the Fertility and Sterility Journal, in May retracted his allegations of plagiarism and perjury.
Chiu also said another grant approved by directors last spring was rejected during the administrative review that is conducted on all approved grants before the checks actually go out. Chiu said the principal investigator on the $638,000 grant, David Smotrich, did not meet the criteria of being an on-site, fulltime employee of the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, Ca.
In its public review of the, CIRM said last Febarury, "This proposal is exactly the type of research that CIRM should be funding. The personnel is second to none, and it could not have been funded by NIH(National Institutes of Health.).
Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote:
-Trb
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-me-cha4oct04,1,828119.story?coll=la-health-medicine&ctrack=1&cset=true
Arlene Chiu, chief scientific officer of the $3 billion California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, told the agency's directors at a Wednesday meeting in San Diego, that CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute of Los Angeles (CHA RMI) withdrew its application on Sept. 28 following a lengthy administrative review.
She did not elaborate on the matter. She referred questions to Tamar Pachter, general counsel for CIRM, who told us that it would be more appropriate to request the CHA information under California's open records law, a process that takes some time. CIRM directors did not comment on the matter.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Foundation of Taxpayer and Consumers Rights of Santa Monica, Ca., told directors that withdrawal of the application and action involving a grant to the Burnham Institute "spoke very well of the staff and their diligence." He said it showed CIRM was "serious about standards."
William Heisel of the Los Angeles Times reported that
Jean Yi, the CHA institute's chief executive, said it withdrew its application because of criticism that it was not a true nonprofit
Heisel continued:
"'CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute (CHARMI) more than adequately addressed the baseless criticism,' Yi said in a written statement. 'We think the process was needlessly politicized. . . . Nevertheless, we are withdrawing because the last thing we want to do is be the source of any impairment to [the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine's] current level of well-earned public support.'"Pachter told us that CHA RMI had met the legal requirements for California nonprofit status.
CIRM directors approved the grant to CHA last March following a closed-door review. The review failed to turn up the fact that the parent of CHA RMI, CHA Health Systems, was headed by scientist Kwang-Yul Cha, who was enmeshed at the time in an international plagiarism dispute
Following disclosure of the Cha controversy, Simpson criticized CIRM's secretive grant award process. He said CIRM was "burned" because of its closed door review of the grant applications. Marcy Darnovsky, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society of Oakland, Ca., said, "The leadership of CHA Health Systems has a shadowed recent history, including a lawsuit that alleges the director of its fertility center lied in order to obtain a woman’s eggs."
One of those alleging plagiarism, Alan DeCherney, editor of the Fertility and Sterility Journal, in May retracted his allegations of plagiarism and perjury.
Chiu also said another grant approved by directors last spring was rejected during the administrative review that is conducted on all approved grants before the checks actually go out. Chiu said the principal investigator on the $638,000 grant, David Smotrich, did not meet the criteria of being an on-site, fulltime employee of the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, Ca.
In its public review of the, CIRM said last Febarury, "This proposal is exactly the type of research that CIRM should be funding. The personnel is second to none, and it could not have been funded by NIH(National Institutes of Health.).
Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote:
"Smotrich, who runs an in-vitro fertilization practice in La Jolla, is a member of Burnham's clinical faculty. He has also started a stem cell bank that is collecting donated frozen human embryos left over after the in-vitro fertilization process but no longer wanted by women trying to have children.
"From those embryos, Smotrich and scientists from the Burnham have been working to derive stem cells. He and a team that includes Burnham researchers Evan Snyder and Jeanne Loring sought the grant to fund work that Smotrich and other benefactors have underwritten to date.
"The standards of this particular grant put an independent research facility, such as the Burnham, at a disadvantage compared with an academic/medical facility such as UCSD, where clinical faculty can see patients in an office on campus, said Snyder and Smotrich.
"'It's frustrating,' Smotrich said last night. 'But hopefully it's just a hiccup, and there will be other ways to get funding. Perhaps future (grant applications) will be written differently. This is a learning process for everyone.'"
