Need work? The California stem cell agency is looking for a few good persons. The latest openings are posted on CIRM web site. They range from the president's job, which should be filled shortly, to the executive assistant to the "chair," which probably is really the chairman instead of piece of furniture.
Oddly, the notices do not indicate a pay range, although previous openings have been filled at salaries that some critics said were too high.
The executive assistant positions require typing, formating and proofreading documents. For those tasks it seems a four-year college degree and "four years of executive assistant experience supporting high level leaders or an equivalent combination of education and experience" are necessary. Admittedly the position has other, more significant responsibilities, but it seems a tad inefficient to have such a highly qualified person doing clerical work. Here are links to the job descriptions.
President, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (pdf)
Scientific Program Officers and Scientific Review Officers (pdf)
Senior Officer for Medical & Ethical Standards (pdf)
Executive Assistant (pdf)
Executive Assistant to the Chair (pdf)
(Forgive my comments re the "chair" but expression remains an abomination. Next we will see a sentence that goes something like: "The chair impacted the agency's infrastructure." Yuck.)
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Patient Group Members Mobilize Against SCA13
Members of patient groups are barraging legislators with appeals to reject efforts to tighten oversight of the California stem cell agency. Some of the appeals are being couched in life-and-death terms.
The outpouring was predictable given the deep ties that the agency has with the groups, whose members hope to benefit from future therapies developed by research financed by the agency. A number of the members of the stem cell Oversight Committee come specifically from patient groups. The agency undoubtedly has lists of supporters as well. The allied nonprofit organization that grew out Prop. 71 campaign committee also is likely to be involved in the lobbying campaign, as it was earlier this year.
One email sent from a CIRM address by a CIRM staffer to a group of sympathizers was basically an informational pitch. It did note that the Oversight Committee thought SCA13 would have a detrimental effect. The email included attachments from a number of organizations concerned about SCA13, including the University of California, Stanford, USC, Caltech and the Salk Institute. It also included the agency's critical analysis of the legislation. But the email did not advocate that the recipients take a position or lobby legislators.
We should note that out of the six documents attached to the email, only one has been accessible to the general public in a posting on CIRM's web site.
In response to a question about lobbying on SCA13, Nicole Pagano, a spokeswoman for CIRM, said, "Those advocates who contact us receive information as any member of public would. ICOC members who are patient advocates like Joan Samuelson and Jeff Sheehy may attempt to educate their own communities and constituencies because they are opposed to SCA13 as currently drafted, but CIRM staff is not engaged in mobilization campaign efforts."
The measure is expected to come up for a vote on the Senate floor either Thursday or Friday.
If readers of this blog are interested in receiving copies of the items attached to the CIRM email, please send a note to me at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. I will send them along to you.
The outpouring was predictable given the deep ties that the agency has with the groups, whose members hope to benefit from future therapies developed by research financed by the agency. A number of the members of the stem cell Oversight Committee come specifically from patient groups. The agency undoubtedly has lists of supporters as well. The allied nonprofit organization that grew out Prop. 71 campaign committee also is likely to be involved in the lobbying campaign, as it was earlier this year.
One email sent from a CIRM address by a CIRM staffer to a group of sympathizers was basically an informational pitch. It did note that the Oversight Committee thought SCA13 would have a detrimental effect. The email included attachments from a number of organizations concerned about SCA13, including the University of California, Stanford, USC, Caltech and the Salk Institute. It also included the agency's critical analysis of the legislation. But the email did not advocate that the recipients take a position or lobby legislators.
We should note that out of the six documents attached to the email, only one has been accessible to the general public in a posting on CIRM's web site.
In response to a question about lobbying on SCA13, Nicole Pagano, a spokeswoman for CIRM, said, "Those advocates who contact us receive information as any member of public would. ICOC members who are patient advocates like Joan Samuelson and Jeff Sheehy may attempt to educate their own communities and constituencies because they are opposed to SCA13 as currently drafted, but CIRM staff is not engaged in mobilization campaign efforts."
The measure is expected to come up for a vote on the Senate floor either Thursday or Friday.
If readers of this blog are interested in receiving copies of the items attached to the CIRM email, please send a note to me at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. I will send them along to you.
Californians Need Information Not Ballyhoo
Are Californians going to have a chance to genuinely see what the California stem cell agency is going to deal with at its meeting this month in Sacramento?
With three business days left before the meeting on Monday, the agency has posted only a laundry list of items on its web site. The subjects on the list are certainly important, but the information about them is limited to a word or two or a phrase.
We do know the following. Changes are being considered on the agency's conflict of interest code. The Oversight Committee is scheduled to discuss temporary financing measures that will prevent it from running out of money this fall. A proposed ballot measure that would create an electoral donnybrook, also this fall, is up for consideration. Appointment of real estate specialists to a stem cell working group is another topic. Also on the table is a six-month review of the agency. Actually this preceding summary of the agenda contains more information than the actual agenda items themselves.
In past months, the agency has posted background material – usually quite late -- on a few items scheduled to be brought up at the monthly meeting – not a lot but some. However, in May, the agenda for the Oversight Committee was nothing more than a list. The public was out of luck if it wanted to have any reasonable idea of the nature of the issues to be discussed.
As we have noted in the past, even the lowliest school district in California does a better job of informing the public in advance about its meetings.
The stem cell agency has ballyhooed its commitment to openness and transparency. But its actions tell a different story.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
The Blasto-Sisyphean Stem Cell Exercise
Joel Pett, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist of the Lexington Herald-Leader, wrote a short piece on Sunday in the Los Angeles Times introducing four editorial cartons on stem cells, including one involving California.
Pett said, "Cartoonists tend to regard opposition to stem cell research as some blasto-Sisyphean exercise in futility, but Gary Varvel of the Indianapolis Star takes a more ethereal view. And both Signe Wilkinson and Nick Anderson remind us that California plays a leading role in the debate because of Alzheimer's icon Ronald Reagan and the state's recently passed stem cell research initiative."
Iraq, angels and slot machines all played a role in the cartoons. Here is the link to Pett's piece. Click on the names of the cartoonists to see the full display of the cartoon.
Stem Cell Dress of The Day: Thick Skin
Sometimes things get personal in the stem cell business. Just ask stem cell chairman Robert Klein and California State Sen. Deborah Ortiz, who have been at loggerheads concerning California's stem cell agency.
Motives are maligned and heated words are bandied about, if not by the players by the observers and advocates.
Now comes a comment from Don C. Reed, a well-known patient advocate on stem cell issues. He wrote a letter printed in The Sacramento Bee Sunday that involved a statement that he made that he believes was misconstrued. But indirectly he leads us to what may be more important points. Civility and mutual respect are important elements in the public debate about stem cell issues. That does not mean the dialogue should be less than vigorous or less than forthright. Participants have a responsibility to press their points aggressively.
Stem cell matters also can be emotional, a fact that cannot be avoided, but an irritation for some, especially those from cloistered environments(that includes business). So thick skins are the order of the day.
Finally Reed reflects a little on the history of the stem cell movement, saying, "We would not be here without the pioneering efforts of Senator Deborah Ortiz. Her legislation made California the first stem-cell-friendly state in the nation. In my heart, I will always regard her as the mother of stem cell legislation."
No doubt he would also have much the same sentiments about Robert Klein -- aside from the motherhood part.
Motives are maligned and heated words are bandied about, if not by the players by the observers and advocates.
Now comes a comment from Don C. Reed, a well-known patient advocate on stem cell issues. He wrote a letter printed in The Sacramento Bee Sunday that involved a statement that he made that he believes was misconstrued. But indirectly he leads us to what may be more important points. Civility and mutual respect are important elements in the public debate about stem cell issues. That does not mean the dialogue should be less than vigorous or less than forthright. Participants have a responsibility to press their points aggressively.
Stem cell matters also can be emotional, a fact that cannot be avoided, but an irritation for some, especially those from cloistered environments(that includes business). So thick skins are the order of the day.
Finally Reed reflects a little on the history of the stem cell movement, saying, "We would not be here without the pioneering efforts of Senator Deborah Ortiz. Her legislation made California the first stem-cell-friendly state in the nation. In my heart, I will always regard her as the mother of stem cell legislation."
No doubt he would also have much the same sentiments about Robert Klein -- aside from the motherhood part.
The Bee: No Compromise on Ballot Measure
The Sacramento Bee on Sunday said in an editorial that Sen. Deborah Ortiz is giving up too much with changes in her proposed ballot measure to tighten oversight of the California stem cell agency.
The Democratic lawmaker from Sacramento has said she will modify her conflict of interest provisions regarding, in The Bee's terms, the "out-of-state scientists who will hold huge sway in how multimillion-dollar grants are dispersed."
"This peer review group, already appointed, includes distinguished academics from Harvard and other top-flight institutions. But even distinguished academics may have conflicts. Do they hold consulting jobs with biomedical firms who might seek grants? What are their stock holdings?" The Bee editorial said.
"We don't know. Neither does the public. Under a policy (stem cell chairman Robert) Klein has promoted, grant reviewers are only required to disclose potential conflicts to the institute's internal staff. Klein says these employees will aggressively police any conflicts. This is the same short-staffed group that hasn't set up an organization chart, hasn't devised a budget and has trouble responding to records requests.
"The proper policy - required of all appointed public officials in California - is for grant reviewers to fill out a Form 700 disclosure, listing their investments, income, gifts and property. Only then will the public feel comfortable that grant reviewers are making decisions free of any financial entanglements."
The Democratic lawmaker from Sacramento has said she will modify her conflict of interest provisions regarding, in The Bee's terms, the "out-of-state scientists who will hold huge sway in how multimillion-dollar grants are dispersed."
