Gayle Wilson Leaves Oversight Committee

Gayle Wilson, the wife of former California Gov. Pete Wilson, has resigned from the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency.

Wilson's resignation took effect last Sunday, according to a press release from CIRM. The statement said she will "continue to advise CIRM leadership on state and federal legislative matters." The reason for her departure was not disclosed in the press release, but we have a query into the agency.

Wilson was appointed to the board by Gov. Schwarzenegger as a representative to a committee slot for "an executive officer of a commercial life science entity." She is serves on the board of Gilead Sciences, as biopharmaceutical company.

Stem cell chairman Robert Klein said, "Her outreach efforts to fully inform the stem cell debate in Washington D.C. have been invaluable-especially in moving pro-stem cell legislation forward and with advancing a scientific understanding of stem cell research and its promise for treating chronic disease."

Wilson is the second person to leave the Oversight Committee. Phyliss Preciado left in the middle of 2005 to take a job in Oregon.

Eggs, Ethics and Cash: What about Singapore?

What is the price for a woman's egg? Is it more or less than a man's sperm? Is an egg worth more than the $30 paid to the donor of a pint of blood? Is it worth more than a kidney, for which the official price is zero?

Some of the questions that are being discussed by the California stem cell agency as it develops rules for securing eggs for its taxpayer-funded research.

Prop. 71 prohibits paying women to provide eggs, beyond direct expenses. But the agency is trying determine whether eggs can be used that come from sources outside of California that may involve some sort of additional payment. The Center for Policy and Genetics says that many members of the CIRM's Standards Working Group have "advocated seizing on a potential loophole in Prop. 71," asserting that "compensation for egg providers would be legal as long as the funds for these payments came from a source other than the CIRM."

The topic of cash-for-eggs came up at the group's meeting in December. The meeting received no coverage in the media but was attended by a staffer from the Center. The Korean scandal, which involved payments of $1,400 for a human eggs, was discussed during the meeting, although the flap was in its early stages.

The transcript of the meeting shows a free-ranging and loose discussion of some of the considerations involving the use of human eggs. Often in such discussions, the beginning question is phrased as "should we pay women to donate their eggs?" Rarely is it phrased as "should women be allowed to sell their eggs?" The different starting points could lead to different conclusions.

Here is a semi-random sampling of some of the partial comments from members of the Standards Group as carried in the transcript of the meeting.

Ann Kiessling, director of the Bedford Stem Cell Research Association and associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School

"I think that in the consenting process itself, you cannot establish guidelines for people in Singapore or other parts of the world who may actually view this as a way for women to get together and actually create a small business to donate eggs. I don't think that should be absolutely prevented. What you want to prevent is having somebody go through this procedure who was not fully informed and not doing it of their own free will."

Zach Hall, president of CIRM

"The question is do we want to exclude cell lines that are made by well-meaning, thoughtful, responsible people who happen to come to a different conclusion for whatever reasons than we do on this particular issue?"

Kiessling, again

"Lots and lots of women are going to be willing to do this because they're going to be willing to do it. It's going to be a select group. You are not going to recruit people who can't afford to take off two weeks to do it... Plenty of women...are going to volunteer to donate eggs because women do things like that. That's not the issue. The problem is whether you ought to accept lines from other parts of the world or other parts of the country that have different guidelines."

Marcy Feit, president of ValleyCare Health Systems

"(Say)there's a cell bank in Singapore. What assurances do we have that even if we get paperwork that says informed consent was given, how do we validate the process of informed consent? Many times cultures work under different understandings of processes than we do. And so I think we have to give really careful consideration to lines that were derived before our standards were set in. And I'm not saying I have the answer of how we're going to go about that because I hear the plea from the scientists that you really want to include as many lines as possible that are usable for research. But given that, the attack on CIRM would be vicious internationally if we accepted one cell line that wasn't properly handled in another country. So to validate that process, to really understand, as much discussion as we had this morning regarding protecting women, and we know what we want, how do we validate that with cell lines that were created prior to this understanding this morning?"

The discussion turned to the value of eggs in dollars and cents.