-Trb
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-me-cha4oct04,1,828119.story?coll=la-health-medicine&ctrack=1&cset=true
Sunday, September 30, 2007
$31 Million Stem Cell Training Proposal Defended
Officials at the California state college system have filed a sweeping defense of its appeal for $31 million from CIRM to train thousands of persons to work in the stem cell industry.
The California state university system as well as the California community college system advanced the proposal at the August meeting of the CIRM Oversight Committee, whose members raised a series of questions.
Supporters of the plan compiled a detailed, 24-page response, outlining the need for training a diverse workforce and citing CIRM's own strategic plan in support. The response and the proposal are up for consideration Wednesday at the Oversight Committee meeting in San Diego.
No competing proposals to provide the training are currently before CIRM.
The California state university system as well as the California community college system advanced the proposal at the August meeting of the CIRM Oversight Committee, whose members raised a series of questions.
Supporters of the plan compiled a detailed, 24-page response, outlining the need for training a diverse workforce and citing CIRM's own strategic plan in support. The response and the proposal are up for consideration Wednesday at the Oversight Committee meeting in San Diego.
No competing proposals to provide the training are currently before CIRM.
Time to Tap Technology for Outreach
As such things go at the California stem cell agency, it was a fairly technical meeting. No great issues, no wrestling with egg donation matters or criteria for giving away $200 million.
The subject was the application procedures for laboratory construction grants. The audience was the men and women who must fill out the complex documents – "interested parties," as they are called.
But the conference-call session on Sept. 21 has some implications for CIRM and its goals of educating the public about its activities as well as stem cell research in general(mentioned by incoming CIRM president Alan Trounson on Sept. 24).
John M. Simpson(photo above), longtime follower of CIRM affairs and stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, listened in on the meeting. We asked him for this thoughts on the event. Here is what he said:
"(The) 'interested parties' meeting was a valuable session allowing potential applicants to ask specific questions about the application process. CIRM needs to do whatever it can to engage as many people who are affected by their decisions in the process as possible.We might add that Internet webcasting would also fit in with Trounson's desire to reach out nationally and internationally with the CIRM effort.
"California is a big state and CIRM needs to use technology to promote involvement. So far as I know this was the first conference call where participants were invited to phone in directly themselves. Usually CIRM teleconferences have required a participant to go to a particular site created for the convenience of an ICOC board member to be involved.
"(The) dial-in from wherever an interested party was located worked great. It was well worth the cost and can serve as a model for future sessions.
"CIRM should put itself on the cutting edge where it claims to be and tap technology to a greater extent. For instance, it should broadcast all ICOC(Oversight Committee) meetings and (other) committee meetings on the Internet. Many city councils around the state have already figured out how to do this. CIRM and the ICOC need to get with the times. They should even consider a page on Facebook and Myspace that links back to CIRM's own website."
Friday, September 28, 2007
Looking For Ways to Avoid the Stem Cell Egg Problem
A $25 million proposal to develop new lines of pluripotent human stem cells, including ones that do not require the use of human embryos or eggs, will come before the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency next week in San Diego.
The plan calls for as many as 16 research grants for periods of three years. Funding could come as early as next spring with the release of RFAs as early as this fall.
A CIRM staff report said,
The plan calls for as many as 16 research grants for periods of three years. Funding could come as early as next spring with the release of RFAs as early as this fall.
A CIRM staff report said,
"The ability to derive pluripotent stem cells from new sources will enable scientists to generate disease-specific and genotype-specific cells of many phenotypes. Such cells have great value for drug discovery and understanding specific disease mechanisms. Importantly, methods that will not require the donation or use of either human embryos or eggs will significantly reduce the moral and ethical concerns that surround methods currently in use. Finally, new methods of producing pluripotent stem cells will be particularly important because it may be difficult to obtain excess embryos from many racial groups.The report also said,
"This RFA will support the generation of new lines of pluripotent human stem cells including:
"• new clinical grade lines of hESCs and other pluripotent human stem cells suitable for future clinical use or other biomedical applications
"• new hESC lines generated using improved methods that may be optimal for differentiation along selective lineages or for studies of disease
"• disease-specific, pluripotent stem cell lines to support the study of the effects of genetic variation on disease development and response to treatment
"• the discovery and implementation of alternative methods for generating pluripotent human cells"
"Awards will be made to support two areas of derivation: the generation of new human lines using excess embryos from in vitro fertilization, and derivations from other sources using new and novel methods."
