Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sheehy Comments on Little Hoover Commission Recommendations and CIRM Reaction
We want to call attention to a comment that Jeff Sheehy posted this afternoon on the “CIRM news release” item. Sheehy is a member of the CIRM board. He has served on the board since its inception and serves regularly as the acting vice chair of its grant review group. You can read Sheehy's unsolicited and unmoderated comment at the end of the item in question.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Quick Links: Recommendations for CIRM Overhaul, Media Coverage and Reaction
The Little Hoover Commission's recommendations for sweeping changes in the $3 billion California stem cell agency became public today, generating some interesting news items and reaction from the agency itself.
We were traveling today and have not had a chance to read the 84-page document but will have an analysis tomorrow. Meanwhile interested readers have plenty to chew on.
First, there is the report itself, which can be found here. Then there is CIRM's reaction to it, which came in the form of a press release dated Wednesday June 24. The release has been circulated to at least some reporters, but has not been posted on the CIRM Web site at the time of this writing. The full text is contained in the item below.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., issued his reaction at 2:02 p.m. today. You can find that document here.
Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times wrote a relatively lengthy piece about the recommendations. Sandy Kleffman of the Contra Costa Times also filed a fairly substantial article.
We expect to see more coverage in the mainstream media, but Saturday is not a good day if you are looking for newspapers loaded with news. Even in the heyday of newspapers, Saturday papers were thin and did not offer much.
We were traveling today and have not had a chance to read the 84-page document but will have an analysis tomorrow. Meanwhile interested readers have plenty to chew on.
First, there is the report itself, which can be found here. Then there is CIRM's reaction to it, which came in the form of a press release dated Wednesday June 24. The release has been circulated to at least some reporters, but has not been posted on the CIRM Web site at the time of this writing. The full text is contained in the item below.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., issued his reaction at 2:02 p.m. today. You can find that document here.
Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times wrote a relatively lengthy piece about the recommendations. Sandy Kleffman of the Contra Costa Times also filed a fairly substantial article.
We expect to see more coverage in the mainstream media, but Saturday is not a good day if you are looking for newspapers loaded with news. Even in the heyday of newspapers, Saturday papers were thin and did not offer much.
CIRM News Release on Little Hoover Commission Report
Here is the complete text of a CIRM news release circulated to some reporters today in connection with recommendations by the Little Hoover Commission. As of this writing, the release has not been posted on the CIRM Web site.
For Immediate Release Contact: Don Gibbons
415-396-9117
415-740-5855 (mobile)
CIRM Responds to Recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission
Sacramento, Calif., June 24, 2009 – The leaders of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the state stem cell agency, said today that they were disappointed that the Little Hoover Commission chose to release a report with recommendations that, if enacted by the legislature, would slow the agency’s progress toward cures.
The agency believes that many of the recommendations made by the commission are based on an incomplete understanding of the agency’s operation and are so sweeping they would require another ballot initiative to amend Proposition 71, which created the agency. If enacted by the Legislature and signed by the governor the recommendations would dramatically disrupt and delay the agency’s push to achieve its mission of delivering therapies to patients. In addition, any attempt to enact the changes through legislation rather than by a vote of the people would likely result in a court challenge, which would be costly and time consuming.
The Commissioners have publicly acknowledged that CIRM’s existing structure is quite successful in allocating research funds in a manner that has garnered respect from researchers in the state, nationally and internationally. The Commissioner’s have also acknowledged that multiple audits and court reviews have shown that CIRM is managing potential conflicts of interest well.
“To disrupt and delay the agency’s critical work for a year, or even six months, because of what the Commission’s staff has called ‘perception’ issues is unacceptable,” said Robert Klein chair of CIRM’s governing board. “Let them talk perception to patients who miss out on a therapeutic breakthrough that would have saved their lives because the agency has been paralyzed by a sweeping reorganization. The will of seven million voters who approved this highly functional structure should be respected. I would hope the legislature will not devote any of its valuable time to this measure that has little chance of benefiting the state while it has great potential to do harm.”
Specific fallacies of the report:
• The board is too large and unwieldy. With 29 members it is similar in size to the UC Regents (26) and the California Judicial Council (28). On all three boards, size has afforded a diverse membership that brings a needed breadth of expertise.
• There are no independent voices and as a result there are perceptions of conflicts. There are many board members with no ties to organizations that receive grants and those who are from institutions do not participate in even the discussion of grant applications from their institutions. The Court of Appeals noted, “by approving Proposition 71 the voters have determined that the advantages of permitting particularly knowledgeable persons to decide which research projects to fund outweigh any concerns that these decisions may be influenced by the personal or professional interests of those members.
• Reduce politicalization of the board by letting the governor make all but four appointments. The current process, which divides the appointing authority between the State’s four constitutional officers and the UC Chancellors, is a much more effective means of assuring no one political agenda can shape the board and in turn the science CIRM funds.
• The division of authority between the board chair and the agency president is not effective. Proposition 71 created a clear division of responsibility with an executive chair providing financial leadership and a president providing scientific leadership. Current president Alan Trounson and board chair Klein have both publicly stated that this division is working well for the agency.
One of the key objectives of Proposition 71 was to provide stability and predictability to a research-funding program. The inevitable delays that would be caused if the Commission’s recommendations were enacted by the legislature would disrupt California laboratories the length of the state and slow progress to cures.
Related Media:
Videos explaining stem cell research are available on the CIRM YouTube site.
Stem cell images are available at the CIRM Flickr site. These are available for use with credit to the scientist listed in the caption.
About CIRM CIRM was established in November, 2004 with the passage of Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act. The statewide ballot measure, which provided $3 billion in funding for stem cell research at California universities and research institutions, was overwhelmingly approved by voters, and called for the establishment of an entity to make grants and provide loans for stem cell research, research facilities, and other vital research opportunities. To date, the CIRM governing board has approved 279 research and facility grants totaling more than $693 million, making CIRM the largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research in the world. For more information, please visit www.cirm.ca.gov.
For Immediate Release Contact: Don Gibbons
415-396-9117
415-740-5855 (mobile)
CIRM Responds to Recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission
Sacramento, Calif., June 24, 2009 – The leaders of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the state stem cell agency, said today that they were disappointed that the Little Hoover Commission chose to release a report with recommendations that, if enacted by the legislature, would slow the agency’s progress toward cures.
The agency believes that many of the recommendations made by the commission are based on an incomplete understanding of the agency’s operation and are so sweeping they would require another ballot initiative to amend Proposition 71, which created the agency. If enacted by the Legislature and signed by the governor the recommendations would dramatically disrupt and delay the agency’s push to achieve its mission of delivering therapies to patients. In addition, any attempt to enact the changes through legislation rather than by a vote of the people would likely result in a court challenge, which would be costly and time consuming.
The Commissioners have publicly acknowledged that CIRM’s existing structure is quite successful in allocating research funds in a manner that has garnered respect from researchers in the state, nationally and internationally. The Commissioner’s have also acknowledged that multiple audits and court reviews have shown that CIRM is managing potential conflicts of interest well.
“To disrupt and delay the agency’s critical work for a year, or even six months, because of what the Commission’s staff has called ‘perception’ issues is unacceptable,” said Robert Klein chair of CIRM’s governing board. “Let them talk perception to patients who miss out on a therapeutic breakthrough that would have saved their lives because the agency has been paralyzed by a sweeping reorganization. The will of seven million voters who approved this highly functional structure should be respected. I would hope the legislature will not devote any of its valuable time to this measure that has little chance of benefiting the state while it has great potential to do harm.”
Specific fallacies of the report:
• The board is too large and unwieldy. With 29 members it is similar in size to the UC Regents (26) and the California Judicial Council (28). On all three boards, size has afforded a diverse membership that brings a needed breadth of expertise.
• There are no independent voices and as a result there are perceptions of conflicts. There are many board members with no ties to organizations that receive grants and those who are from institutions do not participate in even the discussion of grant applications from their institutions. The Court of Appeals noted, “by approving Proposition 71 the voters have determined that the advantages of permitting particularly knowledgeable persons to decide which research projects to fund outweigh any concerns that these decisions may be influenced by the personal or professional interests of those members.
• Reduce politicalization of the board by letting the governor make all but four appointments. The current process, which divides the appointing authority between the State’s four constitutional officers and the UC Chancellors, is a much more effective means of assuring no one political agenda can shape the board and in turn the science CIRM funds.
• The division of authority between the board chair and the agency president is not effective. Proposition 71 created a clear division of responsibility with an executive chair providing financial leadership and a president providing scientific leadership. Current president Alan Trounson and board chair Klein have both publicly stated that this division is working well for the agency.
One of the key objectives of Proposition 71 was to provide stability and predictability to a research-funding program. The inevitable delays that would be caused if the Commission’s recommendations were enacted by the legislature would disrupt California laboratories the length of the state and slow progress to cures.
Related Media:
Videos explaining stem cell research are available on the CIRM YouTube site.
Stem cell images are available at the CIRM Flickr site. These are available for use with credit to the scientist listed in the caption.
About CIRM CIRM was established in November, 2004 with the passage of Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act. The statewide ballot measure, which provided $3 billion in funding for stem cell research at California universities and research institutions, was overwhelmingly approved by voters, and called for the establishment of an entity to make grants and provide loans for stem cell research, research facilities, and other vital research opportunities. To date, the CIRM governing board has approved 279 research and facility grants totaling more than $693 million, making CIRM the largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research in the world. For more information, please visit www.cirm.ca.gov.
Hoover Commission Report on CIRM Overhaul Out Today
California's Little Hoover Commission is expected to release its full recommendations today for sweeping structural changes at the $3 billion California stem cell agency.
We will be traveling and will not be posting anything on the report until very late today or possibly tomorrow. But you can find the report at the Little Hoover Commission Web site when it is released. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., is also expected to have something on his organization's site.
Patient advocate Don Reed already has posted some reaction and information on the Daily Kos. He does not look favorably on the commission's work.
We will be traveling and will not be posting anything on the report until very late today or possibly tomorrow. But you can find the report at the Little Hoover Commission Web site when it is released. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., is also expected to have something on his organization's site.
Patient advocate Don Reed already has posted some reaction and information on the Daily Kos. He does not look favorably on the commission's work.
Minimal Media Coverage of Csete's Resignation
They didn't stop the presses at the San Francisco Chronicle this week for news of the resignation of the chief scientific officer at the $3 billion California stem cell agency, although it is a bit of a local story for the newspaper.
No mainstream media have covered Marie Csete's pending departure as far as we can tell. But it surfaced in a couple places on the Internet that have international audiences, which this blog has as well. The news was also, we understand, the subject of some discussion at a meeting of CIRM grant reviewers in San Francisco the last two days. No information has been posted concerning Csete's resignation on CIRM's own Web site.
Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times wrote two pieces, one a straight-forward news story and the other something of a reaction piece.
Monya Baker at The Niche, Nature magazine's stem cell blog, wrote that she was “impressed with (Csete's) very practical approach to the unglamorous parts of helping move stem cells into human testing.”
Jim Till put up an item on the blog of the Canadian stem cell consortium. And Peter Jamison of the San Francisco Weekly also posted a piece.
No mainstream media have covered Marie Csete's pending departure as far as we can tell. But it surfaced in a couple places on the Internet that have international audiences, which this blog has as well. The news was also, we understand, the subject of some discussion at a meeting of CIRM grant reviewers in San Francisco the last two days. No information has been posted concerning Csete's resignation on CIRM's own Web site.
Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times wrote two pieces, one a straight-forward news story and the other something of a reaction piece.