Kevin Eggan, assistant professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard and a founding member of the Stowers Medical Institute

"The problem here is that...eggs somehow lie somewhere between blood and sperm
and a kidney. "

Robert Taylor, associate professor of medicine at Emory University

"So I'm having trouble following this argument. So the liver donor gets nothing.The kidney donor gets nothing. The sperm donor get $75 or something like that.The blood donor who has probably a slightly higher risk of injury than the sperm donor, which I would say is probably relatively minimal risk last time I thought about it, gets compensated to the tune of $30. I'm just -- I'm starting to -- so cost and risk clearly are either dissociated or inversely related. I can't figure this."

The topic of eggs and ethics is expected to be revisited later this month at a two-day meeting of the Standards Working Group.

CIRM President On Cyberspace Airwaves Jan. 4

Set your Internet radio Wednesday Jan. 4 to Science and Society at 1 p.m. PST to catch the president of the California stem cell agency discussing the latest doings at the institute.

Zach Hall is scheduled to be interviewed on a program called Science and Society by David Lemberg. The program's website says it provides "direct access to primary sources of change in science and technology." It is also a public service of the Hopkins Capital Group, a St. Louis venture capital firm focusing on high tech health firms.

California Universities Not Waiting for CIRM Cash

California universities are plunging ahead with multimillion dollar stem cell programs despite the failure – so far – of the California stem cell agency to deliver on promised grants.

That's the report in the Los Angeles Times this morning by writer Rong-Gong Lin II.

According to the story:

"'We are … not waiting,' said Arnold Kriegstein, director of UC San Francisco's stem cell institute, which has also hired faculty and started preparing research facilities. 'We are moving ahead with what we can with private funding.'"

The Times said that UC San Francisco officials are using private fundraising to renovate about 7,000 square feet of lab space, expected to be ready in 10 to 11 months for new embryonic stem cell lines not approved by the federal government.

The story also said, however:

"Some (UCSF) researchers who had been eager to compete for grants for embryonic stem cell research have had to look for other sources of funding or areas of emphasis. Programs to train scientists in developing and maintaining human embryonic stem cells have stalled."

Here is the Times look at other schools:

"USC has lured a top scientist from the Australian Stem Cell Centre to head its new research institute and has committed $10 million this year to hiring faculty and renovating lab space." He is Martin F. Pera, whose lab was the second in the world to isolate embryonic stem cells from the human blastocyst, a developing embryo.

"UCLA has said it will spend at least $20 million over five years to recruit scientists and set up laboratories. It has already hired three young researchers for faculty positions, two from Harvard University and the other from Massachusetts Institute of Technology." The Times identified three of the hires as Hanna Mikkola, who is focusing on leukemia; Kathrin Plath, who was at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at MIT and is studying the biology of how stem cells differentiate; and Amander Clark from UC San Francisco, who wants to see how stem cell research can help improve human fertility

"Stanford University has made several prominent hires, including two in May from Harvard and the University of Michigan. UC Irvine has begun planning a $60-million facility to house its program, and on Friday hired Peter Donovan, a prominent Johns Hopkins University professor, as an interim co-director."

Separately from the Times article, John Simpson, stem cell projector director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, commented on the hiring of Pera, but his remarks apply to the others as well:

"This just shows that Prop. 71 is having worldwide impact and that California is becoming the model for publicly funded stem cell research. If the ICOC is to fulfill the promises made to the voters, CIRM polices need to be grounded on three principles: affordability, accessibility and accountability."

Stem Cell Matters Moving Into Gubernatorial Campaign

You might call him Stem Cell Steve. He is the only major candidate for governor of California with a section of his website devoted to stem cell issues.

He is Steve Westly, the elected controller of the state of California. Westly is running for the Democratic nomination for governor against Phil Angelides, who is the elected state treasurer.

The position of controller is pretty much a ho-hum office, hardly worth more than the proverbial bucket of warm spit, as a former vice president of the United States once described his own office. It is difficult to electrify the electorate when your main responsibilities as controller are primarily printing state payroll checks and dealing with "fiscal year-end procedures."

Only one California controller has managed to make it into the governor's office, Gray Davis, who was a colleague of ours some 30 years ago.

We ran across Westly's interest in stem cell matters when we saw a Google ad bearing his name on this web site. That means the Westly campaign is paying Google to place ads on sites that deal with stem cell issues.