Lockyer Beats Stem Cell Bond Drum
The California state treasurer's office has generated more publicity for the sale of the state's first-ever stem cell bonds next Thursday with at least one site urging San Franciscans to buy to support a local enterprise.
Tom Dresslar, communications director for Treasurer Bill Lockyer(photo at right), sent out a news advisory Thursday pointing out the sale – a "reminder" from Lockyer. The reminder said,
"California is one week away from making the largest-ever investment in human embryonic stem cell research in the nation and, we believe, the world."Lockyer also noted,
"The $200 million investment will place California in the forefront of global research using human embryonic stem cells, considered by many experts to hold more potential to help develop treatments and cures for diseases than other types of human or animal stem cells. And it's just a fraction of the $3 billion in bonds authorized by Proposition 71. By contrast, the National Institute of Health since the 2002 fiscal year has funded a total of $131 million in human embryonic stem cell research."The total bond issue is for $250 million, but about $45-50 million will go to pay transaction costs and to retire the bond anticipation notes that were sold to private philanthropists to help fund the California stem cell agency while it battled legal challenges. CIRM must still repay the state for something like $150 million in loans that helped to provide interim financing. The agency has roughly $1 billion in current bonding capacity that it can use soon. The likelihood is that another big bond sale will come up early next year.
Individual investors have until Oct. 3 to buy the bonds. They get first crack at them because of a new program that Lockyer started this year to make state bonds easily available to the general public. Minimum purchase is $5,000. The bond dividends are federally taxable but exempt from California state taxes. One would think that patient advocate groups might want to spread the word.
The San Francisco Business Times put together a brief piece on Lockyer's reminder. Jim Christie of Reuters also wrote an article. A blog called Sam Spade's San Francisco, the city where CIRM is headquartered, said that the bonds are one of the "best places" for San Franciscans to make an investment.
"The money you invest stays right here in San Francisco and is put to work funding the most cutting-edge medical research on the planet."
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Correction
Tom Dresslar of the state treasurer's office points out that the figures for transaction costs are the estimates for actual costs on the Oct. 4 stem cell bond sale -- not bench marks.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The Cost of 'Lubricants' for Stem Cell Financing
So the California stem cell agency wants a little loan? Maybe not so little. Only a piddling $250 million.
Well, to do that sort of business doesn't involve chump change. First there is the interest, let's say about another $250 million, give or take roughly $10 to $20 million plus or minus. The actual interest cost will not be known until Oct. 5, the day after the stem cell bond sale. (For those of you who have been locked into a microscope for decades, a bond is a loan. California says give us $250 million, and we will pay you back later with interest.)
Then there is the lubricant to make the financial wheels turn smoothly. That's roughly another $1.6 million. That may seem like a lot but it is less than what CIRM estimated a little while back in its strategic plan. That document calculated bond issuance costs at roughly 0.08 percent of the bond amount. In other words, about $2 million for a $250 million bond sale.
We asked Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for the state treasurer's office, which handles the bond sales, about the transaction costs of doing such business. He told us that final figures for the stem cell bond sale will not be available until after it takes place, he provided us with estimates of the costs on the October sale.
Here is his breakdown:
(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item described the transaction costs as benchmarks for a $250 million bond sale. They are actually estimates of the costs on the stem cell bond sale.
Well, to do that sort of business doesn't involve chump change. First there is the interest, let's say about another $250 million, give or take roughly $10 to $20 million plus or minus. The actual interest cost will not be known until Oct. 5, the day after the stem cell bond sale. (For those of you who have been locked into a microscope for decades, a bond is a loan. California says give us $250 million, and we will pay you back later with interest.)
Then there is the lubricant to make the financial wheels turn smoothly. That's roughly another $1.6 million. That may seem like a lot but it is less than what CIRM estimated a little while back in its strategic plan. That document calculated bond issuance costs at roughly 0.08 percent of the bond amount. In other words, about $2 million for a $250 million bond sale.