Monya Baker at The Niche, Nature magazine's stem cell blog, wrote that she was “impressed with (Csete's) very practical approach to the unglamorous parts of helping move stem cells into human testing.”
Jim Till put up an item on the blog of the Canadian stem cell consortium. And Peter Jamison of the San Francisco Weekly also posted a piece.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
CIRM Rips Hoover-recommended Reforms as Disruptive
The California stem cell agency has fired off a legal memo to the state's good government commission, declaring that its proposed changes in CIRM would impose illegal and “drastic and disruptive” alterations in the stem cell research effort.
The memo from CIRM's outside attorneys came as the Little Hoover Commission today approved its wide-ranging report, which is expected to be released in full tomorrow.
Among other things, the Hoover proposals call on the legislature to reduce the size of the CIRM board, reduce the super-majority quorum requirement, eliminate salaries for the chairman and vice chairman and eliminate the dual executive situation created by Prop. 71.
All of those provisions, in one form or another, hamper the operations of CIRM. Even the salary matter has diverted the board from its primary mission of funding research. Today, nearly five years after CIRM was created, the board is still struggling with an incomplete evaluation process for the chairman and vice chairman. Those positions are filled by a vote of the board.
Nonetheless, James Harrison and Kari Krogseng of Remcho, Johansen and Purcell of San Leandro, wrote on Tuesday (June 23),
Harrison's memo said the Hoover proposals could only be enacted through another ballot measure, a move that a subcommittee of Hoover commissioners clearly opposed earlier this month.
Americans for Cures, the private stem cell lobbying group of CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, also produced a 14-page legal memo that the reached the same conclusion as Harrison.
The memo was written, also on Tuesday, by Richard Martland and Kurt Oneto of the Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor law firm of Sacramento, Ca. The firm has a lobbying contract with CIRM but we presume no state funds were used for the Martland memo.
The document had this interesting tidbit in it:
(Editor's note: The copies of the memos were supplied by the Little Hoover Commission to John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., who relayed them to us. The Merksamer memo contains a confidentiality warning. However, when it was submitted to the Hoover Commission the memo became a public record.)
The memo from CIRM's outside attorneys came as the Little Hoover Commission today approved its wide-ranging report, which is expected to be released in full tomorrow.
Among other things, the Hoover proposals call on the legislature to reduce the size of the CIRM board, reduce the super-majority quorum requirement, eliminate salaries for the chairman and vice chairman and eliminate the dual executive situation created by Prop. 71.
All of those provisions, in one form or another, hamper the operations of CIRM. Even the salary matter has diverted the board from its primary mission of funding research. Today, nearly five years after CIRM was created, the board is still struggling with an incomplete evaluation process for the chairman and vice chairman. Those positions are filled by a vote of the board.
Nonetheless, James Harrison and Kari Krogseng of Remcho, Johansen and Purcell of San Leandro, wrote on Tuesday (June 23),
“The Little Hoover Commission’s proposals would effect drastic and disruptive changes to CIRM’s governance and operating systems. Such changes run counter to the voters’ intent, and do not further Proposition 71’s purposes.”The 10-page legal memo hung most of its arguments on a provision in Prop. 71 that states that it can only be amended by the legislature if the changes “enhance the ability of the institute to further the purposes of the grant and loan programs.”
Harrison's memo said the Hoover proposals could only be enacted through another ballot measure, a move that a subcommittee of Hoover commissioners clearly opposed earlier this month.
Americans for Cures, the private stem cell lobbying group of CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, also produced a 14-page legal memo that the reached the same conclusion as Harrison.
The memo was written, also on Tuesday, by Richard Martland and Kurt Oneto of the Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor law firm of Sacramento, Ca. The firm has a lobbying contract with CIRM but we presume no state funds were used for the Martland memo.
The document had this interesting tidbit in it:
“The (Hoover Commission) proposal would effectively permit the ICOC (the CIRM board) decision-making process to be captured by a small minority and would deprive ICOC decisions of the benefit of input from the broad spectrum of views currently represented on the committee. It is inconceivable that voters who approved an organization with 29 members would have imagined that 5 members would ultimately be able to make binding decisions on its behalf.”However, that is exactly what happens. We pointed out a good example last week in which only six of the board members were permitted to vote. All the rest in attendance were excluded not only from voting but from participating in the debate.
(Editor's note: The copies of the memos were supplied by the Little Hoover Commission to John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., who relayed them to us. The Merksamer memo contains a confidentiality warning. However, when it was submitted to the Hoover Commission the memo became a public record.)
Scientist Says Csete Resignation is Regrettable
Here is another comment from a California scientist on the resignation of Marie Csete from CIRM. The researcher must remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
“It is indeed regrettable that Dr. Csete has chosen to leave CIRM. Given CIRM's mandate to move stem cells into the clinic, a Chief Scientific Officer with Dr. Csete's clinical and research credentials, especially as they apply to human transplantation, is absolutely essential. It is perhaps telling that of the over 300 grants issued by CIRM only about 10% (by my accounting) are focused on actual preclinical or clinical studies. Although CIRM was established as a way to bolster the perceived inadequacies of the NIH, that rationale has now, in now small measure, evaporated. The advantage that CIRM has, compared to the NIH, is that they are in a position to fund, almost exclusively if they wish, preclinical studies, especially high risk studies that would not get funded by the NIH. It is these studies that will help determine whether or not a given idea about how stem cells might be used clinically actually has a chance of working. If CIRM and the ICOC are continuing to focus on basic biology studies, at the expense of preclinical work, even as it might apply to the upcoming Disease Team Grants, then I, were I in Dr. Csete's shoes, would also leave.”
“It is indeed regrettable that Dr. Csete has chosen to leave CIRM. Given CIRM's mandate to move stem cells into the clinic, a Chief Scientific Officer with Dr. Csete's clinical and research credentials, especially as they apply to human transplantation, is absolutely essential. It is perhaps telling that of the over 300 grants issued by CIRM only about 10% (by my accounting) are focused on actual preclinical or clinical studies. Although CIRM was established as a way to bolster the perceived inadequacies of the NIH, that rationale has now, in now small measure, evaporated. The advantage that CIRM has, compared to the NIH, is that they are in a position to fund, almost exclusively if they wish, preclinical studies, especially high risk studies that would not get funded by the NIH. It is these studies that will help determine whether or not a given idea about how stem cells might be used clinically actually has a chance of working. If CIRM and the ICOC are continuing to focus on basic biology studies, at the expense of preclinical work, even as it might apply to the upcoming Disease Team Grants, then I, were I in Dr. Csete's shoes, would also leave.”
Csete Resignation: Researcher Calls it Tragic
Here is a comment on Marie Csete's resignation from a well-respected researcher who must remain anonymous. Comments from other readers are welcome. They can be posted anonymously, if desired, via the “comment” function at the end of this item. Or they can be sent to me for posting at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
“CIRM's inability to retain Dr. Csete is tragic. Her scientific stature worldwide and her knowledge and relationships with the FDA made her the most valuable member of CIRM's scientific team. She was the one who scientific and medical leaders respected and trusted. With Dr. Csete's departure, CIRM immediately loses much of its credibility as an organization that puts good science, not politics, first. CIRM needs to pull itself together, decide that high ethical standards and strong scientific leadership are its highest priories, and clean house quickly.
“They need to bring in a strong COO and respected scientific leadership. Otherwise, Bob Klein's legacy, his remarkable vision, will be crushed under the weight of foolish egotism and political favoritism. Taking a page from American politics, CIRM needs an Obama, not a Bush, as its scientific leader. Dr. Csete provided the no-drama Obama leadership that CIRM so desperately needs. She should have been promoted, not allowed to resign.”
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Csete Quits CIRM on Eve of Huge Grant Round
In an unsettling move, Marie Csete has resigned as the chief scientific officer for the $3 billion California stem cell agency, only 15 months after she joined CIRM in the $310,000-a-year post.Csete's departure comes as the agency is about to embark on its most ambitious and largest round of research grants – a complex, $210 million “disease team” effort aimed at pushing research towards clinical trials.
CIRM Board Chairman Robert Klein has described the round as critical for CIRM, both in terms of producing results and in generating support for the private sale of state bonds to support the agency.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog, this afternoon disclosed Csete's departure on the blog on his organization's Web site.
In an email to members of the CIRM board, Csete(photo at left) said,
“I have decided to resign my position at CIRM as of August 1, 2009. I am sorry and disappointed that I was unable to say goodbye to you at the last ICOC (the CIRM board) meeting. I look forward to seeing your many successes! “In response to a query, Simpson said,
"This is a sad day for CIRM. Dr Marie Csete, like Dr. Arlene Chiu before her, is the backbone of CIRM's scientific endeavors. It's particularly troubling that two top women scientists have left the agency after relatively short tenures. It raises serious questions about the agency's management under Chairman Bob Klein and President Alan Trounson. They owe the board a detailed explanation."No successor appears to be in the wings. In a message to board members on behalf of Klein, Melissa King, executive director of the board, said,
“We will be working on a succession plan for Marie. Bob would like to talk to each of you to get your thoughts, and he and I will work on that in the coming days.”On the surface, Klein's plan to call board members would appear to be a violation of the ban on serial meetings of public bodies such as the CIRM board. We suspect it will be justified on the basis that it deals with personnel matters, although it also overlaps into policy areas.
Csete's possible departure had been rumored for at least a month or more. She gave no reason for her resignation in the copies of the email messages that we have received. According to those we talked to, she was reportedly dissatisfied with CIRM's management and possibly with the reception afforded her scientific advice.
Simpson said the board should demand an explanation of her departure from Klein and Trounson.
Filling a high level post such as Csete's always takes a fair amount of time, but CIRM has been very slow in the past in filling top level positions, including that of president.
Prior to joining CIRM, Csete was John E. Steinhaus Professor of Anesthesiology at Emory University, with adjunct appointment in cell biology, and program faculty appointments in biochemistry, cell and developmental biology, neurosciences and the Emory/Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering Program. She was additionally the director of liver transplant anesthesiology at the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta and director of the Emory/Georgia Tech Human Embryonic Stem Cell Core, and co-director of the Emory MD/PhD program.
In announcing Csete's appointment in March 2008, Trounson said,
”Her training and experience as both a basic researcher and clinician is critical to our strategy of advancing discoveries into the translational pipeline. In addition, her expertise in the field of transplantation and understanding of immunology issues will be highly relevant to advancing new discoveries in the stem cell field toward therapies and cures. ”The announcement also said,
"'No one knows more about or is more skilled at dealing with the intersecting worlds of real-life clinical transplantation and basic stem cell research than Dr. Csete,' commented David J Stone, MD, Adjunct Professor of Anesthesiology and Neurological Surgery at the University of Virginia School of Medicine."In the item below, you can read CIRM email messages concerning Csete”s departure.
Text of Email on Csete Resignation
Here are copies of CIRM email messages regarding the resignation of Marie Csete.
Subject: Marie Csete
Dear ICOC Members,
Bob wanted you to have these messages (below), from Marie and Alan. We will be working on a succession plan for Marie. Bob would like to talk to each of you to get your thoughts, and he and I will work on that in the coming days.
Best,
Melissa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MESSAGE FROM MARIE:
To ICOC Members:
I have decided to resign my position at CIRM as of August 1, 2009. I am sorry and disappointed that I was unable to say goodbye to you at the last ICOC meeting. I look forward to seeing your many successes!