"This peer review group, already appointed, includes distinguished academics from Harvard and other top-flight institutions. But even distinguished academics may have conflicts. Do they hold consulting jobs with biomedical firms who might seek grants? What are their stock holdings?" The Bee editorial said.
"We don't know. Neither does the public. Under a policy (stem cell chairman Robert) Klein has promoted, grant reviewers are only required to disclose potential conflicts to the institute's internal staff. Klein says these employees will aggressively police any conflicts. This is the same short-staffed group that hasn't set up an organization chart, hasn't devised a budget and has trouble responding to records requests.
"The proper policy - required of all appointed public officials in California - is for grant reviewers to fill out a Form 700 disclosure, listing their investments, income, gifts and property. Only then will the public feel comfortable that grant reviewers are making decisions free of any financial entanglements."
Friday, May 27, 2005
Klein: Haste Poses Peril to Agency
California stem cell chairman Robert Klein remains unhappy with the proposed ballot measure on his agency, arguing that it is moving with unwarranted haste through the legislature.
In a statement on CIRM's web site, he declared, "There does not appear to be any compelling reason that this constitutional amendment should be rushed through the legislature, without full and adequate notice so that the public, patient groups, medical groups, and the Institute can participate fully. Jamming it through the Legislature by June 30 for a special election in November unnecessarily creates huge risks that unworkable language and provisions will make it impossible to carry out the mission of the Institute."
He also said, "Major portions of the language in SCA13 dealing with intellectual property would predictably create major legal problems and obstacles for the Institute in the development of therapies. It is vital that this constitutional amendment does not create major opportunities for litigation by the opposition to Prop. 71 that would paralyze the Institute."
Klein complained that the agency has not been fully heard because of legislative haste. "The scheduling of the hearings to date has not permitted the Institute to participate with the Senate in the development of solutions that would meet the common goals of the Institute and the Senate," he said.
The undue haste argument seems to echo that of cities in California seeking the headquarters location for CIRM. They too said a fast-track process impaired their abilities to do the best for the people of California, an argument rejected by Klein and the agency.
As for being unable to be heard by the legislature, Ortiz' concerns were well known last year, shortly after last fall's election. She introduced SCA13 more than two months ago, the same week Klein refused to appear before a special joint Assembly-Senate committee hearing on the agency (see "Stiffing Lawmakers" March 10 and "Roiling Undercurrents" March 16 on this blog).
SCA13 is expected to go through three legislative hearings in Assembly, assuming the likelihood of Senate passage. That will allow ample time for more input from CIRM and other parties.
Here are links to stories this morning on the proposal: Carl Hall, San Francisco Chronicle; Terri Somers, San Diego Union Tribune; Sandy Kleffman, Contra Costa Times. The Los Angeles Times and The Sacramento Bee did not appear to have stories this morning.
In a statement on CIRM's web site, he declared, "There does not appear to be any compelling reason that this constitutional amendment should be rushed through the legislature, without full and adequate notice so that the public, patient groups, medical groups, and the Institute can participate fully. Jamming it through the Legislature by June 30 for a special election in November unnecessarily creates huge risks that unworkable language and provisions will make it impossible to carry out the mission of the Institute."
He also said, "Major portions of the language in SCA13 dealing with intellectual property would predictably create major legal problems and obstacles for the Institute in the development of therapies. It is vital that this constitutional amendment does not create major opportunities for litigation by the opposition to Prop. 71 that would paralyze the Institute."
Klein complained that the agency has not been fully heard because of legislative haste. "The scheduling of the hearings to date has not permitted the Institute to participate with the Senate in the development of solutions that would meet the common goals of the Institute and the Senate," he said.
The undue haste argument seems to echo that of cities in California seeking the headquarters location for CIRM. They too said a fast-track process impaired their abilities to do the best for the people of California, an argument rejected by Klein and the agency.
As for being unable to be heard by the legislature, Ortiz' concerns were well known last year, shortly after last fall's election. She introduced SCA13 more than two months ago, the same week Klein refused to appear before a special joint Assembly-Senate committee hearing on the agency (see "Stiffing Lawmakers" March 10 and "Roiling Undercurrents" March 16 on this blog).
SCA13 is expected to go through three legislative hearings in Assembly, assuming the likelihood of Senate passage. That will allow ample time for more input from CIRM and other parties.
Here are links to stories this morning on the proposal: Carl Hall, San Francisco Chronicle; Terri Somers, San Diego Union Tribune; Sandy Kleffman, Contra Costa Times. The Los Angeles Times and The Sacramento Bee did not appear to have stories this morning.
Not For Everybody: Details of CIRM's Analysis of SCA13
The California stem cell agency has prepared a detailed and strong critique of the proposed ballot measure to tighten oversight of its activities.
The eight-page memo, however, was not generally made available to the public and only circulated to the handful of persons at Monday's meeting of the Oversight Committee. It is not available on agency's web site as of this writing despite the fact that legislation was a major topic for the stem cell panel.
While the analysis treads some familiar ground for those following the issue closely, it is the first full-blown public explanation of CIRM's position that we have seen. Particularly interesting are areas that deal with compensation to the state for products developed as a result of state-financed research.
The analysis says, "While it is reasonable – and required in Prop. 71 -- to ask that an intellectual property agreement is part of any Institute grant, it is naïve to believe that a level can be set for those revenue streams and may actually decrease the amount the state would get in the long run."
The document also deals in some detail with the peer review issue – whether it should be public and to what degree.
Arguing for private sessions, citing fears that scientists would be worried about damage to their reputations, the document says, "The public and the press cannot be expected to understand the differences between extreme criticism on one proposal and the extraordinary ability of the scientist or physician for break-through research in numerous other scientific specialty areas."
That is an interesting argument to make by an agency that says that the same, understanding-impaired public has spoken so wisely on Prop. 71 that no further changes should be made in it.
Since the memo was written, the proposed ballot measure in question, SCA13 by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, has been amended to deal with some of the objections raised in the analysis.
We learned of the document on Tuesday through a very brief mention in one of the news stories about Monday's Oversight Committee meeting. At that point, we asked the CIRM public information office for a copy. The response was that they were not aware of the analysis. We followed up with additional inquiries that were turned aside. On Thursday afternoon, CIRM supplied the document after we indicated we had it from another source. The explanation was that there had been a misunderstanding.
Regardless, it would seem to be in CIRM's best interests to make its own, rather effective analysis of legislation available to the public on its web site.
The full text of the memo follows in the item below.
The eight-page memo, however, was not generally made available to the public and only circulated to the handful of persons at Monday's meeting of the Oversight Committee. It is not available on agency's web site as of this writing despite the fact that legislation was a major topic for the stem cell panel.
While the analysis treads some familiar ground for those following the issue closely, it is the first full-blown public explanation of CIRM's position that we have seen. Particularly interesting are areas that deal with compensation to the state for products developed as a result of state-financed research.
The analysis says, "While it is reasonable – and required in Prop. 71 -- to ask that an intellectual property agreement is part of any Institute grant, it is naïve to believe that a level can be set for those revenue streams and may actually decrease the amount the state would get in the long run."
The document also deals in some detail with the peer review issue – whether it should be public and to what degree.
Arguing for private sessions, citing fears that scientists would be worried about damage to their reputations, the document says, "The public and the press cannot be expected to understand the differences between extreme criticism on one proposal and the extraordinary ability of the scientist or physician for break-through research in numerous other scientific specialty areas."
That is an interesting argument to make by an agency that says that the same, understanding-impaired public has spoken so wisely on Prop. 71 that no further changes should be made in it.
Since the memo was written, the proposed ballot measure in question, SCA13 by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, has been amended to deal with some of the objections raised in the analysis.
We learned of the document on Tuesday through a very brief mention in one of the news stories about Monday's Oversight Committee meeting. At that point, we asked the CIRM public information office for a copy. The response was that they were not aware of the analysis. We followed up with additional inquiries that were turned aside. On Thursday afternoon, CIRM supplied the document after we indicated we had it from another source. The explanation was that there had been a misunderstanding.
Regardless, it would seem to be in CIRM's best interests to make its own, rather effective analysis of legislation available to the public on its web site.
The full text of the memo follows in the item below.
Text of CIRM Analysis of SCA13
SCA 13 (Ortiz/Runner) Analysis
As of May 20, 2005
Summary: SCA 13 is a proposed California Constitutional amendment, which would change the California Stem Cell Research & Cures Act (Proposition 71) in three key areas: (1) open meetings; (3) financial issues related to intellectual property like return on investment and revenue sharing, and (1) conflict of interest for Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee (ICOC) members, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) employees, and Working Group members.
Process to qualify for ballot: SCA 13 requires a 2/3 vote in both the state Senate and Assembly to appear on the next state ballot that occurs at least 131 days after passage by the Legislature. If the Governor calls a special election for November (the likely date would be November 8), the Legislature would need approval by June 30, unless a bill signed by the Governor extends the qualification date.
Part 1: Open Meetings
Current law on open meetings as provided in Proposition 71:
• Applies the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act to meetings of the ICOC, with exceptions, and requires the ICOC to award all grants, loans, and contracts in public meetings, as well as all governance, scientific, medical, and regulatory standards. Since its first regular business meeting on January 6th, 29 public meetings of the ICOC and committees have been held.
• Allows the ICOC to conduct closed sessions as permitted by the Bagley Keene Act, as well as to consider matters involving information relating to patients or medical subjects, disclosure of which would compromise personal privacy; matters involving confidential intellectual property or work products of various kinds; matters involving pre-publication, confidential scientific research or data; and matters involving personnel matters.
• Provides that the California Public Records Act applies to all records of the ICOC, except as otherwise provided in the Act, with exemptions for records pertaining to patients or medical subjects, disclosure of which would compromise personal privacy; matters involving confidential intellectual property or work products of various kinds; matters involving pre-publication, confidential scientific research or data; and matters involving personnel matters.