We asked Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for the state treasurer's office, which handles the bond sales, about the transaction costs of doing such business. He told us that final figures for the stem cell bond sale will not be available until after it takes place, he provided us with estimates of the costs on the October sale.
Here is his breakdown:
"Total -- Approximately $1.6 millionObviously it would be cheaper to fund stem cell research straight from tax revenues, with no borrowing, because there would be no interest or transaction costs. But that would mean navigating – ANNUALLY -- the treacherous shoals of the legislature – not to mention the governor's office. And the research would have to compete against demands for money for schools, police, firefighters and much, much more. It doesn't take a political wizard to figure out who wins in that contest.
"Bond counsel and co-counsel -- $175,000
"Tax counsel -- $117,000
"Rating agencies -- $142,000
"Underwriting fees -- $818,000
"Various other costs comprise the balance."
(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item described the transaction costs as benchmarks for a $250 million bond sale. They are actually estimates of the costs on the stem cell bond sale.
Investing in Stem Cell Bonds
Re our earlier piece on buying California's stem cell bonds, Tom Dresslar, spokesman for the state treasurer's office, points out that the minimum buy-in is $5,000. Don't forget you need permission from the treasurer's office if you want to buy more than $1 million. And as always, do your investment homework before you buy anything.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
More Openness Emerging at CIRM?
The California stem cell agency has long concealed the identities of applicants for millions of dollars in grants even when the applicants are such public entities as the University of California.
But there are signs of changing sentiment on CIRM's Oversight Committee. At the board's August meeting, some members indicated that they favored disclosing the names of institutional applicants for $222 million in lab grants and at least some portion of their applications.
For example, Oversight Committee member Francisco Prieto, a Sacramento physician, asked his fellow committee members,
Kessler made his comments after John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the watch dog group, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, noted that lab grant process has two steps. The first is a closed- door scientific review of applications from institutions, whose names are also secret. The second is public review of the actual construction proposal with the names disclosed.
Simpson said the board was
But there are signs of changing sentiment on CIRM's Oversight Committee. At the board's August meeting, some members indicated that they favored disclosing the names of institutional applicants for $222 million in lab grants and at least some portion of their applications.
For example, Oversight Committee member Francisco Prieto, a Sacramento physician, asked his fellow committee members,
"Why could we not release the names of the applying institutions and the outlines of the proposals without actually opening up the actual review? I understand that in the review of the RFAs and within the meetings that there are comments made about strengths and weaknesses of individual investigators and teams and things that could affect people's careers, but the institutions and the outlines don't have any personal interest. "In response, Chairman Robert Klein said the matter would be brought up at next week's Oversight Committee meeting in San Diego. He said,
"I personally think that we have an opportunity here to have some more disclosure, that while protecting confidential information, proprietary information, personnel information of people that are being hired, etc."Later David Kessler, an Oversight Committee member and dean of the UC San Francisco School of Medicine, indicated he was sympathetic to providing the names and some information concerning the institutions' applications.
Kessler made his comments after John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the watch dog group, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, noted that lab grant process has two steps. The first is a closed- door scientific review of applications from institutions, whose names are also secret. The second is public review of the actual construction proposal with the names disclosed.
Simpson said the board was
"...setting up a procedure by which, as I see it right now, you cannot risk the embarrassment of a university because it can't do science, but you can embarrass them because they don't know how to build a building. That just doesn't make sense. It doesn't serve the scientists, nor the architects, especially the public at large."Last month, the California Stem Cell Report called on CIRM directors to make more information public concerning the identity and proposals of applicants for the lab grants.
Stem Cell Snippets: Hanky-Panky to Jobs for Those Love Long Hours
Enviros Against Stem Cell Lab/Classroom Building -- An activist group and the city of Santa Cruz have blocked construction of an $80 million facility at UC Santa Cruz that would house stem cell research activities. A judge halted the project for environmental reasons. The four-story facility would include stem cell labs and service nearly 1,400-science students.