Best
Marie
MESSAGE FROM ALAN TO CIRM STAFF:
As you have heard from Marie, she plans to leave CIRM at the end of July. In just a little more than a year she has made highly valuable contributions to our science operations coalescing a new set of core grants and organizing a number of workshops that have invigorated our scientific discourse and changed the direction of many of our programs. She has been a highly respected representative of CIRM at countless meetings nationally and internationally. I think you all would agree that our mission has been advanced by her efforts. Please join me in thanking her and wishing her luck going forward.
Alan
Subject: Marie Csete
Dear ICOC Members,
Bob wanted you to have these messages (below), from Marie and Alan. We will be working on a succession plan for Marie. Bob would like to talk to each of you to get your thoughts, and he and I will work on that in the coming days.
Best,
Melissa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MESSAGE FROM MARIE:
To ICOC Members:
I have decided to resign my position at CIRM as of August 1, 2009. I am sorry and disappointed that I was unable to say goodbye to you at the last ICOC meeting. I look forward to seeing your many successes!
Best
Marie
MESSAGE FROM ALAN TO CIRM STAFF:
As you have heard from Marie, she plans to leave CIRM at the end of July. In just a little more than a year she has made highly valuable contributions to our science operations coalescing a new set of core grants and organizing a number of workshops that have invigorated our scientific discourse and changed the direction of many of our programs. She has been a highly respected representative of CIRM at countless meetings nationally and internationally. I think you all would agree that our mission has been advanced by her efforts. Please join me in thanking her and wishing her luck going forward.
Alan
Stem Cell Board Tackles Troublesome Issues Next Week
The men and women who oversee the $3 billion California stem cell agency will meet next Wednesday to act on some of “festering” issues that triggered a robust exchange at last week's board meeting.
The discussion highlighted a host of problems, ranging from whether the agency should staff up to its 50 person legal limit to micromanagement built in by Prop. 71, the ballot measure that created CIRM.
One key problem is the super-majority quorum requirement embedded in state law that now makes it difficult for the CIRM board to act legally.
The quorum matter, however, can only be changed by legislation, which is all but impossible to pass because of language in Prop. 71.
Next week, CIRM board is only scheduled to address complaints that the board is not adequately supported.
During the San Diego session, several board members indicated they would prefer to deal with the matter in private.
The upcoming meeting, available at teleconference locations statewide, includes an executive session that will allow the board to speak candidly about specific individuals and also quite probably prevent the public from understanding the full nature of all the issues.
We understand the desire to take the matter behind closed doors.
Some of the comments last week did not reflect well on CIRM's leadership. We also understand that because of state open meeting laws the CIRM board operates under restrictions that make it difficult to do business.
Consider, for example, the legal ban on serial meetings. Those could be private telephone calls or emails between board members that could result in a majority of board members having conferred on an issue.
The Institute for Local Government explains,
“The communication does not need to be in person and can occur through a third party. For example, sending or forwarding e-mail can be sufficient to create a serial meeting, as can a staff member’s polling governing body members in a way that reveals the members’ positions to one another.”Such restrictions are hard for folks from the private and non-profit sector to understand. They are certainly a departure from the way business is handled in most non-governmental enterprises. And the restrictions on serial meetings are but just one example of the requirements of the state's open meeting law.
That said, some of the problems that were aired last week would have long been solved long ago if they had been dealt with in a forthright and public manner. Going behind closed doors creates a cover of secrecy and non-accountability.
The result in this case was the frustration and outpouring that emerged last week.
The issues raised in San Diego are certainly public business. They go to the effectiveness of the stem cell agency and how well its board exercises its responsibilities.
A skilled attorney can, nonetheless, find a way to provide a personnel justification to exclude the public. But it probably would do little good to upbraid individuals either in a public or private board meeting.
Given the festering nature of the problems, it makes more sense to tackle them once again in public. Doing so enhances the board's credibility and helps to maintain public confidence in CIRM operations.
The public can take part in the discussions at teleconference locations in San Francisco (2), Los Angeles (2), Sacramento, Elk Grove, La Jolla, Healdsburg, Irvine and Stanford. See the agenda for specific addresses.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Hoover Commission Moving Forward This Week on CIRM Changes
California's Little Hoover Commission meets this week to consider recommendations for changes in the operations of the California stem cell agency, perhaps even adopting final findings.
The committee will go over the draft report on CIRM Wednesday afternoon in Sacramento. Stuart Drown, executive director of the good government agency, said the commission could adopt the recommendations or ask the staff to make revisions.
If the revisions are minor, he said the staff could bring them back for a final vote on Thursday afternoon. If changes are major, the report will be brought back to the commission in August.
The commission has withheld copies of the recommendations, but it did discuss them publicly earlier this month at a subcommittee hearing. Under the preliminary recommendations, the size of the CIRM board would be reduced from 29 to 15, the dual CEO situation would be eliminated, salaries for the chairman and vice chairman would be halted and the super-majority quorums for board action would vanish.
One longtime CIRM supporter has described the recommendations as “ludicrous” and a “disaster.”
The Hoover Commission has no power to impose changes. They would have to be enacted by the legislature or made voluntarily, if possible, by CIRM. Many of the recommendations, if not most, could take place without changes in state law.
The committee will go over the draft report on CIRM Wednesday afternoon in Sacramento. Stuart Drown, executive director of the good government agency, said the commission could adopt the recommendations or ask the staff to make revisions.
If the revisions are minor, he said the staff could bring them back for a final vote on Thursday afternoon. If changes are major, the report will be brought back to the commission in August.
The commission has withheld copies of the recommendations, but it did discuss them publicly earlier this month at a subcommittee hearing. Under the preliminary recommendations, the size of the CIRM board would be reduced from 29 to 15, the dual CEO situation would be eliminated, salaries for the chairman and vice chairman would be halted and the super-majority quorums for board action would vanish.
One longtime CIRM supporter has described the recommendations as “ludicrous” and a “disaster.”
The Hoover Commission has no power to impose changes. They would have to be enacted by the legislature or made voluntarily, if possible, by CIRM. Many of the recommendations, if not most, could take place without changes in state law.
CIRM PR Puffs Fanciful Budget Number
Here is a link to the press release that the California stem cell agency issued concerning its board meeting last week. In it, the agency persists in trying to paint the budget as a 3 percent decrease, rather than a 25 percent increase.
CIRM Chairman Robert Klein at one point last week described comments on the budget by board member Jeff Sheehy as a “gross distortion.” In reality, the distortion is coming from Klein and CIRM. As we have noted, Klein's use of fanciful figures raises questions about the reliability of other financial information that he presents to the board.
You can read more about the budget via these links: 25 percent increase, festering issues, budget puffery, budget poorly documented.
CIRM Chairman Robert Klein at one point last week described comments on the budget by board member Jeff Sheehy as a “gross distortion.” In reality, the distortion is coming from Klein and CIRM. As we have noted, Klein's use of fanciful figures raises questions about the reliability of other financial information that he presents to the board.
You can read more about the budget via these links: 25 percent increase, festering issues, budget puffery, budget poorly documented.
Link to Bee Editorial Repaired
The “time is ripe” item below (June 21) had a bad link to The Bee editorial. The link has been fixed, and you can find the editorial here.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Bee Says Time is Ripe for Klein to Leave
The Sacramento Bee Saturday said Bob Klein's departure as chairman of the California stem cell agency is “long overdue.”
Writing in an editorial, The Bee said Klein 's tenure “has not been in the best interest of either taxpayers or the stem cell agency.” Klein announced earlier this month he would not seek re-election as chairman at the end of his term in 2010.
The Bee is the only daily newspaper in the state Capitol and is widely read by lawmakers and policy makers. It has long been critical of Klein. The editorial also appeared in the Fresno Bee, which is owned by the parent company of both papers, and may well appear elsewhere in the McClatchy newspaper chain. (Fresno is Klein's home town.)
The Bee said,
The editorial generated some reader commentary, including a posting from journalism professor Michael Fitzgerald that said,
Writing in an editorial, The Bee said Klein 's tenure “has not been in the best interest of either taxpayers or the stem cell agency.” Klein announced earlier this month he would not seek re-election as chairman at the end of his term in 2010.
The Bee is the only daily newspaper in the state Capitol and is widely read by lawmakers and policy makers. It has long been critical of Klein. The editorial also appeared in the Fresno Bee, which is owned by the parent company of both papers, and may well appear elsewhere in the McClatchy newspaper chain. (Fresno is Klein's home town.)
The Bee said,
“Chairing a 29-member board that is far too large and rife with conflicts of interest, Klein has operated the institute in a smothering manner, with little regard to transparency or lines of authority.The Bee also declared that CIRM should closely examine its internal expenditures, citing coverage of its budget by the California Stem Cell Report.
“Since 2005, Klein has run off talented scientists, such as former CIRM President Zach Hall. He has helped direct millions of dollars to contracts for law firms and public relations consultants – money that could have gone to science.
“Whenever any lawmaker or outside group scrutinizes his decisions or expenditures, Klein cranks up his political attack machine. While serving as a public official, Klein has led or has been affiliated with at least two nonprofit groups that have gone after legislators who sought to reform CIRM.”
The editorial generated some reader commentary, including a posting from journalism professor Michael Fitzgerald that said,
“Perhaps Mr. Klein has suffered from hubris, but give him some credit. There would not be a stem cell institute if it wasn't for his efforts.”Most of the other comments were less generous.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Festering Issues Surface at Contentious Stem Cell Meeting
SAN DIEGO – A bit of a rumpus broke out Thursday at the board meeting of the California stem cell agency. Nominally, the dispute was about hiring an additional staffer to help support the 29 persons who serve on the board that oversees the $3 billion enterprise.
But the heated discussion raised a host of issues, some of which have been festering behind closed doors for years. They included staff support for the 10 patient advocates on the 29-member board, the two-tier board structure, conflicts of interest, super-quorum requirements, ill-conceived legal limits on staff size, CIRM hiring plans, micromanagement and the agency's budget for the coming year.
“Festering” was a word used more than once by board members. It was connected to concerns of patient advocates about the lack of CIRM staff support for their CIRM-connected responsibilities. The discussion also highlighted the fact that other board members can designate alternates to attend meetings, but the patient advocate members cannot.
Those who are permitted to use alternates are executives at research institutions, universities or businesses. They also can use their own staffs to assist with their CIRM responsibilities. But some of the patient advocate members do not have jobs that allow them to do that.
One patient advocate director, Marcy Feit, CEO of ValleyCare Health Systems of Pleasanton, Ca., pointed out that patient advocates must attend more CIRM meetings -- of which there are many -- than other directors because that is the only way that CIRM, in many cases, can get its business done. She described the workload as “incredible.”
The meeting attendance problem arises because of the board's super-majority quorum requirements, which are embedded by Prop. 71 in state law. Conflicts of interests also regularly disqualify many board members from being counted as part of a quorum, voting and even participating in debates. One example occurred at the Wednesday meeting of the board, when only six board members could vote on $41 million in funding for training grants. All the rest in attendance were barred from the discussion.
Why do the conflicts of interest exist? Because Prop. 71 required the appointment to the board of the very persons whose institutions and enterprises benefit from CIRM largess. And Prop. 71 is all but impossible to change, also because of language the ballot measure wrote into the law.
Patient advocate director Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager at UC San Francisco, triggered Thursday's contentious discussion when he said he would not vote for the proposed budget unless another person was added to the support staff for the board. Currently, virtually all of the support goes through a single person, Melissa King, executive director of the board.
While Sheehy and other patient advocates had high praise for King, they said CIRM staff often was not responsive to their concerns. They said “significant difficulties” have arisen when they have tried to get information from staff.