• Provides that ICOC advisory working groups are not subject to open meeting laws, but provides that records the working groups submit as part of their recommendations to the ICOC shall be subject to the Public Records Act. This allows for confidential peer review of grant proposals.
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 2 of 8
Open Meetings – SCA 13 amends the State Constitution to require that records and meetings of the Working Groups be governed by open meeting and public record laws with certain exceptions to protect intellectual property and confidential or proprietary information.
SCA 13 proposes:
That Section 8 is added to Article XXXV thereof, to read:
SEC. 8.
b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), meetings and records of the institute, the ICOC, or any body established to govern the institute, and any working or advisory group, are subject to California open meeting and public record laws that are applicable to state agencies.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the ICOC, any body established to govern the institute, and any working group or advisory group, may conduct a closed session for the purpose of considering or discussing matters involving intellectual property or proprietary information and matters involving prepublication confidential scientific information associated with individual research proposals submitted for funding.
Concerns:
1. No recognition of necessity for confidential peer review in proposal. While elements of peer review are noted in the exceptions, clear language to protect the confidentiality of the entire grant evaluation process needs to be recognized. The rigor of the scientific review process will be compromised significantly if the Grants and Facilities Working Groups are prevented from reviewing proposals in private meetings. It is the standard and uniform practice of public (e.g., NIH and UC Special Research Program) and private funding agencies (e.g., American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, National MS Society), and widely accepted in the scientific community, to conduct scientific peer review of grant applications in private. Requiring such meetings to be conducted in public would compromise and discourage the critical discourse and analysis necessary to ensure rigorous scientific review. This will also discourage applicants from sharing with the Working Group details of proposed projects that might include proprietary or unpublished results. Such details can make or break a grant proposal. For example, in analyzing any grant, part of the process is looking at scientific research history and academic reputation of the scientist or physician. Peer reviewers look at the potential grantee’s record – whether the scientist or physician achieved what he or she claimed to achieve in previous projects. They will also critically review whether the scientist or physician has the specific technical/scientific knowledge and research staff to accomplish the specific grant proposal. While the scientist or physician may be brilliant in a specific technical sub-area of the science, they may be subject to devastating criticism as to adequacy of their knowledge of the specific scientific specialties required for the grant application under consideration. For scientists or physicians who dedicate their lives to treating chronic diseases, being criticized publicly could jeopardize
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 3 of 8
his or her reputation and credibility, permanently damaging their career and ability to carry out future life-saving research in medical therapies. The public and the press cannot be expected to understand the differences between extreme criticism on one proposal and the extraordinary ability of the scientist or physician for break-through research in numerous other scientific specialty areas. If a scientist or physician is criticized as having major deficiencies in a proposed experiment, generally it is believed that they public will conclude that the scientist is incompetent; the public will not research the person’s entire career and realize that 95 percent of their work has been an incredible contribution to the advancement of therapies for chronic disease. This is why peer review has to be conducted confidentially. The National Institute of Health, the University of California System-statewide, and all major patient funded foundations for medical research, just to name a few organizations, all consistently maintain a confidential peer review process for these reasons.
2. Negatively impact Working Group membership. We will not be able to get candid and critical review to invest the public’s money in the best research. We will not get the best proposal submitted, and we will not get the best review in a public environment. We believe a public meeting requirement for scientific peer review meetings of Working Groups will discourage potential reviewers from joining the Working Groups.
Part 2: Intellectual Property
Current law on intellectual property as provided in Proposition 71:
• Requires the ICOC to establish standards that require all Proposition 71 grants and loans to be subject to intellectual property agreements that balance the opportunity of the state to benefit from the licenses, patents, and royalties that result from basic research, therapy development, and clinical trials with the need to ensure that essential medical research is not unreasonably hindered by the intellectual property agreements.
Intellectual Property and treatment access – SCA 13 amends the California Constitution to require that contracts, awards, grants, or loans entered into by any state entity that provides state funding for research funded by the Institute comply with specified criteria, including that they do not result in a gift of public funds; that any clinical treatments, products, or services resulting from funded research are made available at affordable costs to low-income residents; that the State recoup legal and administrative costs associated with patenting and licensing agreements; and that the State receives a share of royalties or revenues commensurate with its role in the development of the clinical treatments, products, or services.
SCA 13 proposes:
First – That Section 6 of Article XXXV thereof is amended to read, to read:
SEC. 6. Except as otherwise provided in this article, notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 4 of 8
any law, the institute, which is established in state government, may utilize state issued tax-exempt and taxable bonds to fund its operations, medical and scientific research, including therapy development through clinical trials, and facilities.
Concerns:
3. Likely legal challenges – The phrase “except as otherwise provided” in Section 6 opens an avenue for legal challenges based upon procedural arguments that will disrupt the financing of meritorious research. SCA 13 is being advanced with ambiguous language and no serious implementation plan. Proposition 71 was carefully written with the involvement of three separate law firms and based upon case law research to avoid the constant litigation that would be likely should SCA 13 become law as written. The legal battles could paralyze the Institute’s mission for years to come. As the Senate Elections consultant wrote in his analysis: “[SCA 13] is somewhat unorthodox in that instead of amending the statutory language dealing with the open meeting, conflict-of-interest, and other requirements that Proposition 71 added to the codes, it asks voters to make those changes by amending the Constitution. While amending the Constitution isn’t uncommon, the author and committee may wish to consider whether it would be more appropriate to, instead of asking the voters to place into the Constitution language aimed at providing more specificity to a statutory initiative, ask the voters to amend the initiative itself.” He continues: “While the language of Proposition 71 precludes the Legislature from amending the measure until 2008, there is no restriction on putting another measure on the ballot that would ask the voters if they want to amend Proposition 71.”
SCA 13 proposes:
That Section 9 is added to Article XXXV thereof, to read:
SEC. 9.
(a) Every contract, award, grant, loan, or other arrangement entered into by the institute or the Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee that provides state funding or other resources, shall ensure all of the following:
(1) Notwithstanding Section 6, the contract, award, grant, loan, or other arrangement does not result in a gift of public funds within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XVI.
(2) All clinical treatments, products, or services resulting from the biomedical research are made available at the costs of producing them to California residents who are eligible to receive assistance through state and county health care and preventive health programs including, but not limited to, the Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs.
Concerns:
4. Discourages private sector involvement -- While well-intentioned, these provisions could have a host of unfortunate and unintended consequences, including discouraging industry from involvement with the Institute. Private industry is a critical partner in developing scientific discoveries into safe and
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 5 of 8
effective drugs and treatments that benefit the public. If an affordable drug-pricing requirement or a revenue sharing requirement were to discourage industry from participating in technology transfer, it would be to the detriment of the public health and well being.
5. Ignores legislative processes – As previously noted, the ICOC is cooperating with the California Council on Science and Technology to study how the state should treat intellectual property made under state contracts, grants, and agreements, as requested by ACR 252 (Mullin) in the 2003-04 session. This study group is currently meeting and anticipates having a report to the Legislature by July, 2005. SCA 13 ignores the legislative process and preempts the work of experts in this field.
6. Gifting prohibition – The prohibition on gifting may affect the Institute’s ability to provide training grants.
SCA 13 proposes:
(3) The terms of any loan, lease, or rental arrangement are consistent with, or below, market rates for rent or interest.
(4) The State recoups the full amount of its legal and administrative costs incurred with respect to patenting and licensing activities related to the biomedical research.
Concerns:
7. No State patenting costs – Section 9(a)(4) provides that the State will recoup legal and administrative costs related to patents and licensing. These costs are borne by the grantee institution, not the State. This clause is superfluous, as the State will not incur these administrative and legal costs.
SCA 13 proposes:
(5) The State is provided a share of the royalties or revenues, derived from the development of clinical treatments, products, or services resulting from the research, that is sufficient to repay its expenses incurred in developing the clinical treatments, products, or services.
Concerns:
8. Lack of clarity in language -- The provision stating "The State is provided a share or the royalties or revenues, derived from the development or treatment of clinical treatments, products, or services resulting from the research, that is sufficient to repay its expenses incurred in developing the clinical treatments, products or services" is problematic. The word "develop" has a specific meaning in the biotech and pharma industry and the State will not likely be engaging in these activities because they are both expensive and risky, which raises the question of what this provision even means and thus how it would be implemented. Furthermore, calculating intellectual property formulas setting forth mechanisms for shares of revenue does not belong in the Constitution. As the Senate Elections Committee consultant wrote in his analysis: “While ensuring the taxpayers are
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 6 of 8
fully reimbursed for their costs, this measure doesn’t impose any limits on what those costs can be. The author and committee may wish to consider whether such a limit is appropriate or feasible.”
SCA 13 proposes:
(6) In addition to royalties or licensing revenues described in paragraph (5), royalties or licensing revenues are transmitted to the State in an amount sufficient to repay any costs of issuing bonds incurred by the State in funding the biomedical research.
Concerns:
9. Revenue levels -- It is not clear how agreements would be structured so that the State received royalties sufficient to repay costs associated with issuing the bonds. While it is reasonable – and required in Proposition 71 -- to ask that an intellectual property agreement is part of any Institute grant, it is naïve to believe that a level can be set for those revenue streams and may actually decrease the amount the state would get in the long run. A typical structure for sharing revenue streams is to require a certain percentage.
10. Effect on tax exempt status on bonds – If the State has a right to share in royalties, even if it is only in an amount that recovers the State’s costs, the transfers to the research entities will not be treated as grants, resulting in tax-exempt questions.
Part 3: Conflict of Interest
Current law on conflict as interest as provided in Proposition 71:
• Applies the Political Reform Act to the Institute staff and members of the ICOC, with certain modifications. This means that all board members and staff must file a statement of economic interests (Form 700).