Scientific Integrity – The California stem cell agency has based many of its policies and rules on assumptions of nearly universal scientific integrity. Glenn McGee(see photo), writing in The Scientist and on the blog of the American Journal of Bioethics, indirectly questions those assumptions. He cites studies that show widespread hanky-panky in the authorship of peer-reviewed pieces, particularly in cases where senior researchers claim authorship even when they are marginally involved. McGee also has suggestions for reform. Interestingly, the entry point for his article is a matter that figured in the controversy over approval of a California stem cell agency grant to a subsidiary of the CHA Health Systems of South Korea.
Yolo Stem Cell Land Deal – Land developer Angelo Tsakopolous has shelved his land development deal that would have also established a stem cell research center in Northern California near UC Davis and Sacramento. Jeff Raimundo, a spokesman for Tsakopolous, told the California Stem Cell Report that the controversial proposal has been put off. California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein lobbied local government officials on behalf of the proposal, but they shied away from the effort. The concept of the plan was also supported by the International Stem Society for Stem Cell Research. Tsakopolous is a persistent man, however, and his proposal could well surface again in one form or another.
Stem Cell Lab Grants – On Oct. 2, the California stem cell agency will consider rules concerning administration of $222 million in grants for stem cell lab construction. The Facilities Working Group will take up the proposal prior to consideration by the CIRM Oversight Committee the next day.
NAS Stem Cell Meeting in California – Coming up Oct. 8-9 in Irvine, Ca., is a National Academy of Sciences conference called "Therapeutic Cloning: Where Do We Go From Here?" A host of top flight scientists are listed as speakers. The session will address such questions as sources of eggs and alternative methods of creating pluripotent cells.
Looking for Work? -- If you are interested in working across the street from the home field of the San Francisco Giants baseball team, CIRM is looking for a few good men and women. Jobs available at the agency include associate legal counsel, grants management specialist, paralegal and scientific officers.. Long hours are guaranteed. (CIRM headquarters is near the Giants field.)
Monday, September 24, 2007
Trounson Expands on His International Perspective
The new president of the California stem cell agency, Alan Trounson, is expressing a strong interest in engaging scientists elsewhere in the world and nation in the state's $3 billion research program, although he said such an effort may require funding from outside the agency.
In response to questions from the California Stem Cell Report, the Australian scientist (see photo) elaborated via email on his statements at the time of his selection as the head of the world's largest single funding source for human embryonic stem cell research.
Trounson had said his new assignment at CIRM provided an opportunity to engage internationally with other groups to avoid duplication of effort and speed development of cures. However, state law concerning CIRM requires virtually all of its efforts to be focused within California, requirements that earlier this year surfaced in connection with approval of a $2.6 million research grant to a non-profit, Los Angeles subsidiary of a South Korean organization, CHA Health Systems.
The CHA grant is still apparently under an administrative compliance review along with many others approved at the same time in March. The grant was not mentioned in the questions we submitted to Trounson nor did he speak specifically to it. We asked him only to elaborate on his statement concerning efforts with other nations and states. Trounson said,
"I would like to engage research groups working in other states and particular countries in collaborations with Californian scientists and clinicians. This might be achieved by having jointly funded workshops, study programs, scientific exchanges, research projects and clinical trials. I need to find out whether CIRM funds can be used in this way or whether we need to find other mechanisms to do this. The aim is to avoid duplication and accelerate the application of discoveries into the clinic - this is the primary outcome sought and needed by Californians."Other questions and Trounson's responses:
CSCR: What are the three greatest challenges facing you at CIRM?
Trounson:
"1. Integrating the pipeline of stem cell discovery, translation and application in the clinic
"2. Demonstration of therapeutic benefit in a variety of applications
"3. Achieving a full comprehension by education, of the nature and potential benefits of stem cells throughout the whole community."
CSCR: Working in California state government also means dealing with open records and open meeting laws which sometimes have given pause to others new to such requirements. What is your comfort level with such laws?
Trounson: "Transparency is a simpler form of conducting an activity such as that involving the CIRM, where the entire community has an interest. I welcome the open format."
CSCR: Other observations you feel are important?
"I need time to focus on and analyze the efficiency of delivery of the CIRM strategy and to format priorities for the CIRM building on the very sound base achieved by the founders."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)