Patient advocate director Jonathan Shestack, a Hollywood film producer, said that the problems have been festering “since the five-month mark” in CIRM's life. Shestack said,
Patient advocate director David Serrano Sewell, a deputy city attorney for San Francisco, resisted a suggestion from one board member that Thursday's discussion take place in private instead of at a public meeting. He said that efforts have been made in the past to resolve the problem both cordially and in private. But he said they have failed.
Some directors objected to Sheehy's attempt to add help for the board. They said it amounted to micromanagement and would be “demotivating” for top CIRM management. Sheehy flared at comments by Ed Penhoet, former co-founder of Chiron, that singling out a specific individual to be added to staff constituted micromanagement. Sheehy said the Penhoet's comments were “condescending,” something that Penhoet said later that he did not intend.
Board Chairman Robert Klein said the concerns of the patient were legitimate. He said,
Director Michael Friedman, CEO of the City of Hope in Los Angeles, noted that CIRM has not reached its legal cap of 50 employees, suggesting it could be fully staffed to help solve some of the issues. Director Ted Love, president of Nuvelo of San Carlos, Ca., asked,
CIRM President Alan Trounson indicated that staffing was a bit of a juggling act. He said more persons would be needed in the science office as CIRM gives out more money and adds more complex research to its oversight responsiblities.
At one point, Klein, who says he wrote Prop. 71, said,
Klein bridled at the comment, which he called a “gross distortion.” He said,
Following Thursday's session, Penhoet said,
But the heated discussion raised a host of issues, some of which have been festering behind closed doors for years. They included staff support for the 10 patient advocates on the 29-member board, the two-tier board structure, conflicts of interest, super-quorum requirements, ill-conceived legal limits on staff size, CIRM hiring plans, micromanagement and the agency's budget for the coming year.
“Festering” was a word used more than once by board members. It was connected to concerns of patient advocates about the lack of CIRM staff support for their CIRM-connected responsibilities. The discussion also highlighted the fact that other board members can designate alternates to attend meetings, but the patient advocate members cannot.
Those who are permitted to use alternates are executives at research institutions, universities or businesses. They also can use their own staffs to assist with their CIRM responsibilities. But some of the patient advocate members do not have jobs that allow them to do that.
One patient advocate director, Marcy Feit, CEO of ValleyCare Health Systems of Pleasanton, Ca., pointed out that patient advocates must attend more CIRM meetings -- of which there are many -- than other directors because that is the only way that CIRM, in many cases, can get its business done. She described the workload as “incredible.”
The meeting attendance problem arises because of the board's super-majority quorum requirements, which are embedded by Prop. 71 in state law. Conflicts of interests also regularly disqualify many board members from being counted as part of a quorum, voting and even participating in debates. One example occurred at the Wednesday meeting of the board, when only six board members could vote on $41 million in funding for training grants. All the rest in attendance were barred from the discussion.
Why do the conflicts of interest exist? Because Prop. 71 required the appointment to the board of the very persons whose institutions and enterprises benefit from CIRM largess. And Prop. 71 is all but impossible to change, also because of language the ballot measure wrote into the law.
Patient advocate director Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager at UC San Francisco, triggered Thursday's contentious discussion when he said he would not vote for the proposed budget unless another person was added to the support staff for the board. Currently, virtually all of the support goes through a single person, Melissa King, executive director of the board.
While Sheehy and other patient advocates had high praise for King, they said CIRM staff often was not responsive to their concerns. They said “significant difficulties” have arisen when they have tried to get information from staff.
Patient advocate director Jonathan Shestack, a Hollywood film producer, said that the problems have been festering “since the five-month mark” in CIRM's life. Shestack said,
“The truth is for many patient advocates they have other jobs that do not support the work here.”He added that “I for one gave up at a certain point” trying to get the information and support that he needed. He said board members cannot go easily to staff to find explanations about complex bond financing or scientific issues.
Patient advocate director David Serrano Sewell, a deputy city attorney for San Francisco, resisted a suggestion from one board member that Thursday's discussion take place in private instead of at a public meeting. He said that efforts have been made in the past to resolve the problem both cordially and in private. But he said they have failed.
Some directors objected to Sheehy's attempt to add help for the board. They said it amounted to micromanagement and would be “demotivating” for top CIRM management. Sheehy flared at comments by Ed Penhoet, former co-founder of Chiron, that singling out a specific individual to be added to staff constituted micromanagement. Sheehy said the Penhoet's comments were “condescending,” something that Penhoet said later that he did not intend.
Board Chairman Robert Klein said the concerns of the patient were legitimate. He said,
“The organization is under stress.”Sheehy said, however, that Klein has failed to address the concerns for much too long.
Director Michael Friedman, CEO of the City of Hope in Los Angeles, noted that CIRM has not reached its legal cap of 50 employees, suggesting it could be fully staffed to help solve some of the issues. Director Ted Love, president of Nuvelo of San Carlos, Ca., asked,
"Are we trying to do much too inexpensively?”He said the staff should not be subjected to “extraordinary unbearable long-term situations.”
CIRM President Alan Trounson indicated that staffing was a bit of a juggling act. He said more persons would be needed in the science office as CIRM gives out more money and adds more complex research to its oversight responsiblities.
At one point, Klein, who says he wrote Prop. 71, said,
“I made the mistake perhaps of setting a 50 person cap.”Sheehy was upset about the inadequate budget documents presented to the directors' Finance Subcommittee last week. And he said the budget material presented this week also was not up to snuff. He said basic year-to-year financial comparisons remained missing along with “global” figures that would show complete totals for spending in various categories, such as legal and communications. Sheehy said he had asked for budget figures by function, which were not provided. And he declared that the proposed budget amounted to a “dereliction of our fiscal duty.”
Klein bridled at the comment, which he called a “gross distortion.” He said,
“I understand your frustrations but we have a mission. Let's not destroy our mission.”Ultimately the budget was adopted on a 19-4 vote with the requirement that a 5 percent contingency fund be included. Added also was a requirement that Klein and Trounson come up with a plan within two weeks to solve the board support problem. The board will convene in a teleconference meeting to consider the proposal.
Following Thursday's session, Penhoet said,
“The board deserves more support if they think they need it.”But Sheehy said, also after the meeting, he had little faith that the issue would be properly resolved, given past performance.
Klein's Misguided Budget Puffery
SAN DIEGO – Robert Klein, chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, is a man who should know his numbers.
He is a real estate investment banker and sometimes even seems to revel in the arcane world of state bond financing.
But he persisted at this week's CIRM board meeting here, along with CIRM president Alan Trounson, in trying to characterize CIRM's budget for the coming fiscal year as a 3 percent decrease.
The reality is that it is a 25 increase over what is being spent by CIRM this year.
The peg on which Klein hangs his dubious, PR spin is that the budget is 3 percent less than the unrealistic spending plan proposed 12 months ago. But Klein's posturing defies well-accepted accounting and budget standards for describing year-to-year budget changes.
It is difficult to understand why Klein is trying characterize CIRM's spending plan as something it isn't. One can dispute some of the expenditures, but the total amount the agency is spending on operations is not excessive. Indeed, it may even be too little, as suggested by some CIRM directors.
Klein's misguided puffery does not serve him or CIRM well. It only generates skepticism about other CIRM actions and creates suspicion that the agency may be engaged in activities that cannot stand the light of day.
He is a real estate investment banker and sometimes even seems to revel in the arcane world of state bond financing.
But he persisted at this week's CIRM board meeting here, along with CIRM president Alan Trounson, in trying to characterize CIRM's budget for the coming fiscal year as a 3 percent decrease.
The reality is that it is a 25 increase over what is being spent by CIRM this year.
The peg on which Klein hangs his dubious, PR spin is that the budget is 3 percent less than the unrealistic spending plan proposed 12 months ago. But Klein's posturing defies well-accepted accounting and budget standards for describing year-to-year budget changes.
It is difficult to understand why Klein is trying characterize CIRM's spending plan as something it isn't. One can dispute some of the expenditures, but the total amount the agency is spending on operations is not excessive. Indeed, it may even be too little, as suggested by some CIRM directors.
Klein's misguided puffery does not serve him or CIRM well. It only generates skepticism about other CIRM actions and creates suspicion that the agency may be engaged in activities that cannot stand the light of day.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Mouse Breeding Plan Receives $3.8 Million from CIRM
SAN DIEGO – The California stem cell agency this morning approved a $3.8 million grant to breed special mice in the Sacramento area to be used by stem cell researchers.
The vote on the grant was 19-1.
Jackson Laboratory, the grant applicant, said in its application,
Marie Csete, chief scientific officer for CIRM, made a case for approval of the grant, saying it would aid researchers. Board member Ed Penhoet, a co-founder of Chiron, said the grant was a “good investment.”
The mouse grant was the only one approved out of the “tier two” applications for early translational grants.
The vote on the grant was 19-1.
Jackson Laboratory, the grant applicant, said in its application,
“The lack of mouse models of disease in which the immune system has been suppressed significantly hinders the efforts of investigators in California and elsewhere to develop new HuSC-based disease therapies. An additional impediment is the lack of efficient access to the quantities of mice required for such studies, and to mice whose health, reproducibility, and research effectiveness has been assured. In the proposed project at (Jackson), we will develop multiple state-of-the-art, immune-deficient mouse models of human disease that can be used for testing HuSC therapies, and we will establish the production processes for making these models readily available to California researchers.”Reviewers earlier recommended approval of the grant if funds were available. But they were sharply split in their scores they assigned to the grant.
Marie Csete, chief scientific officer for CIRM, made a case for approval of the grant, saying it would aid researchers. Board member Ed Penhoet, a co-founder of Chiron, said the grant was a “good investment.”
The mouse grant was the only one approved out of the “tier two” applications for early translational grants.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
CIRM Pulls Three Grants from Researchers
SAN DIEGO -- The California stem cell agency tonight said it has terminated three research grants for lack of progress, but declined to release immediately the names of the researchers or the institutions involved.
James Harrison, outside counsel to the CIRM board, acknowledged that the names were public record but said the agency wanted time to work out a well-considered way of releasing the information.
Marie Csete, CIRM's chief scientific officer, disclosed the terminations during a report on the progress of CIRM grants. The information came in response to a question from board member Ricardo Azziz, chairman of the department of obstetrics at Cedars-Sinai Hospital n Los Angeles.
She said efforts to monitor the progress of grants were generally well-received by investigators. She said that they discovered several grants that would have been abandoned without the progress monitoring effort by her staff.
Board member Floyd Bloom, executive director of science communication at the Scripps Institute, said the monitoring effort is a “wonderful thing.” He said CIRM's “nuturing relations with PIs is absolutely unique in the grant world.”
James Harrison, outside counsel to the CIRM board, acknowledged that the names were public record but said the agency wanted time to work out a well-considered way of releasing the information.
Marie Csete, CIRM's chief scientific officer, disclosed the terminations during a report on the progress of CIRM grants. The information came in response to a question from board member Ricardo Azziz, chairman of the department of obstetrics at Cedars-Sinai Hospital n Los Angeles.
She said efforts to monitor the progress of grants were generally well-received by investigators. She said that they discovered several grants that would have been abandoned without the progress monitoring effort by her staff.
Board member Floyd Bloom, executive director of science communication at the Scripps Institute, said the monitoring effort is a “wonderful thing.” He said CIRM's “nuturing relations with PIs is absolutely unique in the grant world.”
CIRM Training Programs Receive a $41 Million Boost
SAN DIEGO -- The board of California stem cell agency tonight pumped $41 million into 15 California institutions to support training programs for stem cell researchers.
The grants were approved last January, but the board deferred funding because of CIRM's financial woes. Those problems have now been eased for the next 18 months. However, the funding decision will add $9 million to CIRM grant outflows for the coming fiscal year.