• Allows a member of the ICOC to participate in a decision to approve or award a grant, loan, or contract to a non-profit entity in the same field as his or her employer.
• Allows an ICOC member to participate in awarding a grant, loan, or contract for purposes of research involving a disease from which the member or an immediate family member suffers from or which the member has an interest in as a representative of a disease advocacy organization.
• Provides that service as a member of the ICOC shall not be deemed incompatible with service as a faculty member or administrator of the University of California, representative or employee of a disease advocacy organization, a nonprofit academic research institution, or a life science commercial entity.
• Provides that ICOC working group members are not subject to the Political Reform Act and instead, subjects them to conflict of interest rules to be adopted by the ICOC, which shall be based on standards applicable to members of scientific review committees of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The ICOC has adopted strong conflict of interest policies for the ICOC, employees, and
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 7 of 8
working group members. All policies are accessible to the public on www.cirm.ca.gov.
Conflict of Interest – SCA 13 requires two levels of compliance with conflict of interest – financial disclosure and divestment or blind trust depending upon role with the work of the Institute. The chair and vice chair and any appointed member of the Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee (ICOC), the Institute president, and any member of any working or advisory group appointed to assist the Institute or its governing body must disclose his or her income, investments, and interests in real property. The chair and vice chair and ICOC members, the Institute president must divest of or place into a blind trust, any financial or real property interest held in any organization that applies for funding from, or contracts with, the Institute or in any organization with a substantial interest in stem cell therapy. An organization with a substantial interest in stem cell therapy is defined as one that has more than five percent of the organization’s current annual research budget is allocated to stem cell therapy, based upon publicly available information.
SCA 13 proposes:
Section 8 is added to Article XXXV thereof, to read:
SEC. 8.
(a) The chair and vice chair and any appointed member of the Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee (ICOC), the president and each employee of the institute, and any member of any working or advisory group appointed to assist the institute or its governing body shall disclose his or her income, investments, and interests in real property in the manner set forth in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 87100) of Title 9 of the Government Code, or its successor. The chair and vice chair and any appointed member of the ICOC, the president of the institute or its governing body shall divest themselves of or place into a blind trust, any financial or real property interest held by that person in any organization that applies for funding from, or contracts with, the institute or in any organization with a substantial interest in stem cell therapy. An organization with a substantial interest in stem cell therapy is one for which, based upon publicly available information, more than five percent of the organization’s current annual research budget is allocated to stem cell therapy.
Concerns:
11. This amendment would subject members of the Working Groups to the Political Reform Act’s conflict of interest provisions, including disclosure of investments, income, gifts, travel payments and real property through the filing of Form 700. This information would be subject to public disclosure. The divestment provision puts a greater onus on ICOC members and the president than is imposed on any other state official. CIRM Working Groups are advisory, not decision-making bodies and Working Group members are not employees of CIRM. COI policies for Working Group members should recognize this important but limited role.
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 8 of 8
This provision would negatively impact the Institute’s ability to recruit and retain leading scientists and clinicians for the ICOC and the Working Groups. We are concerned that anyone who is a member of an ad hoc advisory group would need to disclosure without regards to the nature of their work or focus area. This may impede the Institute from taking advantage of volunteer expertise.
As of May 20, 2005
Summary: SCA 13 is a proposed California Constitutional amendment, which would change the California Stem Cell Research & Cures Act (Proposition 71) in three key areas: (1) open meetings; (3) financial issues related to intellectual property like return on investment and revenue sharing, and (1) conflict of interest for Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee (ICOC) members, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) employees, and Working Group members.
Process to qualify for ballot: SCA 13 requires a 2/3 vote in both the state Senate and Assembly to appear on the next state ballot that occurs at least 131 days after passage by the Legislature. If the Governor calls a special election for November (the likely date would be November 8), the Legislature would need approval by June 30, unless a bill signed by the Governor extends the qualification date.
Part 1: Open Meetings
Current law on open meetings as provided in Proposition 71:
• Applies the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act to meetings of the ICOC, with exceptions, and requires the ICOC to award all grants, loans, and contracts in public meetings, as well as all governance, scientific, medical, and regulatory standards. Since its first regular business meeting on January 6th, 29 public meetings of the ICOC and committees have been held.
• Allows the ICOC to conduct closed sessions as permitted by the Bagley Keene Act, as well as to consider matters involving information relating to patients or medical subjects, disclosure of which would compromise personal privacy; matters involving confidential intellectual property or work products of various kinds; matters involving pre-publication, confidential scientific research or data; and matters involving personnel matters.
• Provides that the California Public Records Act applies to all records of the ICOC, except as otherwise provided in the Act, with exemptions for records pertaining to patients or medical subjects, disclosure of which would compromise personal privacy; matters involving confidential intellectual property or work products of various kinds; matters involving pre-publication, confidential scientific research or data; and matters involving personnel matters.
• Provides that ICOC advisory working groups are not subject to open meeting laws, but provides that records the working groups submit as part of their recommendations to the ICOC shall be subject to the Public Records Act. This allows for confidential peer review of grant proposals.
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 2 of 8
Open Meetings – SCA 13 amends the State Constitution to require that records and meetings of the Working Groups be governed by open meeting and public record laws with certain exceptions to protect intellectual property and confidential or proprietary information.
SCA 13 proposes:
That Section 8 is added to Article XXXV thereof, to read:
SEC. 8.
b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), meetings and records of the institute, the ICOC, or any body established to govern the institute, and any working or advisory group, are subject to California open meeting and public record laws that are applicable to state agencies.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the ICOC, any body established to govern the institute, and any working group or advisory group, may conduct a closed session for the purpose of considering or discussing matters involving intellectual property or proprietary information and matters involving prepublication confidential scientific information associated with individual research proposals submitted for funding.
Concerns:
1. No recognition of necessity for confidential peer review in proposal. While elements of peer review are noted in the exceptions, clear language to protect the confidentiality of the entire grant evaluation process needs to be recognized. The rigor of the scientific review process will be compromised significantly if the Grants and Facilities Working Groups are prevented from reviewing proposals in private meetings. It is the standard and uniform practice of public (e.g., NIH and UC Special Research Program) and private funding agencies (e.g., American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, National MS Society), and widely accepted in the scientific community, to conduct scientific peer review of grant applications in private. Requiring such meetings to be conducted in public would compromise and discourage the critical discourse and analysis necessary to ensure rigorous scientific review. This will also discourage applicants from sharing with the Working Group details of proposed projects that might include proprietary or unpublished results. Such details can make or break a grant proposal. For example, in analyzing any grant, part of the process is looking at scientific research history and academic reputation of the scientist or physician. Peer reviewers look at the potential grantee’s record – whether the scientist or physician achieved what he or she claimed to achieve in previous projects. They will also critically review whether the scientist or physician has the specific technical/scientific knowledge and research staff to accomplish the specific grant proposal. While the scientist or physician may be brilliant in a specific technical sub-area of the science, they may be subject to devastating criticism as to adequacy of their knowledge of the specific scientific specialties required for the grant application under consideration. For scientists or physicians who dedicate their lives to treating chronic diseases, being criticized publicly could jeopardize
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 3 of 8
his or her reputation and credibility, permanently damaging their career and ability to carry out future life-saving research in medical therapies. The public and the press cannot be expected to understand the differences between extreme criticism on one proposal and the extraordinary ability of the scientist or physician for break-through research in numerous other scientific specialty areas. If a scientist or physician is criticized as having major deficiencies in a proposed experiment, generally it is believed that they public will conclude that the scientist is incompetent; the public will not research the person’s entire career and realize that 95 percent of their work has been an incredible contribution to the advancement of therapies for chronic disease. This is why peer review has to be conducted confidentially. The National Institute of Health, the University of California System-statewide, and all major patient funded foundations for medical research, just to name a few organizations, all consistently maintain a confidential peer review process for these reasons.
2. Negatively impact Working Group membership. We will not be able to get candid and critical review to invest the public’s money in the best research. We will not get the best proposal submitted, and we will not get the best review in a public environment. We believe a public meeting requirement for scientific peer review meetings of Working Groups will discourage potential reviewers from joining the Working Groups.
Part 2: Intellectual Property
Current law on intellectual property as provided in Proposition 71:
• Requires the ICOC to establish standards that require all Proposition 71 grants and loans to be subject to intellectual property agreements that balance the opportunity of the state to benefit from the licenses, patents, and royalties that result from basic research, therapy development, and clinical trials with the need to ensure that essential medical research is not unreasonably hindered by the intellectual property agreements.
Intellectual Property and treatment access – SCA 13 amends the California Constitution to require that contracts, awards, grants, or loans entered into by any state entity that provides state funding for research funded by the Institute comply with specified criteria, including that they do not result in a gift of public funds; that any clinical treatments, products, or services resulting from funded research are made available at affordable costs to low-income residents; that the State recoup legal and administrative costs associated with patenting and licensing agreements; and that the State receives a share of royalties or revenues commensurate with its role in the development of the clinical treatments, products, or services.
SCA 13 proposes:
First – That Section 6 of Article XXXV thereof is amended to read, to read:
SEC. 6. Except as otherwise provided in this article, notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 4 of 8
any law, the institute, which is established in state government, may utilize state issued tax-exempt and taxable bonds to fund its operations, medical and scientific research, including therapy development through clinical trials, and facilities.