(For the record: We -- the California Stem Cell Report -- do not have any control over which ads Google places on our pages. We do not receive any revenue from Google unless someone happens to click on Westly's ad or any of the others that may appear. Even then the amounts are inconsequential or less. Since Google ads began appearing on this blog in early 2005, we have not received one cent from the advertising. We hesitate to speculate about what that means.)

Westly's ad makes a pitch. "Stem cell research – why it's held up and how you can help," it reads. The ad contains a link that takes the curious to a section on Westly's campaign website called "Stem Cell Research Now!" It targets Gov. Schwarzenegger as allied with opponents of stem cell research who have sued the stem cell agency. Here is what it says:

"Right-wing troublemakers Ted Costa and Lew Uhler are behind the lawsuit. They also happen to be - surprise, surprise - two of Governor Schwarzenegger's biggest backers. Costa led the recall and Prop. 77 drives. Uhler was behind the union dues initiative, Prop. 75.

"So why doesn't the Governor call off his conservative cronies? Millions of people are waiting for cures. Stem cells may be the fastest way to get those cures. And Arnold's buddies are holding up the research."

The pitch includes an electronic petition that is designed to be sent to the governor with the electronic addition of a signature and email address from whomever may be viewing the site, whether they live in Korea or South Dakota. Our suspicion is that the petition, if it ever gets delivered, would contain no names from Korea. The Westly effort is undoubtedly designed to identify probable Westly supporters who are interested in stem cell research. Once identified, they can be targeted later for more specific pitches in support of Westly.

Westly's rival for the Democratic nomination, Angelides, does not have a similar focus on stem cell issues. One can only speculate on the stem cell strategy in Westly's campaign. But here is one theory: Westly's people read polls that say the public supports stem cell research. If the public knows Westly supports the research, that will generate voter approval. It will generate even more voter approval if the evil Gov. Gropenator is linked with the Luddites who oppose stem cell research and are suing to prevent it. Further, attacking the governor at this stage could also help weaken him in next fall's general election. Or so the reasoning may go.

We should note that Westly is a former top executive at eBay and has close links to the Silicon Valley financial community, which was a big supporter of Prop. 71. California stem cell chairman Robert Klein also donated $27,695 to Westly's campaign for controller, according to one report.

More Cash for CIRM This Month?

The financially hard-pressed California stem cell agency hopes to get a boost this month with the sale of bond anticipation notes to philanthropic investors.

Reporter Laura Mecoy of The Sacramento Bee quoted Zach Hall, president of CIRM, as saying that the agency hopes to secure enough funding by the end of January to move forward on some of the training grants it approved in September.

No money has been available for grants because litigation against the agency has made it unable to issue the $3 billion in bonds that voters authorized more than a year ago. The lawsuits are not expected to be resolved until 2007.

Mecoy's story Sunday morning also reported that the agency is "trying to determine whether state-funded research can use stem cell lines developed by other agencies that allow larger donor payments" than permitted under Prop. 71, which limits egg donor payments to reimbursement for expenses.

"There are other entities in other countries that operate in other ways. If we insist everybody do as our regulations say, our scientists will not be able to work on (stem cell) lines that deviate from our standards," Hall said.

The main focus of Mecoy's story was on the impact of the Korean scandal on legislation by State Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, to tighten oversight of the stem cell agency, which we discussed on Dec. 20 (Christmas Comes Early for Sen. Ortiz).

Mecoy wrote:

"'The South Korean scandal makes it more difficult for opponents to allege this is a plot by the right wing,' Ortiz said of her legislation. 'It shows the best and the brightest in the scientific community couldn't catch these instances of fraud and overstated research.'"

Mecoy continued:

"'If their industry can't sufficiently police themselves and root out fraud, then government should step in,' the senator said. 'California would be leading the nation if we did the right thing.'

"Hall said the South Korean scandal 'emphasizes the importance of just the type of apparatus we are putting together' at the stem cell agency.

"But he said fraud is not unique to stem cell research: It has happened in various fields of scientific endeavor.

"'These things happen,' he said. 'The more intense the interest, the more likely they are to happen, and the more likely they are to be found out.'"

Regarding the sale of the bond anticipation notes, agency officials earlier said they hoped for funding last fall so we will have to wait and see whether the current expectations materialize. Agency officials have been circumspect on any pending deals, but on Oct. 31, an official from the state Treasurer's office said there was no interest from investors in purchasing the notes. However, that was two months ago and that official may not have been fully informed on efforts by stem cell chairman Robert Klein to peddle the notes. He seems to have taken on the sale as a personal project.