The 29-member board voted 6-0 to go ahead with funding. Only six of the members in attendance were able to vote or even participate in discussion because of conflicts of interest.
The CIRM staff made a strong case for funding the program beginning July 1. The CIRM board was told that the 221 trainees already in training programs have accounted for two-thirds of the published research papers linked to CIRM funding.
Art Torres, vice chair of the CIRM board and a former state legislator, said that letters would be sent to all 120 state lawmakers, pointing out the benefit of the training programs in their districts. The funding comes as state legislators are trying to make up a mammoth $24 billion state budget deficit.
The training program was the first grant round approved by CIRM in 2005. The names of the insitutions can be found here.
The grants were approved last January, but the board deferred funding because of CIRM's financial woes. Those problems have now been eased for the next 18 months. However, the funding decision will add $9 million to CIRM grant outflows for the coming fiscal year.
The 29-member board voted 6-0 to go ahead with funding. Only six of the members in attendance were able to vote or even participate in discussion because of conflicts of interest.
The CIRM staff made a strong case for funding the program beginning July 1. The CIRM board was told that the 221 trainees already in training programs have accounted for two-thirds of the published research papers linked to CIRM funding.
Art Torres, vice chair of the CIRM board and a former state legislator, said that letters would be sent to all 120 state lawmakers, pointing out the benefit of the training programs in their districts. The funding comes as state legislators are trying to make up a mammoth $24 billion state budget deficit.
The training program was the first grant round approved by CIRM in 2005. The names of the insitutions can be found here.
New CIRM Figures Show 25 Percent Budget Increase
SAN DIEGO – The California stem cell agency is proposing a nearly $13 million budget for the next fiscal year, a 25 percent increase over its estimated spending this year.
The largest component of the budget goes for salaries and benefits, which are projected at $7.4 million for 47 employees. That is $1.9 million more than this year's estimated figure of $5.5 million. Personnel costs next year amount to an average of roughly $150,000 in salaries and benefits for each CIRM employee.
The figures are drawn from budget documents posted yesterday on the CIRM Web site. They contain far more details than the spending plan offered last week. CIRM directors were not entirely pleased and asked for more information before taking up the budget today or tomorrow at their meeting here.
Still missing from the budget information are CIRM staff calculations for the percentage increases and decreases in spending for the next fiscal year compared to estimated spending for the current fiscal year. Any such comparisons in this article are the responsibility of the California Stem Cell Report.
Other than salaries and benefits, the next largest budget category is outside contracts. CIRM did not compile total figures, instead placing them in at least three different categories. Out calculations show that they appear to be close to $3.1 million. It is difficult to make a comparison to the previous year because of changes in the way CIRM calculates the figures.
Travel for the upcoming year, which begins in three weeks, is budgeted at $497,000, which is $209,000 or 73 percent more than this year's estimated $288,000.
The CIRM staff presented a 3-page justification for the travel, which includes oversea trips and lobbying expeditions to Washington, D.C. CIRM said travel by Chairman Robert Klein and others in his office (six employees) to the nation's Capitol is necessary for lobbying purposes. They include building support for federal tax exemptions for the California bonds that finance research grants, which could save $400 million, and lobbying for federal loan guarantees for CIRM's $500 million lending program for the biotech industry. The office of the chairman is allotted $148,000 for travel.
As for international forays by CIRM President Alan Trounson, his office (five employees) is provided $83,00 for travel. The budget material said he is central to CIRM's international agreements and must travel to Washington as well.
The science office (25 employees) accounts for $204,000 in travel, which CIRM said is needed to maintain leadership in stem cell science and to stay abreast of the field.
CIRM signaled it is dumping its troubled Grantium grants management program. It identified grants management as a “risk” and “critical” for CIRM It said that Grantium has not met all of CIRM's needs.
CIRM said the budget contains funds to create a new grant management program, but did not specify the amount. The budget does not appear to contain a straight-forward accounting of all the past costs associated with the Grantium program or the projected cost of the new system. It appears to be something in the neighborhood of $610,000. The amount may be on top of the more than $800,000 allotted in the past for the troubled Grantium program. That figure, however, probably is low.
Possibly linked to the grant management issues are future research grants, although CIRM did not specifically tie them to the problems.
CIRM said,
The largest component of the budget goes for salaries and benefits, which are projected at $7.4 million for 47 employees. That is $1.9 million more than this year's estimated figure of $5.5 million. Personnel costs next year amount to an average of roughly $150,000 in salaries and benefits for each CIRM employee.
The figures are drawn from budget documents posted yesterday on the CIRM Web site. They contain far more details than the spending plan offered last week. CIRM directors were not entirely pleased and asked for more information before taking up the budget today or tomorrow at their meeting here.
Still missing from the budget information are CIRM staff calculations for the percentage increases and decreases in spending for the next fiscal year compared to estimated spending for the current fiscal year. Any such comparisons in this article are the responsibility of the California Stem Cell Report.
Other than salaries and benefits, the next largest budget category is outside contracts. CIRM did not compile total figures, instead placing them in at least three different categories. Out calculations show that they appear to be close to $3.1 million. It is difficult to make a comparison to the previous year because of changes in the way CIRM calculates the figures.
Travel for the upcoming year, which begins in three weeks, is budgeted at $497,000, which is $209,000 or 73 percent more than this year's estimated $288,000.
The CIRM staff presented a 3-page justification for the travel, which includes oversea trips and lobbying expeditions to Washington, D.C. CIRM said travel by Chairman Robert Klein and others in his office (six employees) to the nation's Capitol is necessary for lobbying purposes. They include building support for federal tax exemptions for the California bonds that finance research grants, which could save $400 million, and lobbying for federal loan guarantees for CIRM's $500 million lending program for the biotech industry. The office of the chairman is allotted $148,000 for travel.
As for international forays by CIRM President Alan Trounson, his office (five employees) is provided $83,00 for travel. The budget material said he is central to CIRM's international agreements and must travel to Washington as well.
The science office (25 employees) accounts for $204,000 in travel, which CIRM said is needed to maintain leadership in stem cell science and to stay abreast of the field.
CIRM signaled it is dumping its troubled Grantium grants management program. It identified grants management as a “risk” and “critical” for CIRM It said that Grantium has not met all of CIRM's needs.
CIRM said the budget contains funds to create a new grant management program, but did not specify the amount. The budget does not appear to contain a straight-forward accounting of all the past costs associated with the Grantium program or the projected cost of the new system. It appears to be something in the neighborhood of $610,000. The amount may be on top of the more than $800,000 allotted in the past for the troubled Grantium program. That figure, however, probably is low.
Possibly linked to the grant management issues are future research grants, although CIRM did not specifically tie them to the problems.
CIRM said,
“Many of the more clinical (grant) programs will have complicated milestones and 'go-no-go' decision points, detailed risk and efficacy data and decisions regarding maturity and development with multiple partners. Such evaluation will require new capacity in the science office and the office of the general counsel.”Links to all the budget documents can be found on the board's agenda this week.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
More Info on CIRM's Finances and its Federal Patent Lobbying Position
The California stem cell agency today posted several major background information pieces for its board meeting, including details and justification for its proposed budget and an analysis dealing with its endorsement of industry-backed patent protection legislation.
The documents came as the agency is scheduled to begin a two-day meeting tomorrow in San Diego, which can heard via the Internet(instructions on the agenda).
We have not had a chance to read all the material carefully, but the budget documents go a long way in answering the questions we raised on Friday and presumably the earlier requests for more details from CIRM board members.
The budget material includes more year-to-year comparisons, a commentary explaining some of the assumptions in the budget, a justification for extensive travel and more. All of the items can be found through links on the agenda
In addition, Nancy Koch, one of CIRM's outside attorneys, wrote a three-page analysis of a Federal Trade Commission report last week that dealt with many of the issues involved in the federal patent legislation on biotech therapies.
Koch wrote:
Koch performed a careful analysis of the FTC study, reaction to it and its impact on the CIRM position, including exploration of the FTC report's assumptions and weaknesses.
She wrote that the FTC “analysis sidesteps the financially daunting circumstances faced by smaller companies.”
Koch said,
The documents came as the agency is scheduled to begin a two-day meeting tomorrow in San Diego, which can heard via the Internet(instructions on the agenda).
We have not had a chance to read all the material carefully, but the budget documents go a long way in answering the questions we raised on Friday and presumably the earlier requests for more details from CIRM board members.
The budget material includes more year-to-year comparisons, a commentary explaining some of the assumptions in the budget, a justification for extensive travel and more. All of the items can be found through links on the agenda
In addition, Nancy Koch, one of CIRM's outside attorneys, wrote a three-page analysis of a Federal Trade Commission report last week that dealt with many of the issues involved in the federal patent legislation on biotech therapies.
Koch wrote:
“Lengthy market exclusivity periods (like those proposed by Rep. (Anna) Eshoo in HR 1548), according to the FTC, are not necessary and could actually dampen innovation.”The Eshoo bill has been endorsed by the CIRM board, which is likely to vote again on the measure during its meetings during the next two days.
Koch performed a careful analysis of the FTC study, reaction to it and its impact on the CIRM position, including exploration of the FTC report's assumptions and weaknesses.
She wrote that the FTC “analysis sidesteps the financially daunting circumstances faced by smaller companies.”
Koch said,
“For CIRM, this last point is particularly significant. Even if the FTC's prediction were generally correct, stem cell research and the market for stem cell therapies would seem to fall outside the agency's analysis.”Whether you agree or disagree with Koch's analysis or the budget justification and plans, all are important tools for CIRM directors tomorrow. The information also adds significantly to the understanding of the public and parties interested in CIRM's $3 billion operation.
Webcast of CIRM Board Meeting This Week
Here are instructions for listening to the Web audiocast of the Wednesday and Thursday meetings of the board of the California stem cell agency, according to Melissa King, executive director of the board.
On Wednesday, to access the live event or archive, use this URL:
http://65.197.1.15/att/confcast
Enter conference ID#101434 Then click go.
On Thursday, to access the live event or archive, use this URL:
http://65.197.1.15/att/confcast
Enter conference ID# 101436. Then click go.
On Wednesday, to access the live event or archive, use this URL:
http://65.197.1.15/att/confcast
Enter conference ID#101434 Then click go.
On Thursday, to access the live event or archive, use this URL:
http://65.197.1.15/att/confcast
Enter conference ID# 101436. Then click go.
The $10 Billion Patent Litigation Bill
As the directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency this week reconsider their endorsement of an industry-backed, patent protection bill, they may want to think about some of the issues raised in an article in Monday's Wall Street Journal headlined “Why Technologists Want Fewer Patents.”
The opinion piece was written by L. Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of the Journal, and discusses the current state of patent law and intellectual property.
He wrote,
The three scientists who founded the company, Stem Cells Inc. of Palo Alto, Ca., which holds the patents in the Childrens Hospital case, have never spoken publicly on the issue, and we do not expect to hear from them.
It is unclear whether the Crovitz piece is available to non-subscribers. If you would like a copy, please email djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
The opinion piece was written by L. Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of the Journal, and discusses the current state of patent law and intellectual property.