Concerns:
3. Likely legal challenges – The phrase “except as otherwise provided” in Section 6 opens an avenue for legal challenges based upon procedural arguments that will disrupt the financing of meritorious research. SCA 13 is being advanced with ambiguous language and no serious implementation plan. Proposition 71 was carefully written with the involvement of three separate law firms and based upon case law research to avoid the constant litigation that would be likely should SCA 13 become law as written. The legal battles could paralyze the Institute’s mission for years to come. As the Senate Elections consultant wrote in his analysis: “[SCA 13] is somewhat unorthodox in that instead of amending the statutory language dealing with the open meeting, conflict-of-interest, and other requirements that Proposition 71 added to the codes, it asks voters to make those changes by amending the Constitution. While amending the Constitution isn’t uncommon, the author and committee may wish to consider whether it would be more appropriate to, instead of asking the voters to place into the Constitution language aimed at providing more specificity to a statutory initiative, ask the voters to amend the initiative itself.” He continues: “While the language of Proposition 71 precludes the Legislature from amending the measure until 2008, there is no restriction on putting another measure on the ballot that would ask the voters if they want to amend Proposition 71.”
SCA 13 proposes:
That Section 9 is added to Article XXXV thereof, to read:
SEC. 9.
(a) Every contract, award, grant, loan, or other arrangement entered into by the institute or the Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee that provides state funding or other resources, shall ensure all of the following:
(1) Notwithstanding Section 6, the contract, award, grant, loan, or other arrangement does not result in a gift of public funds within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XVI.
(2) All clinical treatments, products, or services resulting from the biomedical research are made available at the costs of producing them to California residents who are eligible to receive assistance through state and county health care and preventive health programs including, but not limited to, the Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs.
Concerns:
4. Discourages private sector involvement -- While well-intentioned, these provisions could have a host of unfortunate and unintended consequences, including discouraging industry from involvement with the Institute. Private industry is a critical partner in developing scientific discoveries into safe and
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 5 of 8
effective drugs and treatments that benefit the public. If an affordable drug-pricing requirement or a revenue sharing requirement were to discourage industry from participating in technology transfer, it would be to the detriment of the public health and well being.
5. Ignores legislative processes – As previously noted, the ICOC is cooperating with the California Council on Science and Technology to study how the state should treat intellectual property made under state contracts, grants, and agreements, as requested by ACR 252 (Mullin) in the 2003-04 session. This study group is currently meeting and anticipates having a report to the Legislature by July, 2005. SCA 13 ignores the legislative process and preempts the work of experts in this field.
6. Gifting prohibition – The prohibition on gifting may affect the Institute’s ability to provide training grants.
SCA 13 proposes:
(3) The terms of any loan, lease, or rental arrangement are consistent with, or below, market rates for rent or interest.
(4) The State recoups the full amount of its legal and administrative costs incurred with respect to patenting and licensing activities related to the biomedical research.
Concerns:
7. No State patenting costs – Section 9(a)(4) provides that the State will recoup legal and administrative costs related to patents and licensing. These costs are borne by the grantee institution, not the State. This clause is superfluous, as the State will not incur these administrative and legal costs.
SCA 13 proposes:
(5) The State is provided a share of the royalties or revenues, derived from the development of clinical treatments, products, or services resulting from the research, that is sufficient to repay its expenses incurred in developing the clinical treatments, products, or services.
Concerns:
8. Lack of clarity in language -- The provision stating "The State is provided a share or the royalties or revenues, derived from the development or treatment of clinical treatments, products, or services resulting from the research, that is sufficient to repay its expenses incurred in developing the clinical treatments, products or services" is problematic. The word "develop" has a specific meaning in the biotech and pharma industry and the State will not likely be engaging in these activities because they are both expensive and risky, which raises the question of what this provision even means and thus how it would be implemented. Furthermore, calculating intellectual property formulas setting forth mechanisms for shares of revenue does not belong in the Constitution. As the Senate Elections Committee consultant wrote in his analysis: “While ensuring the taxpayers are
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 6 of 8
fully reimbursed for their costs, this measure doesn’t impose any limits on what those costs can be. The author and committee may wish to consider whether such a limit is appropriate or feasible.”
SCA 13 proposes:
(6) In addition to royalties or licensing revenues described in paragraph (5), royalties or licensing revenues are transmitted to the State in an amount sufficient to repay any costs of issuing bonds incurred by the State in funding the biomedical research.
Concerns:
9. Revenue levels -- It is not clear how agreements would be structured so that the State received royalties sufficient to repay costs associated with issuing the bonds. While it is reasonable – and required in Proposition 71 -- to ask that an intellectual property agreement is part of any Institute grant, it is naïve to believe that a level can be set for those revenue streams and may actually decrease the amount the state would get in the long run. A typical structure for sharing revenue streams is to require a certain percentage.
10. Effect on tax exempt status on bonds – If the State has a right to share in royalties, even if it is only in an amount that recovers the State’s costs, the transfers to the research entities will not be treated as grants, resulting in tax-exempt questions.
Part 3: Conflict of Interest
Current law on conflict as interest as provided in Proposition 71:
• Applies the Political Reform Act to the Institute staff and members of the ICOC, with certain modifications. This means that all board members and staff must file a statement of economic interests (Form 700).
• Allows a member of the ICOC to participate in a decision to approve or award a grant, loan, or contract to a non-profit entity in the same field as his or her employer.
• Allows an ICOC member to participate in awarding a grant, loan, or contract for purposes of research involving a disease from which the member or an immediate family member suffers from or which the member has an interest in as a representative of a disease advocacy organization.
• Provides that service as a member of the ICOC shall not be deemed incompatible with service as a faculty member or administrator of the University of California, representative or employee of a disease advocacy organization, a nonprofit academic research institution, or a life science commercial entity.
• Provides that ICOC working group members are not subject to the Political Reform Act and instead, subjects them to conflict of interest rules to be adopted by the ICOC, which shall be based on standards applicable to members of scientific review committees of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The ICOC has adopted strong conflict of interest policies for the ICOC, employees, and
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 7 of 8
working group members. All policies are accessible to the public on www.cirm.ca.gov.
Conflict of Interest – SCA 13 requires two levels of compliance with conflict of interest – financial disclosure and divestment or blind trust depending upon role with the work of the Institute. The chair and vice chair and any appointed member of the Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee (ICOC), the Institute president, and any member of any working or advisory group appointed to assist the Institute or its governing body must disclose his or her income, investments, and interests in real property. The chair and vice chair and ICOC members, the Institute president must divest of or place into a blind trust, any financial or real property interest held in any organization that applies for funding from, or contracts with, the Institute or in any organization with a substantial interest in stem cell therapy. An organization with a substantial interest in stem cell therapy is defined as one that has more than five percent of the organization’s current annual research budget is allocated to stem cell therapy, based upon publicly available information.
SCA 13 proposes:
Section 8 is added to Article XXXV thereof, to read:
SEC. 8.
(a) The chair and vice chair and any appointed member of the Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee (ICOC), the president and each employee of the institute, and any member of any working or advisory group appointed to assist the institute or its governing body shall disclose his or her income, investments, and interests in real property in the manner set forth in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 87100) of Title 9 of the Government Code, or its successor. The chair and vice chair and any appointed member of the ICOC, the president of the institute or its governing body shall divest themselves of or place into a blind trust, any financial or real property interest held by that person in any organization that applies for funding from, or contracts with, the institute or in any organization with a substantial interest in stem cell therapy. An organization with a substantial interest in stem cell therapy is one for which, based upon publicly available information, more than five percent of the organization’s current annual research budget is allocated to stem cell therapy.
Concerns:
11. This amendment would subject members of the Working Groups to the Political Reform Act’s conflict of interest provisions, including disclosure of investments, income, gifts, travel payments and real property through the filing of Form 700. This information would be subject to public disclosure. The divestment provision puts a greater onus on ICOC members and the president than is imposed on any other state official. CIRM Working Groups are advisory, not decision-making bodies and Working Group members are not employees of CIRM. COI policies for Working Group members should recognize this important but limited role.
SCA 13 Analysis
Page 8 of 8
This provision would negatively impact the Institute’s ability to recruit and retain leading scientists and clinicians for the ICOC and the Working Groups. We are concerned that anyone who is a member of an ad hoc advisory group would need to disclosure without regards to the nature of their work or focus area. This may impede the Institute from taking advantage of volunteer expertise.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
SCA13 Wins Approval
A proposed ballot measure to tighten oversight of the California stem cell agency today advanced to the Senate floor, where it is expected to be debated next week.
The measure by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, was unanimously approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Ortiz said, “This measure will ensure the state can continue to attract the best and brightest researchers and scientists while protecting the financial interests of the state as well as our goal to develop cures for debilitating and deadly diseases that affect more than 1 million Americans. We will continue working with members of the stem cell governing board to ensure the public’s confidence in and long-term support of this $3 billion publicly-funded research program is maintained.”
We are seeking comment from the stem cell agency.
The measure by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, was unanimously approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Ortiz said, “This measure will ensure the state can continue to attract the best and brightest researchers and scientists while protecting the financial interests of the state as well as our goal to develop cures for debilitating and deadly diseases that affect more than 1 million Americans. We will continue working with members of the stem cell governing board to ensure the public’s confidence in and long-term support of this $3 billion publicly-funded research program is maintained.”
We are seeking comment from the stem cell agency.
Klein, Ortiz Agree on SCA 13 Changes, But Differences Remain
Stem cell chairman Robert Klein and Sen. Deborah Ortiz have reached "conceptual agreement" on modifications to her legislation to tighten oversight on the California stem cell agency.
Differences remain on important points, however. The full significance of the agreement could not be determined. As this item is being written, the proposed constitutional amendment, SCA 13, is being heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee. We are also seeking comment from the stem cell agency.
Here is a rundown on changes, as provided by her office.
Working group members would be required to disclose their economic interests in manner set forth in political reform act with disclosure to the Oversight Committee. Disclosure would be to the committee and not to the general public.
The committee would provide the state auditor with the disclosure statements. The state auditor would be required to annually review disclosure statements as well as decisions or recommendations of each working group member and report findings to the legislature regarding whether working group members have complied with requirements.