He wrote,
“The Patent Office now gets some 500 million applications a year, leading to litigation costs of over $10 billion a year to define who has what rights. As Judge Richard Posner has written, patents for ideas create the risk of 'enormous monopoly power (imagine if the first person to think up the auction had been able to patent it).' Studies indicate that aside from the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, the cost of litigation now exceeds the profits companies generate from licensing patents.”Crovitz continued,
“The Supreme Court may decide that more progress would be made with narrower definitions of what is patentable. A book on the U.S. approach to patents, 'Jefferson vs. the Patent Trolls' by Jeffrey Matsuura, makes the key point that 'intellectual property rights were not goals in and of themselves, but were instead a mechanism through which society attempted to facilitate creative collaboration.'"Some of you may recall that zealous stem cell patent protection has blocked research at Childrens Hospital of Orange County. And some have pointed to excessively tight control of IP as a main reason why nearly all biotech companies have been unprofitable for decades.
The three scientists who founded the company, Stem Cells Inc. of Palo Alto, Ca., which holds the patents in the Childrens Hospital case, have never spoken publicly on the issue, and we do not expect to hear from them.
It is unclear whether the Crovitz piece is available to non-subscribers. If you would like a copy, please email djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
More on Klein's 2010 Departure Plans
Plans by Robert Klein, chairman of the California stem cell agency, to step down from the post in 2010 drew coverage Monday from the San Francisco Weekly.
Peter Jamison quoted Don Gibbons, chief spokesman for CIRM, as saying Klein plans to rededicate himself to his real estate investment business.
Gibbons was quoted as saying,
Peter Jamison quoted Don Gibbons, chief spokesman for CIRM, as saying Klein plans to rededicate himself to his real estate investment business.
Gibbons was quoted as saying,
"He can't afford to take a second term. It's a huge financial commitment for him to do this, because he cannot run his business at anywhere near full capacity. He's been saying this internally for a very long time."Jamison wrote,
“Gibbons said Klein may continue to be involved with CIRM in some way after 2010, noting that he would have to be appointed if he were to remain on the agency's governing board.“
Monday, June 15, 2009
CIRM Goes to Washington: Patents, Tornados and Bench Warming
As California stem cell directors this week consider once again their federal lobbying efforts, the Wall Street Journal offers an insight into just what it takes to have an impact in the august halls of Congress.
Can you say $27.6 million?
That's what a coalition of financial services organizations spent during the first quarter to change an accounting rule – albeit an important one – and lobby on other issues. The coalition also pumped $286,000 into the campaign organizations of lawmakers on a key committee.
Compare that to the $240,000 CIRM is spending for a federal lobbyist for 10 months work.
The issue that is coming up this week is CIRM's support for industry-backed legislation dealing with creation of generic biotech therapies. The agency currently has endorsed a measure by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, but has taken no position on a competing measure by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, a far more important and powerful lawmaker.
The generic issue is complex enough on its own. But it apparently is going to be wrapped into the Obama administration's health plan, which Waxman will be carrying in the House. The rationale is that generic biotech therapies will cut costs, thus helping to trim the mammoth price of the health care deal. If the generic therapies are delayed because of industry-sought patent exclusivity, it means higher health care costs, according to supporters of the Waxman approach.
John Carroll of FierceBiotech recently wrote:
CIRM directors are oozing into a significant – for CIRM – federal lobbying role. But it is tiny in the world of Washington. Some on the board are concerned about mission creep and wasting time, money and focus on an effort where CIRM will never be more than a bench-warmer, if that. Directors are dealing with lobbying in what California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein calls an “incremental” fashion. Certainly CIRM can legally lobby Congress and probably should in some cases. But directors have never had a full-blown discussion on when, where and why.
Can you say $27.6 million?
That's what a coalition of financial services organizations spent during the first quarter to change an accounting rule – albeit an important one – and lobby on other issues. The coalition also pumped $286,000 into the campaign organizations of lawmakers on a key committee.
Compare that to the $240,000 CIRM is spending for a federal lobbyist for 10 months work.
The issue that is coming up this week is CIRM's support for industry-backed legislation dealing with creation of generic biotech therapies. The agency currently has endorsed a measure by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, but has taken no position on a competing measure by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, a far more important and powerful lawmaker.
The generic issue is complex enough on its own. But it apparently is going to be wrapped into the Obama administration's health plan, which Waxman will be carrying in the House. The rationale is that generic biotech therapies will cut costs, thus helping to trim the mammoth price of the health care deal. If the generic therapies are delayed because of industry-sought patent exclusivity, it means higher health care costs, according to supporters of the Waxman approach.
John Carroll of FierceBiotech recently wrote:
“Waxman has been pushing a bill that provides a five-year window of market exclusivity for biologics, something the biotech industry views with the kind of alarm a farmer feels when he sees a tornado heading for the barn. But there are a lot of numbers in play on the Hill. A competing bill offers 14 years of exclusivity and the president's budget proposal for 2010 pencils in a seven-year period.“A Wall Street Journal blog this spring said the time may be ripe for a compromise and noted that some Big Pharma companies are warming to the idea of selling the copy-cat drugs themselves. The blog drew 18 comments, some of which indicated a high level of industry insight.
CIRM directors are oozing into a significant – for CIRM – federal lobbying role. But it is tiny in the world of Washington. Some on the board are concerned about mission creep and wasting time, money and focus on an effort where CIRM will never be more than a bench-warmer, if that. Directors are dealing with lobbying in what California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein calls an “incremental” fashion. Certainly CIRM can legally lobby Congress and probably should in some cases. But directors have never had a full-blown discussion on when, where and why.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
CIRM Pulls a Grant, Aggressive Monitoring Reported
In what appears to be a first, the California stem cell agency has pulled at least one grant from one of its researchers, apparently because of a lack of progress.
Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, confirmed the action in response to a query from the California Stem Cell Report.
Gibbons refused to disclose the identity of the researcher or the institution, declaring that more details would be forthcoming in a report to the CIRM board of directors from President Alan Trounson at its meeting in San Diego on Wednesday and Thursday.
We asked CIRM about the withdrawal after we were told by another source that one grant had, in fact, been been pulled and some “push-back” was coming from institutions. At the last CIRM board meeting in April, a report on grant monitoring was on the agenda but was removed with no explanation.
Here are the questions we directed to Gibbons last week.
Gibbons has not responded to an additonal question on June 10 seeking the identity of the researcher and the grant number, both of which are public record.
Marie Csete, chief scientific officer for CIRM, and her staff have been aggressive in checking progress on CIRM grants, we have been told. Some grantees have been surprised and have complained that the NIH does not follow the same practice.
CIRM is to be lauded for monitoring the grants carefully. While strong oversight of grants may be bothersome to some researchers, institutions and perhaps some CIRM directors, it is a healthy practice that should stand CIRM in good stead when it faces its skeptics.
Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, confirmed the action in response to a query from the California Stem Cell Report.
Gibbons refused to disclose the identity of the researcher or the institution, declaring that more details would be forthcoming in a report to the CIRM board of directors from President Alan Trounson at its meeting in San Diego on Wednesday and Thursday.
We asked CIRM about the withdrawal after we were told by another source that one grant had, in fact, been been pulled and some “push-back” was coming from institutions. At the last CIRM board meeting in April, a report on grant monitoring was on the agenda but was removed with no explanation.
Here are the questions we directed to Gibbons last week.
“Can you confirm or deny that a grant has been pulled?Gibbons replied,
“Are institutions pushing back in any form whatsoever?
“Are any of the board members involved in any way whatsoever in reactions to monitoring of grantees' progress?
“What was the reason for removal of the monitoring item from the agenda last month?
“Will it be rescheduled?
“Do you have any other comments on this general subject? “
“Yes, we have pulled at least one grant, but the leadership of the science office uniformly reports they are not getting push back from the institutions. No board members were involved in the process. The last board agenda was jammed so plans were made to include the progress reports in the President’s Report for the upcoming meeting. You can hear the details then.”(The last board meeting ended at 1:24 p.m. on April 29, which is early for most board meetings.)
Gibbons has not responded to an additonal question on June 10 seeking the identity of the researcher and the grant number, both of which are public record.
Marie Csete, chief scientific officer for CIRM, and her staff have been aggressive in checking progress on CIRM grants, we have been told. Some grantees have been surprised and have complained that the NIH does not follow the same practice.
CIRM is to be lauded for monitoring the grants carefully. While strong oversight of grants may be bothersome to some researchers, institutions and perhaps some CIRM directors, it is a healthy practice that should stand CIRM in good stead when it faces its skeptics.
Snippets: Creation of Stem Cell Argonauts, Klein and Biotech Outsourcing
Klein Farewell, Sort Of – Robert Klein's not-so-imminent departure as chairman of the California stem cell agency has received no major media attention. But the San Francisco Business Times picked up the story, citing both this Web site and Consumer Watchdog. You can read the Times piece here. Here is a link to The Pluripotent blog on which Michael Scott wrote, “Get ready my popcorn and nachos, waiting for the scene when Bob Klein dumps CIRM, CIRM gets all cried out, and begs her man back.”
Is State Stem Cell Funding Necessary? – Yes, is the answer from Susan Solomon, CEO of the New York Stem Cell Foundation. She gave the response in a speech Friday. While she did not talk about the effort in California, some have asked whether CIRM is needed, given President Obama's moves on stem cell research. She said the proposed federal hESC guidelines are likely to be more conservative than many had hoped. And she said federal funding for the most advanced human embryonic stem cell research will remain limited. The text of Solomon's speech was carried on the Huffington Post.
Sending California Biotech Jobs to China? – Or is it business-building international collaboration? Ask Tergegen of San Diego about the experience. Or ask the 46 employees the firm laid off this year. Peter Ulrich, founder and head of Targegen, told Helen Kaiao Chang of the San Diego News Network,
The Stem Cell 'Gold Rush' – Legislation aimed at creating a host of latter-day argonauts for the biotech industry has passed the state Senate and is now before the Assembly. The measure – SB 471 – Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, cleared the Senate on a 24-14 vote. The CIRM-backed bill would embed stem cell and biotechnology workforce training in the state's public schools. Mid Valley News quoted Romero as saying,
Is State Stem Cell Funding Necessary? – Yes, is the answer from Susan Solomon, CEO of the New York Stem Cell Foundation. She gave the response in a speech Friday. While she did not talk about the effort in California, some have asked whether CIRM is needed, given President Obama's moves on stem cell research. She said the proposed federal hESC guidelines are likely to be more conservative than many had hoped. And she said federal funding for the most advanced human embryonic stem cell research will remain limited. The text of Solomon's speech was carried on the Huffington Post.
Sending California Biotech Jobs to China? – Or is it business-building international collaboration? Ask Tergegen of San Diego about the experience. Or ask the 46 employees the firm laid off this year. Peter Ulrich, founder and head of Targegen, told Helen Kaiao Chang of the San Diego News Network,
“The trick in biotech is to survive the period of time when you’re not making any money in product sales. Being able to utilize outsourcing to China enables more companies to survive the neo-natal process and grow up to be big companies. Collectively, they will employ a whole lot more people by surviving than not surviving.”Ulrich was quoted in a piece leading up to Biocom's “CalAsia” conference, which began today in San Diego and runs through Tuesday.
The Stem Cell 'Gold Rush' – Legislation aimed at creating a host of latter-day argonauts for the biotech industry has passed the state Senate and is now before the Assembly. The measure – SB 471 – Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, cleared the Senate on a 24-14 vote. The CIRM-backed bill would embed stem cell and biotechnology workforce training in the state's public schools. Mid Valley News quoted Romero as saying,
“California's next Gold Rush will be found in the Petri dishes and laboratories of this great state, but only if we produce the next generation of scientists, technicians and trained professionals capable of translating stem cell research into therapies and cures.”(The vote in the Mid Valley story was incorrectly reported as 21-12, probably because the roll was held open and more votes were added after the initial approval.)
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Stem Cell Research as Economic Development
The New York Times earlier this week wrote about how some regions are courting the biotech industry. The story contained some caveats about the economic impact of biotech research, much less stem cell research.
In a counterpoint to arguments in California that CIRM is a major economic engine, Shaila Dewan wrote,
“...(B)iotech is a relatively tiny industry with a lengthy product-development process, and even in its largest clusters offers only a fraction of the jobs of traditional manufacturing. In the United States, only 43 biotechnology companies employ more than 1,000 people, according to BioAbility, a consulting firm in the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina.
“There is no guarantee that if a blockbuster drug materialized, it would be manufactured and marketed in the same place it was developed and tested.
“Joseph Cortright, an economist who has studied biotechnology clusters, gave the example of a promising anti-leukemia compound developed at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, where Mr. Cortright is based. 'The economic impact in the Portland area is zero because the rights to manufacture and market this drug were owned already by Novartis,' Mr. Cortright said.”
In a counterpoint to arguments in California that CIRM is a major economic engine, Shaila Dewan wrote,
“...(B)iotech is a relatively tiny industry with a lengthy product-development process, and even in its largest clusters offers only a fraction of the jobs of traditional manufacturing. In the United States, only 43 biotechnology companies employ more than 1,000 people, according to BioAbility, a consulting firm in the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina.
“There is no guarantee that if a blockbuster drug materialized, it would be manufactured and marketed in the same place it was developed and tested.
“Joseph Cortright, an economist who has studied biotechnology clusters, gave the example of a promising anti-leukemia compound developed at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, where Mr. Cortright is based. 'The economic impact in the Portland area is zero because the rights to manufacture and market this drug were owned already by Novartis,' Mr. Cortright said.”
Friday, June 12, 2009
$41 Million in Stem Cell Training Grants Look Good for CIRM Funding
The California stem cell agency today posted more information about what its board plans to do at its meeting next Tuesday, including what is close to a staff recommendation that $41 million be pumped into training programs at 15 institutions.
The training grants were approved earlier this year, but funding deferred because of CIRM's financial woes. But now that cash is available, CIRM staff urged the board to “seriously consider the resumption of funding” at the earliest possible date.
The memo supporting the move said that researchers need the trainees to continue support of research projects.
The memo said the previous training program, the first grants funded by CIRM, was well-regarded. The staff said,
Remcho charges CIRM $350 an hour for work by Harrison, which the CIRM memo said “is significantly lower than the market rates for firms with similar expertise.” Work done by others at the firm is charged at lesser rates. If Remcho billed $450,000 at the $350 rate, it would amount to about six months of full-time work.
Also on tap next week is a do-over on motions for CIRM support of industry-backed legislation aimed at protecting biotech patents against development of generic biotech therapies. Now available on the CIRM Web site is a memo that summarizes the latest developments in Congress and the White House.
An updated version of the CIRM conflict of interest code is also available and has been placed on the consent calendar as a non-controversial item. Removed from the agenda are the consolidated IP regulations, which are to be considered at a later date. No reason was given for delaying the item.
Still missing are guidelines for a change in board voting procedures that could enhance the powers of the board chairman and information about the leadership and some of the membership of the directors subcommittee that will evaluate Chairman Bob Klein, the two vice chairs and CIRM President Alan Trounson.
The training grants were approved earlier this year, but funding deferred because of CIRM's financial woes. But now that cash is available, CIRM staff urged the board to “seriously consider the resumption of funding” at the earliest possible date.
The memo supporting the move said that researchers need the trainees to continue support of research projects.
The memo said the previous training program, the first grants funded by CIRM, was well-regarded. The staff said,
“CIRM Scholars (trainees) conducted stem cell research in 219 distinct laboratories and produced 221 publications, many in high impact journals.Also posted was a three-page justification for continuing the longstanding contract with Remcho, Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., as outside counsel to CIRM at $450,000 a year. James Harrison, an attorney with that firm, has been Remcho's visible and unflappable representative on CIRM matters since 2005.
“Upon completing training, individual CIRM Scholars have moved on to faculty positions at top universities, to scientific positions in biotechnology/pharmaceutical companies, or to further training at laboratories of leading stem cell scientists. Many physician CIRM Scholars are now also practicing medicine with a strong knowledge base of stem cell science. Outstanding examples of CIRM Scholar achievements include: research leading to the founding of a biotechnology company and the research leading to a Phase 1 clinical trial.
“In addition to trainee success, the program has served as a focal point for stem cell research at each of the training institutions and produced an attractive stem cell research environment that has contributed to the recruitment of new faculty as well as top trainees. The research conducted by trainees has spanned the spectrum from basic to preclinical research and, importantly, has accelerated research through synergy with other CIRM funded projects.”
Remcho charges CIRM $350 an hour for work by Harrison, which the CIRM memo said “is significantly lower than the market rates for firms with similar expertise.” Work done by others at the firm is charged at lesser rates. If Remcho billed $450,000 at the $350 rate, it would amount to about six months of full-time work.
Also on tap next week is a do-over on motions for CIRM support of industry-backed legislation aimed at protecting biotech patents against development of generic biotech therapies. Now available on the CIRM Web site is a memo that summarizes the latest developments in Congress and the White House.
An updated version of the CIRM conflict of interest code is also available and has been placed on the consent calendar as a non-controversial item. Removed from the agenda are the consolidated IP regulations, which are to be considered at a later date. No reason was given for delaying the item.
Still missing are guidelines for a change in board voting procedures that could enhance the powers of the board chairman and information about the leadership and some of the membership of the directors subcommittee that will evaluate Chairman Bob Klein, the two vice chairs and CIRM President Alan Trounson.
CIRM Spending Plan Poorly Documented, Lacking Key Information
The budget presented this week for the $3 billion California stem cell agency is a sad disappointment.
One would expect more from an enterprise that is now overseeing $761 million in state-funded grants. The budget lacks important details needed for the agency's board of directors to determine whether the agency is being properly run. CIRM directors served notice on Thursday they want more, including such basic information as how the spending plan for the next fiscal year compares to actual expenditures this year.
It is easy to regard budget preparation as mindless number-crunching. But a budget reflects the agency's thinking, priorities and direction. It is a key tool for directors. A spending plan should open a window on management's effectiveness. It identifies problems that remain unresolved. Failure to produce a realistic and well-documented budget raises questions about management's abilities in other areas.
Here are some of the highlights from the slim information that CIRM has given to directors and made public on its Web site.
The two-page spending plan for 2009-10 totals $12.98 million. CIRM staff compared that to a $13.4 million plan advanced 12 months ago, a budget that was clearly not on target. CIRM did not provide a current estimate for what its spending will total in three weeks, which is the end of the current fiscal year. However, the most recent CIRM documents available showed that as of the end of March, CIRM had spent only 50 percent of its budget for this year. Parsimony can account for part of that savings. But the disparity between the budget and actual spending shows that the original proposal was flawed, to put it mildly.
The major expense, as usual, for the coming year is salaries and benefits. They amount to $7.4 million and reflect a much-needed increase in staff from 44.5 positions to 47 positions. The agency is capped by law at 50 employees.
The No. 2 spending category is outside contracts at $2.1 million, although that figure seems to be vastly understated. It does not include $853,000 for information technology, most of which appears to be linked to Grantium, its troubled grant management program. The $2.1 million also does not include $208,000 for outside help from other state agencies.
CIRM directors were told in October 2007 that the “complete cost” of Grantium program would be $757,000. The proposed budget appears to allocate $610,000 for Grantium issues, including a $275,000 contract with Kutir Corp. for “development” of the grant management program. Some of the $610,000 may include funds that were included in the original $757,000, but the CIRM budget did not include that information.
The latest information on Grantium dates back to a March report, which included figures only as of December 2008. CIRM reported that it had a $702,000 contract with Grantium running from April 2008 to April 2011. Payments of $28,112 were listed. The March document also reported $389,750 in IT contracts for this fiscal year, including $200,000 to Kutir. (The CIRM Web site redesign appears to have dropped the link to the March outside contracts report. If you are interested in a copy, please email djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.)
If all this about Grantium sounds confusing, that's because it is. The proposed budget sheds no light on the matter.
The largest component of the $2.1 million contracts figure is $945,000 for legal services. That figure is based on our calculations, since CIRM did not provide a total in the category. No total was also provided for “communications/media” services, which ran, by our calculations, $455,000. As with other components of outside contracts, CIRM made no comparisons to actual spending this year or even last year's proposed budget.
Another $250,000 was allotted for an economic impact analysis, which could be classified as public relations since that is one of its prime functions. That contract was originally scheduled to be let during this fiscal year.
One category that raised questions last year was travel, which would total $497,000 for the coming year. The category, however, is not defined and may not include travel by board members to CIRM board meetings. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., analyzed last year's travel plans, pointing out that they would put CIRM Chairman Robert Klein out of the state on CIRM business for 88 days, CIRM President Alan Trounson 68 days and Chief Science Officer Marie Csete 75 days. Simpson has not yet produced a similar analysis for the latest proposed budget.
The proposed CIRM budget will come before the full board of directors at its meetings next week in San Diego.
One would expect more from an enterprise that is now overseeing $761 million in state-funded grants. The budget lacks important details needed for the agency's board of directors to determine whether the agency is being properly run. CIRM directors served notice on Thursday they want more, including such basic information as how the spending plan for the next fiscal year compares to actual expenditures this year.
It is easy to regard budget preparation as mindless number-crunching. But a budget reflects the agency's thinking, priorities and direction. It is a key tool for directors. A spending plan should open a window on management's effectiveness. It identifies problems that remain unresolved. Failure to produce a realistic and well-documented budget raises questions about management's abilities in other areas.
Here are some of the highlights from the slim information that CIRM has given to directors and made public on its Web site.
The two-page spending plan for 2009-10 totals $12.98 million. CIRM staff compared that to a $13.4 million plan advanced 12 months ago, a budget that was clearly not on target. CIRM did not provide a current estimate for what its spending will total in three weeks, which is the end of the current fiscal year. However, the most recent CIRM documents available showed that as of the end of March, CIRM had spent only 50 percent of its budget for this year. Parsimony can account for part of that savings. But the disparity between the budget and actual spending shows that the original proposal was flawed, to put it mildly.
The major expense, as usual, for the coming year is salaries and benefits. They amount to $7.4 million and reflect a much-needed increase in staff from 44.5 positions to 47 positions. The agency is capped by law at 50 employees.
The No. 2 spending category is outside contracts at $2.1 million, although that figure seems to be vastly understated. It does not include $853,000 for information technology, most of which appears to be linked to Grantium, its troubled grant management program. The $2.1 million also does not include $208,000 for outside help from other state agencies.
CIRM directors were told in October 2007 that the “complete cost” of Grantium program would be $757,000. The proposed budget appears to allocate $610,000 for Grantium issues, including a $275,000 contract with Kutir Corp. for “development” of the grant management program. Some of the $610,000 may include funds that were included in the original $757,000, but the CIRM budget did not include that information.
The latest information on Grantium dates back to a March report, which included figures only as of December 2008. CIRM reported that it had a $702,000 contract with Grantium running from April 2008 to April 2011. Payments of $28,112 were listed. The March document also reported $389,750 in IT contracts for this fiscal year, including $200,000 to Kutir. (The CIRM Web site redesign appears to have dropped the link to the March outside contracts report. If you are interested in a copy, please email djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.)
If all this about Grantium sounds confusing, that's because it is. The proposed budget sheds no light on the matter.