SCA 13 would adopt the NIH requirement that members must recuse themselves from deliberation on any proposal if they or a close relative or professional associate has a financial interest in the proposal, including a direct benefit of any type deriving from the proposal itself, or a financial benefit of any type from an applicant institution of over $5,000 per year, including honoraria, fees, stock, or other benefits.
Meetings of the Oversight Committee and the agency would be subject to open meeting laws.
Working groups would be allowed to conduct closed sessions to conduct peer review and to consider matters involving intellectual property, proprietary information, and prepublication scientific information.
Working groups would be required to produce a written summary of their reasons for funding or not funding any project as well as how each project recommended for funding will benefit California residents and to conduct an open public meeting to solicit public comments before submitting the recommendation to the Oversight Committee.
Unchanged would be provisions requiring that the grants and contracts ensure that the state receives a return on its investment in the form of access to low cost treatments, recoupment of legal and administrative costs, and a share of the royalties. Ortiz is continuing to look at language to address concerns that these provisions may impede the issuance of bonds, "a relatively technical fix," and that they may jeopardize
the tax exempt status of any bonds issued, according to her office.
Both Klein and Ortiz agree that the "state should receive some type of return on its investment in research and part of that return should be ensuring that stem cell therapies and treatments resulting from research funded by the state are affordable and accessible."
But they disagree, said her office, about the mechanism. Ortiz "wants to adopt the model used by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which requires entities receiving funding to commit to make vaccines available at reasonable prices and in sufficient supplies. Mr. Klein believes the state could direct a portion of the royalty payments negotiated by the ICOC into programs or initiatives to promote access to low cost therapies. They agreed to conduct further research and seek legal opinions about the viability of each approach."
We hope to bring more details and information on this issue later in the day.
Differences remain on important points, however. The full significance of the agreement could not be determined. As this item is being written, the proposed constitutional amendment, SCA 13, is being heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee. We are also seeking comment from the stem cell agency.
Here is a rundown on changes, as provided by her office.
Oversight Committee members, chair and vice chair, and institute president would be required to disclose their economic interests in the manner set forth in the Political Reform Act. They would be required to divest or place in blind trust any financial or real property interest in any organization that applies for funding or that has substantial interests in stem cell therapy, defined as greater than 5 percent of its research budget.
Working group members would be required to disclose their economic interests in manner set forth in political reform act with disclosure to the Oversight Committee. Disclosure would be to the committee and not to the general public.
The committee would provide the state auditor with the disclosure statements. The state auditor would be required to annually review disclosure statements as well as decisions or recommendations of each working group member and report findings to the legislature regarding whether working group members have complied with requirements.
SCA 13 would adopt the NIH requirement that members must recuse themselves from deliberation on any proposal if they or a close relative or professional associate has a financial interest in the proposal, including a direct benefit of any type deriving from the proposal itself, or a financial benefit of any type from an applicant institution of over $5,000 per year, including honoraria, fees, stock, or other benefits.
Meetings of the Oversight Committee and the agency would be subject to open meeting laws.
Working groups would be allowed to conduct closed sessions to conduct peer review and to consider matters involving intellectual property, proprietary information, and prepublication scientific information.
Working groups would be required to produce a written summary of their reasons for funding or not funding any project as well as how each project recommended for funding will benefit California residents and to conduct an open public meeting to solicit public comments before submitting the recommendation to the Oversight Committee.
Unchanged would be provisions requiring that the grants and contracts ensure that the state receives a return on its investment in the form of access to low cost treatments, recoupment of legal and administrative costs, and a share of the royalties. Ortiz is continuing to look at language to address concerns that these provisions may impede the issuance of bonds, "a relatively technical fix," and that they may jeopardize
the tax exempt status of any bonds issued, according to her office.
Both Klein and Ortiz agree that the "state should receive some type of return on its investment in research and part of that return should be ensuring that stem cell therapies and treatments resulting from research funded by the state are affordable and accessible."
But they disagree, said her office, about the mechanism. Ortiz "wants to adopt the model used by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which requires entities receiving funding to commit to make vaccines available at reasonable prices and in sufficient supplies. Mr. Klein believes the state could direct a portion of the royalty payments negotiated by the ICOC into programs or initiatives to promote access to low cost therapies. They agreed to conduct further research and seek legal opinions about the viability of each approach."
We hope to bring more details and information on this issue later in the day.
SCA 13: A Yeah and a Compromise
The big dog of California newspapers, the Los Angeles Times, has endorsed legislation that would tighten oversight of the California stem cell agency. Meanwhile, the politically influential Sacramento Bee has offered up a possible compromise on the measure, which is vehemently opposed by the agency.
Lives will be lost is the position of CIRM if the proposal by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, is passed. Ortiz supported creation of the agency and supports stem cell research. But she believes that the agency should be held to standards that generally apply to other state bureaucracies.
The Times, the largest circulation (900,000) newspaper in California, said that "leaders of the (stem cell agency) are engaging in inexcusable rhetoric. If enacted, said the institute's acting chief, the (Ortiz) amendment would 'cripple our efforts.' A board member said it would lead to 'extra suffering and death.'"
The Times continued, "It's understandable that companies and scientists would be unwilling in an open forum to discuss their or others' work related to possible contracts or disclose their patent applications. But SCA 13 makes broad allowances for such discussions to be private."
"From a purely pragmatic standpoint," the newspaper said, "(stem cell chairman Robert) Klein should welcome the constitutional amendment because it could insulate the institute from lawsuits alleging that the lack of public oversight had rendered the stem cell bonds unconstitutional."After all, this isn't Klein's or his board's $3 billion — it's the public's. And public oversight is one of the best ways to guard against public money going astray."
(We should note that the editor of the Times editorial page, Michael Kinsley, has Parkinson's, which many believe could be treated with future cures from stem cell research. It is unknown whether the Times' position on SCA 13 reflects his own.)
The Sacramento Bee, with 300,000 circulation in the Capitol, said:
"California's Legislature and the state's $3 billion stem cell research institute are engaged in a dangerous game of political chicken. No one will win if both keep careening toward the ballot box."
The compromise suggestion The Bee proferred dealt with whether the working group meetings of the agency should be public and whether assurances should be enacted to guarantee that stem cell cures would be available to low income persons.
The Bee said that "there is no reason these (working group) meetings need to be completely closed. Peer reviewers could easily hold open discussions on whether proposed research projects meet the institute's goals and criteria. Then they could move into private sessions to discuss the reputations and qualifications of applicants, consider patent issues and conduct the final scoring. This type of hybrid would help inform taxpayers (and the oversight board) about the projects they are financing, without discouraging candid discussions."
It also said, "A current draft of (Ortiz') measure requires that therapies be made available at cost 'to California residents who are eligible to receive assistance through state and county health care and preventive health programs.' Ortiz's intent is admirable, but this provision is premature. Scientists are still years away from full and final testing of embryonic stem cell therapies, and the institute's oversight board is many months away from discussing their eventual licensing. Lawmakers could easily wait two years before delving into this issue. At that point, they will have legal standing under Proposition 71 to amend the law without a constitutional amendment."
Lives will be lost is the position of CIRM if the proposal by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, is passed. Ortiz supported creation of the agency and supports stem cell research. But she believes that the agency should be held to standards that generally apply to other state bureaucracies.
The Times, the largest circulation (900,000) newspaper in California, said that "leaders of the (stem cell agency) are engaging in inexcusable rhetoric. If enacted, said the institute's acting chief, the (Ortiz) amendment would 'cripple our efforts.' A board member said it would lead to 'extra suffering and death.'"
The Times continued, "It's understandable that companies and scientists would be unwilling in an open forum to discuss their or others' work related to possible contracts or disclose their patent applications. But SCA 13 makes broad allowances for such discussions to be private."
"From a purely pragmatic standpoint," the newspaper said, "(stem cell chairman Robert) Klein should welcome the constitutional amendment because it could insulate the institute from lawsuits alleging that the lack of public oversight had rendered the stem cell bonds unconstitutional."After all, this isn't Klein's or his board's $3 billion — it's the public's. And public oversight is one of the best ways to guard against public money going astray."
(We should note that the editor of the Times editorial page, Michael Kinsley, has Parkinson's, which many believe could be treated with future cures from stem cell research. It is unknown whether the Times' position on SCA 13 reflects his own.)
The Sacramento Bee, with 300,000 circulation in the Capitol, said:
"California's Legislature and the state's $3 billion stem cell research institute are engaged in a dangerous game of political chicken. No one will win if both keep careening toward the ballot box."
The compromise suggestion The Bee proferred dealt with whether the working group meetings of the agency should be public and whether assurances should be enacted to guarantee that stem cell cures would be available to low income persons.
The Bee said that "there is no reason these (working group) meetings need to be completely closed. Peer reviewers could easily hold open discussions on whether proposed research projects meet the institute's goals and criteria. Then they could move into private sessions to discuss the reputations and qualifications of applicants, consider patent issues and conduct the final scoring. This type of hybrid would help inform taxpayers (and the oversight board) about the projects they are financing, without discouraging candid discussions."
It also said, "A current draft of (Ortiz') measure requires that therapies be made available at cost 'to California residents who are eligible to receive assistance through state and county health care and preventive health programs.' Ortiz's intent is admirable, but this provision is premature. Scientists are still years away from full and final testing of embryonic stem cell therapies, and the institute's oversight board is many months away from discussing their eventual licensing. Lawmakers could easily wait two years before delving into this issue. At that point, they will have legal standing under Proposition 71 to amend the law without a constitutional amendment."
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Dodging the Two-Thirds Bullet
You might call it the stem cell work-around. It is a way to fast track a tough stem cell oversight proposal onto the November ballot.