The largest component of the $2.1 million contracts figure is $945,000 for legal services. That figure is based on our calculations, since CIRM did not provide a total in the category. No total was also provided for “communications/media” services, which ran, by our calculations, $455,000. As with other components of outside contracts, CIRM made no comparisons to actual spending this year or even last year's proposed budget.
Another $250,000 was allotted for an economic impact analysis, which could be classified as public relations since that is one of its prime functions. That contract was originally scheduled to be let during this fiscal year.
One category that raised questions last year was travel, which would total $497,000 for the coming year. The category, however, is not defined and may not include travel by board members to CIRM board meetings. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., analyzed last year's travel plans, pointing out that they would put CIRM Chairman Robert Klein out of the state on CIRM business for 88 days, CIRM President Alan Trounson 68 days and Chief Science Officer Marie Csete 75 days. Simpson has not yet produced a similar analysis for the latest proposed budget.
The proposed CIRM budget will come before the full board of directors at its meetings next week in San Diego.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Klein to Leave CIRM Chairmanship in 18 Months
The chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency said today he would step down from his post at the end of his term in December 2010.Robert Klein made the announcement to the Finance Subcommittee of CIRM's board of directors, according to John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca.
Writing on his organization's blog, Simpson said that Klein told the directors that he will have spent eight years working on the stem cell endeavor by the end of his term. Klein was also chairman of the 2004 campaign on behalf of Prop. 71 and often says he wrote the ballot initiative.
No apparent successor is in the wings. The post has very specific criteria written in state law, criteria that many believed fit only Klein at the time he was elected to his post by the CIRM board of directors.
Klein's public disclosure of his plans came only six months after he asked for and began receiving a $150,000 salary for half-time work as chairman. Klein, a real estate investment banker with offices in Palo Alto, Ca., previously declined a salary.
The Finance Subcommittee's official business today involved CIRM's budget and financial condition. Klein told the panel he still plans to make an effort to sell state bonds privately to fund the operations of agency. State bonds are virtually the only source of funding for CIRM.
The CIRM staff presented a $12.98 million operational budget for 2009-10, which is a 3 percent decrease from the budget proposed for this fiscal year. CIRM's budget documents posted on its Web site – only one day before today's meeting – did not make any comparisons to actual spending for the current year. But Simpson reported that this year's expenditures are running about 20 percent below the $13.37 million budget approved 12 months ago.
Simpson said directors asked for more details in the spending plan and a comparison to the current year's actual spending when the budget is presented to the full board next week. We will have more on the budget documents on Friday.
Simpson reported the committee lacked a quorum and could not act on the budget. He also said CIRM President Alan Trounson did not attend the meeting.
Monday, June 08, 2009
CIRM Directors Consider Millions in Grants, Industry-backed Federal Legislation and Agency's Budget,
California stem cell researchers are likely to see millions of more dollars come their way next week at the San Diego meeting of the board of the state's $3 billion stem cell agency.
The grant approvals are likely to receive little notice in the media even though the rest of the state is struggling with a $24 billion budget deficit. Funding for CIRM cannot be touched by state lawmakers who are considering major cuts in programs to assist the poor and elderly.
Up for consideration are grants for training programs and early translational research efforts. Funding decisions on those programs were deferred earlier this year when CIRM faced its own financial crisis because of a lack of bond funding, the agency's source of cash. The tension eased this spring when CIRM received a $500 million infusion in the most recent bond sale.
Good arguments exist for a steady stream of cash for research, which cannot sustain itself on feast-and-famine funding. Good arguments also exist for rational state budgeting that is not crippled by ballot measures that have helped to create the state's current fiscal disaster. Prop. 71, which created CIRM, is only one of many measures that have tied the hands of those who are ultimately responsible for making state budget decisions.
Also on tap for the meeting June 17-18 is consideration of the 2009-2010 CIRM budget, which additionally comes before the Finance Subcommittee this Thursday. No information on its budget has been released to the public by CIRM with the Finance meeting only two business days away.
Perhaps the topic of funding CIRM with money from the biotech industry may surface. Certainly the topic of future funding is on the subcommittee agenda.
Directors are also going to take another whack at federal legislation, backed by the biotech industry, to create patent rights to prevent early development of generic biotech therapies. At one point this spring, the board voted to develop support for key principles behind such legislation. Most recently, it decided, however, to endorse an industry-backed bill. After questions were raised about the legality of the board vote, Chairman Robert Klein decided to ask the board to vote again on the matter this month.
Another agenda item: The touchy subject of leadership of the directors committee that will evaluate the performance of Klein, the two vice chairs and CIRM President Alan Trounson.
In April, Klein resisted a motion by board member Jeff Sheehy that the chairs of the Evaluation Committee be the two directors who developed the evaluation procedure, Sherry Lansing, former head of a Hollywood film studio, and Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine. Other directors were concerned about the composition of the Evaluation Committee, suggesting it provided an appearance of conflicts of interest and “self-dealing.”
Also on the agenda is consideration of new contract with Remcho, Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., which has been the outside counsel for CIRM since day one. The contract has never been put out to bid, based on an oral opinion from the State Department of Justice.
Another matter before the board involves guidelines for when the roll call should be held open on votes, a technique much used in the state Legislature but which also ensures that the chairman can find the votes needed when he needs them. More on that in the item below.
The grant approvals are likely to receive little notice in the media even though the rest of the state is struggling with a $24 billion budget deficit. Funding for CIRM cannot be touched by state lawmakers who are considering major cuts in programs to assist the poor and elderly.
Up for consideration are grants for training programs and early translational research efforts. Funding decisions on those programs were deferred earlier this year when CIRM faced its own financial crisis because of a lack of bond funding, the agency's source of cash. The tension eased this spring when CIRM received a $500 million infusion in the most recent bond sale.
Good arguments exist for a steady stream of cash for research, which cannot sustain itself on feast-and-famine funding. Good arguments also exist for rational state budgeting that is not crippled by ballot measures that have helped to create the state's current fiscal disaster. Prop. 71, which created CIRM, is only one of many measures that have tied the hands of those who are ultimately responsible for making state budget decisions.
Also on tap for the meeting June 17-18 is consideration of the 2009-2010 CIRM budget, which additionally comes before the Finance Subcommittee this Thursday. No information on its budget has been released to the public by CIRM with the Finance meeting only two business days away.
Perhaps the topic of funding CIRM with money from the biotech industry may surface. Certainly the topic of future funding is on the subcommittee agenda.
Directors are also going to take another whack at federal legislation, backed by the biotech industry, to create patent rights to prevent early development of generic biotech therapies. At one point this spring, the board voted to develop support for key principles behind such legislation. Most recently, it decided, however, to endorse an industry-backed bill. After questions were raised about the legality of the board vote, Chairman Robert Klein decided to ask the board to vote again on the matter this month.
Another agenda item: The touchy subject of leadership of the directors committee that will evaluate the performance of Klein, the two vice chairs and CIRM President Alan Trounson.
In April, Klein resisted a motion by board member Jeff Sheehy that the chairs of the Evaluation Committee be the two directors who developed the evaluation procedure, Sherry Lansing, former head of a Hollywood film studio, and Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine. Other directors were concerned about the composition of the Evaluation Committee, suggesting it provided an appearance of conflicts of interest and “self-dealing.”
Also on the agenda is consideration of new contract with Remcho, Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., which has been the outside counsel for CIRM since day one. The contract has never been put out to bid, based on an oral opinion from the State Department of Justice.
Another matter before the board involves guidelines for when the roll call should be held open on votes, a technique much used in the state Legislature but which also ensures that the chairman can find the votes needed when he needs them. More on that in the item below.
Stem Cell Directors Ruffled by Voting Changes
The California Legislature has long had a practice of voting that has kept the wheels of government churning and enhanced the power of already important committee chairman. It is known as “holding the roll open.”The practice made a controversial debut in May at the California stem cell agency, triggering a sharp exchange between Chairman Robert Klein and some directors.
As a result, the procedure and possible guidelines for its use are now on the agenda next week of the board of directors of the California stem cell agency.
Here is how it works in legislative committees, which are always plagued with absenteeism. A bill is presented to the panel and discussed. A vote is taken. If insufficient votes exist to pass, the chairman of the committee can hold the roll call vote open until the committee adjourns, often hours later. That allows absent lawmakers to pop in and vote without having heard any of the discussion. Lawmakers presenting legislation may also ask to hold the roll open until they can drag in their supporters. Of course, the chairman can close the roll and thus kill a bill.
Because of absenteeism, CIRM has been plagued with an inability to reach the super-majority quorum requirements mandated by Prop. 71. Some of the pressures have eased since limited teleconference participation has been permitted for some members for CIRM board meetings.
Holding roll call votes open would help grease CIRM's wheels, but some directors were not happy with the introduction of the procedure at the May 12 teleconference board meeting. The session involved support of industry-backed federal legislation having to do with patent protection of biotech therapies.
At one point, Director Oswald Steward, chair and director of the Reeve, Irvine Research Center, University of California, Irvine, raised questions about the voting procedure. According to the transcript, Steward said,
“I just don't understand why this process has been invoked now today, and I have to say in a very strange way.”Other directors joined in with their reservations. Steward then said he was "a little offended" by the voting practice.
At that point, an obviously irritated Klein (based on the audiocast of the meeting), snapped,
"Hold on. Excuse me. Point of order here."Directors raising issues about the voting procedure included Philip Pizzo, dean of the Stanford School of Medicine; Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine, and Jeff Sheehy, director for communications, UCSF AIDS Research Institute.
Pizzo caught the flavor of most of the concerns. He said that permitting roll call votes to be held open would affect the “quality of our discussions.”
Pizzo said,
"Whereas, I like the idea of facilitating the process, I think at a subsequent (board) meeting we should discuss it because it does impact on our culture and how we do things."He continued,
"I think we've been enriched over the years by hearing each other's point of view. I worry that we're going to wind up coming in with prefixed ideas that don't necessarily allow themselves to be attentive to new insights."Klein did not directly address those concerns in May but said he would put the voting procedure before the entire board next week in San Diego.
While the practice offers some efficiency, differences exist between legislative committees and the CIRM board. Lawmakers could be reasonably well-informed on a measure without hearing the debate. They have in their hands well prior to the committee meetings a thorough-going analysis of bills before the committee, their pros and cons and a list of opponents and supporters. That never happens at CIRM.
CIRM Responds to Report on Future Industry Funding
The California stem cell agency today commented on the item we posted concerning a statement by its president that it is considering funding its future with cash from the biotech industry.
Responding to a request for comment from the California Stem Cell Report, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, said,
“I tried to post this comment twice and your system sent back error messages.
“Two things. We heard the concerns regarding an industry advisory group and that recommendation was removed from the latest draft of the strategic plan update that has been circulating internally the past few weeks. Second, regarding President (Alan) Trounson's musings with the Bloomberg reporter, how does 'in the long run' and 'may try' become 'is.'"
Regarding problems with posting comments, if any readers experience such difficulties, please let me know at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. The blog is hosted by Google, which provides the templates and mechanism for posting comments. I am more than glad to take up problems with Google on behalf of our readers.
Responding to a request for comment from the California Stem Cell Report, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, said,
“I tried to post this comment twice and your system sent back error messages.
“Two things. We heard the concerns regarding an industry advisory group and that recommendation was removed from the latest draft of the strategic plan update that has been circulating internally the past few weeks. Second, regarding President (Alan) Trounson's musings with the Bloomberg reporter, how does 'in the long run' and 'may try' become 'is.'"
Regarding problems with posting comments, if any readers experience such difficulties, please let me know at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. The blog is hosted by Google, which provides the templates and mechanism for posting comments. I am more than glad to take up problems with Google on behalf of our readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)