The tactic would avoid Sen. Deborah Ortiz' nasty problem of securing a two-thirds vote in both houses of the California legislature for her proposed constitutional amendment on the California stem cell agency.
That is a difficult task under the best of circumstances. Two-thirds approval means that members of both parties have to vote for a proposal. The requirement has been one of the main reasons for the yearly budget gridlock in Sacramento. While Ortiz' measure (SCA13) has bipartisan support, it is unclear whether that is sufficient to deliver all the votes she needs. Her task is even trickier given the timetable for placing a measure on the ballot. Normally the proposal would have to clear both houses by the end of June.
Now comes a little noticed comment in one legislative analysis of SCA13 from the Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee, which approved the measure earlier.
The analysis suggested that "the author and committee may wish to consider whether it would be more appropriate to, instead of asking the voters to place into the Constitution language aimed at providing more specificity to a statutory initiative, ask the voters to amend the initiative itself."
That would require a simple majority vote in both houses, the analysis said. But it would also require the governor's signature while a constitutional amendment does not.
There is no indication whether Ortiz is considering making such a change in her legislation.
Ortiz has scheduled a news conference call for noon Thursday (May 26). SCA13 comes up in the Senate Appropriations Committee later that afternoon. Ortiz also met with Robert Klein Wednesday to exchange views about the proposal, which the stem cell Oversight Committee unanimously opposed on Monday.
For the record, the committee analysis listed only one other formal opponent to the proposal, Stanford University. Caltech, USC and the California Healthcare Institute have expressed "concerns." In support are Californians Aware, Calpirg and California Common Cause.
The tactic would avoid Sen. Deborah Ortiz' nasty problem of securing a two-thirds vote in both houses of the California legislature for her proposed constitutional amendment on the California stem cell agency.
That is a difficult task under the best of circumstances. Two-thirds approval means that members of both parties have to vote for a proposal. The requirement has been one of the main reasons for the yearly budget gridlock in Sacramento. While Ortiz' measure (SCA13) has bipartisan support, it is unclear whether that is sufficient to deliver all the votes she needs. Her task is even trickier given the timetable for placing a measure on the ballot. Normally the proposal would have to clear both houses by the end of June.
Now comes a little noticed comment in one legislative analysis of SCA13 from the Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee, which approved the measure earlier.
The analysis suggested that "the author and committee may wish to consider whether it would be more appropriate to, instead of asking the voters to place into the Constitution language aimed at providing more specificity to a statutory initiative, ask the voters to amend the initiative itself."
That would require a simple majority vote in both houses, the analysis said. But it would also require the governor's signature while a constitutional amendment does not.
There is no indication whether Ortiz is considering making such a change in her legislation.
Ortiz has scheduled a news conference call for noon Thursday (May 26). SCA13 comes up in the Senate Appropriations Committee later that afternoon. Ortiz also met with Robert Klein Wednesday to exchange views about the proposal, which the stem cell Oversight Committee unanimously opposed on Monday.
For the record, the committee analysis listed only one other formal opponent to the proposal, Stanford University. Caltech, USC and the California Healthcare Institute have expressed "concerns." In support are Californians Aware, Calpirg and California Common Cause.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Stem Cell Agency Lambastes Ortiz
If the senator from Sacramento is trying to get the attention of the California stem cell agency, she did in big way on Monday.
"How dare she!" said one Oversight Committee member, Jeff Sheehy. "How dare she steal hope from the people of California."
His remarks came during discussion of the proposed constitutional amendment by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, that would tighten conflict of interest standards for the agency and ensure that the agency and its working groups would be subject to state open meeting and open record laws.
The Oversight Committee unanimously voted to oppose the proposal, SCA13, which requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of the Legislature and voter approval before it would become law. The committee moved its June meeting to Sacramento so it could lobby lawmakers against the proposal.
Also likely to be flooding lawmakers with their opposition are large national patient groups, some of which are represented on the Oversight Committee.
Interestingly, perhaps significantly, the opposition statement by the stem cell agency did not mention Ortiz' companion measure, SB18. Whether the agency is in support of that measure, neutral or opposed is not clear at this point. Also not clear is whether the absence of mention of SB18 is part of a bargaining ploy.
Both SCA13 and SB18, which have bipartisan support, are in the Senate Appropriations Committee and are scheduled for a hearing on Thursday. If they are approved by the committee, they then move to the Senate floor.
Ortiz has a meeting scheduled with stem cell chairman Robert Klein on Wednesday and other Oversight Committee members during the week.
The agency issued a statement following Monday's meeting that said "as currently drafted" Ortiz' constitutional amendment will" make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for scientists to do their jobs, and it will delay critically needed medical therapies."
Klein said, "We cannot understand this rush to judgment to try and get SCA13 on this fall’s ballot.”
"We need to send a shot over the bow of the Legislature," Caltech President David Baltimore, a member of the Oversight Committee, was quoted as saying by reporter Rone Tempest of the Los Angeles Times.
Ortiz told reporter Steve Johnson of the San Jose Mercury News, "Rather than joining me and trying to find a way to put sound accountability measures into the law, they have simply attempted to create the fear that accountability is equal to opposition.''
"There is no sinister plot here," Ortiz told Terri Somers of the San Diego Union Tribune, adding that the measure would not delay any possible therapies or treatments. "This legislation does not prevent them from moving forward and issuing grants."
One critical element of opposition to SCA13 is the board's apparent belief that few scientists would be willing to present their research proposals during partially open working group sessions of the agency despite the lure of the $3 billion research grant pool. Committee members noted that the usual grant procedures elsewhere call for private sessions. However, Ortiz' measure would allow for private sessions involving intellectual property, proprietary information and matters involving prepublication confidential scientific information.
Here are links to other stories on the subject this morning: Carl Hall, San Francisco Chronicle; Sandy Kleffman, Contra Costa Times.
"How dare she!" said one Oversight Committee member, Jeff Sheehy. "How dare she steal hope from the people of California."
His remarks came during discussion of the proposed constitutional amendment by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, that would tighten conflict of interest standards for the agency and ensure that the agency and its working groups would be subject to state open meeting and open record laws.
The Oversight Committee unanimously voted to oppose the proposal, SCA13, which requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of the Legislature and voter approval before it would become law. The committee moved its June meeting to Sacramento so it could lobby lawmakers against the proposal.
Also likely to be flooding lawmakers with their opposition are large national patient groups, some of which are represented on the Oversight Committee.
Interestingly, perhaps significantly, the opposition statement by the stem cell agency did not mention Ortiz' companion measure, SB18. Whether the agency is in support of that measure, neutral or opposed is not clear at this point. Also not clear is whether the absence of mention of SB18 is part of a bargaining ploy.
Both SCA13 and SB18, which have bipartisan support, are in the Senate Appropriations Committee and are scheduled for a hearing on Thursday. If they are approved by the committee, they then move to the Senate floor.
Ortiz has a meeting scheduled with stem cell chairman Robert Klein on Wednesday and other Oversight Committee members during the week.
The agency issued a statement following Monday's meeting that said "as currently drafted" Ortiz' constitutional amendment will" make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for scientists to do their jobs, and it will delay critically needed medical therapies."
Klein said, "We cannot understand this rush to judgment to try and get SCA13 on this fall’s ballot.”
"We need to send a shot over the bow of the Legislature," Caltech President David Baltimore, a member of the Oversight Committee, was quoted as saying by reporter Rone Tempest of the Los Angeles Times.
Ortiz told reporter Steve Johnson of the San Jose Mercury News, "Rather than joining me and trying to find a way to put sound accountability measures into the law, they have simply attempted to create the fear that accountability is equal to opposition.''
"There is no sinister plot here," Ortiz told Terri Somers of the San Diego Union Tribune, adding that the measure would not delay any possible therapies or treatments. "This legislation does not prevent them from moving forward and issuing grants."
One critical element of opposition to SCA13 is the board's apparent belief that few scientists would be willing to present their research proposals during partially open working group sessions of the agency despite the lure of the $3 billion research grant pool. Committee members noted that the usual grant procedures elsewhere call for private sessions. However, Ortiz' measure would allow for private sessions involving intellectual property, proprietary information and matters involving prepublication confidential scientific information.
Here are links to other stories on the subject this morning: Carl Hall, San Francisco Chronicle; Sandy Kleffman, Contra Costa Times.
Correction
We had a bad link on the "Political Interference, Venture Capitalists" item May 23. Here is the correct link to the article in question.
Monday, May 23, 2005
"Can't Get The Money Out"
Reporter Megan Garvey of the Los Angeles Times has pulled together an overview of the California stem cell agency amidst the latest news from South Korea. "Stuck in Neutral" is headline.
She wrote, "With no relaxation of restrictions on the federal horizon, hurdles facing the state's funding efforts have taken on a new sense of urgency, said Bob Klein, chairman of the stem cell agency's board and author of Prop. 71, the ballot measure that created the agency.
"'It makes it terribly frustrating,' said Klein, a real estate lawyer whose son, Jordan, now a teenager, was diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes several years ago. 'It means all the tools we expected to be out there are on the table today. They're not possibilities. They're real, and we can't get money out.'"
She wrote, "With no relaxation of restrictions on the federal horizon, hurdles facing the state's funding efforts have taken on a new sense of urgency, said Bob Klein, chairman of the stem cell agency's board and author of Prop. 71, the ballot measure that created the agency.
"'It makes it terribly frustrating,' said Klein, a real estate lawyer whose son, Jordan, now a teenager, was diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes several years ago. 'It means all the tools we expected to be out there are on the table today. They're not possibilities. They're real, and we can't get money out.'"
Political Interference, Venture Capitalists and a Personal Plea
Three members of the Oversight Committee of the California stem agency have put together a compelling defense of the agency, pleading for rejection of efforts to tighten oversight of the institute.
The authors are Joan Samuelson, David Serrano Sewell and Jeff Sheehy. All are patient advocate representatives on the board and personally live with afflictions that might be helped by future therapies developed with stem cell research.
The article, which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle last week, argues that the agency should be left to its own devices. Anything less could cost lives. Delays mean "someone who could have been benefited from new stem-cell based therapies -- perhaps one of us -- could die waiting."
"We beg, we plead: Let us get on with our work," they wrote, making an exceedingly personal argument that is difficult to oppose without appearing callous or worse.
Their article began, "A strange mix of religious ideologues, good-government activists and well-meaning Sacramento legislators have taken aim at the newly established California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the stem-cell research center established by Prop. 71. Some want to kill it outright in the courts, some may impair its effectiveness by overburdening it with needless regulation and others could bring it to a screeching halt with legislation drafted in haste."
They went on, "Two lawmakers in Sacramento have proposed an amendment that would reopen Prop. 71, sending parts of it back to Californians for another vote. This action, supported by some ideological opponents of stem-cell research, is neither warranted nor sound policy, but creates a delay that means someone who could have been benefited from new stem-cell based therapies -- perhaps one of us -- could die waiting."
The three stem cell directors concluded, "Continue to scrutinize our every move, hold us to the highest standards, but allow us to move urgently toward the cures that are so tantalizingly close. Lives are at stake."
Regardless of the emotional appeal by the three, the agency cannot escape its heritage. It was created in the crucible of politics and electoral government. That was the method chosen by its sponsors, including Robert Klein, its chairman. The agency now must live with the facts of its life. It is a public agency, albeit an unusual one. That means it is subject to review, both formally and informally, by the people of California and their elected representatives. And if the agency does not meet with their approval, it is subject to change by the same methods that created it.
Put in another context, if venture capitalists, some of whom are deeply involved in the agency, had put up $3 billion to finance a biotech start-up, they would certainly expect to have something to say about how it conducts its business. Entrepreneuers who find themselves tied financially to VCs often don't like the subsequent VC meddling. But the VCs provide the money, and they want to call at least some of the tunes.
If the sponsors of Prop. 71 wanted to keep government out of the stem cell business, they shouldn't have asked for government money. It is much too late to stuff that cat back in the bag.
The authors are Joan Samuelson, David Serrano Sewell and Jeff Sheehy. All are patient advocate representatives on the board and personally live with afflictions that might be helped by future therapies developed with stem cell research.
The article, which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle last week, argues that the agency should be left to its own devices. Anything less could cost lives. Delays mean "someone who could have been benefited from new stem-cell based therapies -- perhaps one of us -- could die waiting."
"We beg, we plead: Let us get on with our work," they wrote, making an exceedingly personal argument that is difficult to oppose without appearing callous or worse.
Their article began, "A strange mix of religious ideologues, good-government activists and well-meaning Sacramento legislators have taken aim at the newly established California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the stem-cell research center established by Prop. 71. Some want to kill it outright in the courts, some may impair its effectiveness by overburdening it with needless regulation and others could bring it to a screeching halt with legislation drafted in haste."
They went on, "Two lawmakers in Sacramento have proposed an amendment that would reopen Prop. 71, sending parts of it back to Californians for another vote. This action, supported by some ideological opponents of stem-cell research, is neither warranted nor sound policy, but creates a delay that means someone who could have been benefited from new stem-cell based therapies -- perhaps one of us -- could die waiting."
The three stem cell directors concluded, "Continue to scrutinize our every move, hold us to the highest standards, but allow us to move urgently toward the cures that are so tantalizingly close. Lives are at stake."
Regardless of the emotional appeal by the three, the agency cannot escape its heritage. It was created in the crucible of politics and electoral government. That was the method chosen by its sponsors, including Robert Klein, its chairman. The agency now must live with the facts of its life. It is a public agency, albeit an unusual one. That means it is subject to review, both formally and informally, by the people of California and their elected representatives. And if the agency does not meet with their approval, it is subject to change by the same methods that created it.
Put in another context, if venture capitalists, some of whom are deeply involved in the agency, had put up $3 billion to finance a biotech start-up, they would certainly expect to have something to say about how it conducts its business. Entrepreneuers who find themselves tied financially to VCs often don't like the subsequent VC meddling. But the VCs provide the money, and they want to call at least some of the tunes.
If the sponsors of Prop. 71 wanted to keep government out of the stem cell business, they shouldn't have asked for government money. It is much too late to stuff that cat back in the bag.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The Bee Roasts Robert Klein as "Rogue Operator"
In some past years, The Sacramento Bee's editorials were often a tad bland. "On one hand," they said, but "on the other...."
Sunday's piece on the stem cell agency was far from that. The editorial likened stem cell chairman Robert Klein to the crazed officer in the Vietnam War movie "Apocalypse Now" and described him as a "rogue operator" and "czar."
The rhetorical heat was generally over Klein's conduct over the last six months, but more specifically about legislation to tighten controls over the agency.
The Bee said Klein, "has gradually been consolidating power. In recent weeks, Klein has installed his cohorts as state employees, hired and fired consultants without consulting his fellow board members, and basked in the adulation of patient activists who see him as their savior."
The editorial continued: "At a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, a lobbyist named Eugene Erbin showed up and proceeded to criticize aspects of (Sen. Deborah) Ortiz's bill, saying he was representing the institute.
"Erbin's lobbying raised eyebrows for two reasons.
"One, the institute's oversight board hasn't yet discussed hiring its own contract lobbyist, much less Erbin, who works for the Sacramento firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller and Naylor, which represents several biomedical firms. That hiring - at $50,000 for five months -makes the institute one of the few state agencies with its own private lobbyist.
"Moreover, the oversight board hasn't yet publicly discussed its position on Ortiz's bill. Klein claims the board is holding open deliberations on all key policy. His actions in this situation suggest otherwise."
We should note that this blog first reported hiring of the lobbyist and the nature of the firm's contract May 5 in "The $10,000-a-month Stem Cell Lobbyist."
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Preciado Resigns from Stem Cell Agency
The Oversight Committee for the stem cell agency is losing its first member – Dr. Phyllis Preciado of Fresno.
She is resigning from the agency beginning in June to take an unspecified position in Oregon.
“My decision to accept a position in Oregon was based on the needs of my family, but that did not make it an easy one,” said Preciado in a statement released by the agency.
Stem cell chairman Robert Klein said she has "been a passionate voice on the ICOC for patient advocacy and the people of California’s Central Valley."
"She was a faculty research fellow for UC San Francisco's Fresno Latino Center for Medical Education, but left the position (in January) and is pursuing other career opportunities."
The Fresno Bee also reported that she "designed, developed and started a community-based diabetes program at a Fresno clinic and produced a diabetes education video for Hispanic teenagers.
"She is the diabetes action plan co-chair for the California Medical Association Foundation Network of Ethnic Physicians Organization, and a member of the joint task force for the California Diabetes Prevention and Control Program-Diabetes Coalition of California."
Her position on the board is that of patient advocate for Type II diabetes. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante will have 30 days to fill the position.
She is resigning from the agency beginning in June to take an unspecified position in Oregon.
“My decision to accept a position in Oregon was based on the needs of my family, but that did not make it an easy one,” said Preciado in a statement released by the agency.
Stem cell chairman Robert Klein said she has "been a passionate voice on the ICOC for patient advocacy and the people of California’s Central Valley."
According to an article earlier this year in the Fresno Bee, she "worked 15 years as a registered nurse before attending medical school at the University of California at Irvine in her 30s. She still is paying off $100,000 in student loans and laughingly says: 'I think I'm the only one who is poor on the committee.'
"She was a faculty research fellow for UC San Francisco's Fresno Latino Center for Medical Education, but left the position (in January) and is pursuing other career opportunities."
The Fresno Bee also reported that she "designed, developed and started a community-based diabetes program at a Fresno clinic and produced a diabetes education video for Hispanic teenagers.
"She is the diabetes action plan co-chair for the California Medical Association Foundation Network of Ethnic Physicians Organization, and a member of the joint task force for the California Diabetes Prevention and Control Program-Diabetes Coalition of California."
Her position on the board is that of patient advocate for Type II diabetes. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante will have 30 days to fill the position.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Stem Cell Snippets: Solace and Legislation
A 'TOUCHING" PICTURE: Check out this editorial cartoon in The Sacramento Bee by Rex Babin. It is likely there have been others but this is the first we have seen this year. It portrays Robert Klein and the agency in a reaching out position.
ENDORSING THE "ESSENCE:" We missed this editorial in the Los Angeles Times earlier, but with the paper's 900,000 circulation, we should call attention to it. It says, "Klein and his colleagues should incorporate the essence of Ortiz's public disclosure rules into their bylaws, whether or not the legislation reaches the governor's desk. He should also embrace the detailed set of stem cell research guidelines that the National Academy of Sciences just fast-tracked into print, six months ahead of schedule, in hope of influencing Klein's agency."
MAKING LEMONADE: Some of the also rans in the HQ race are finding solace. Reporter Clint Swett of The Sacramento Bee writes about how The Big Tomato is making lemonade out of its HQ lemons.
ENDORSING THE "ESSENCE:" We missed this editorial in the Los Angeles Times earlier, but with the paper's 900,000 circulation, we should call attention to it. It says, "Klein and his colleagues should incorporate the essence of Ortiz's public disclosure rules into their bylaws, whether or not the legislation reaches the governor's desk. He should also embrace the detailed set of stem cell research guidelines that the National Academy of Sciences just fast-tracked into print, six months ahead of schedule, in hope of influencing Klein's agency."
MAKING LEMONADE: Some of the also rans in the HQ race are finding solace. Reporter Clint Swett of The Sacramento Bee writes about how The Big Tomato is making lemonade out of its HQ lemons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)