A sale of the notes in amounts that would not fully fund the first year of all the authorized grants raises interesting questions about which institutions would receive cash and in what amounts. Presumably that would be a decision that would be made by the stem cell Oversight Committee, which does not meet again until February. A politically astute grant recipient might promptly begin discreet lobbying of Oversight Committee members to assure that its programs receive favorable consideration.

A Korean Lesson: 'Money Breeds Corruption'

The California stem cell agency needs to start asking more questions about the Korean scandal and how it may relate to stem cell research in the Golden State, The Sacramento Bee said today in an editorial.

The Bee said CIRM can learn from the Hwang affair but only if the agency takes "the time to publicly grapple with this scandal. So far, they have acted as if Hwang is a distant aberration whose fabrications don't affect them. Nothing could be further from the truth."

The editorial continued:

"While California's institute can do only so much to combat scientific fraud - the responsibility lies largely in the hands of peer-reviewed journals - it can set standards for obtaining eggs and other biological material, and ensure those rules are enforced. The institute's medical standards working group is now preparing such regulations. Yet at their last meeting, on Dec. 1, the committee's members went out of their way to avoid any discussion of Hwang's mounting troubles."

In a separate opinion piece, Associate Editor Stu Leavenworth wrote that it is easy to learn the wrong lessons from Korea.

It is, he said, "laughable to hear people insinuate that this debacle could have been avoided if American researchers, and not the South Koreans, were leading the way.

"The annals of U.S. science are filled with researchers who faked findings, exploited human test subjects and enriched themselves while extolling their supposed ethics. Indeed, it is interesting that Hwang's fraud was exposed not because of scrutiny from U.S. researchers, but because his colleagues in South Korea had the courage to go public with questions about their 'supreme scientist.'"

He continued,

"The only lesson is an old one: Money breeds corruption. Rightly or wrongly, embryonic stem cell research is seen as the next big rainmaker in the biomedical field. With so much money riding on the outcome, some people are going to lie, cheat and steal.

"To combat such fraud, editors of science journals - and those of us in the media - need to be much more skeptical than we were in this case."

California Stem Cell Director Stresses Speed

One of the members of the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency spoke of the need for "urgency" in finding stem cell therapies in an interview with a newspaper printed today.

The quest for speed is one of the problems at the heart of the Korean stem cell scandal, according to some scientists.

Joan Samuelson of Healdsburg, CA, an attorney and president of the Parkinson's Action Network, is the committee member who did a Q&A with the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat. Given the nature of such Q&As, it is likely that she actually made her comments anywhere to a few days to a few weeks prior to their publication, probably at a time when the scandal was not as hot. The topic of Korea did not even come up in her printed remarks.

Nonetheless, one of the refrains heard from the patient advocates is the crying need for cures. Some, such as Samuelson, are living with diseases that could be alleviated through the results of stem cell research.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the interview:

"Prop. 71 seeks something that may be a first in biomedical history: not just research advances, but actual treatments and cures resulting from the investment of funds, and in a tight time frame. The National Institutes of Health, for example, spends about $30 billion each year in federal tax dollars to fund research, but requires no particular results.

"My 15 years of watching this process causes me to side with the scientists who believe that if every step is treated with great urgency, sharing of information, collaboration in approaches and adequate funding, that will start translating into the first treatments far sooner than they will if this process is left to chance."

"Several forces delay finding cures. For example, you might not get a cure for decades because researchers don't stick to the problem. They move on to something else, because they lose interest, because it's too hard, because there's no funding.

"But this won't happen at the institute because 10 of us wake up every morning saying, 'Please, God, let this succeed.' My vision is that the institute will be available to fund any piece of remaining research needed. We're going to have to work with the whole world."

The reference to "10 of us" is to the number of patient advocates on the board.

CIRM Scientific Conference Expenses Disclosed

The California stem cell agency's international scientific conference last October cost $128,489, coming in nearly $87,000 under budget.

The event drew a fair amount of news media attention (see "Everything" and "Clues" items on this blog) and was praised by editorially by at least one newspaper as one of the wisest expenditures CIRM has made. That said, the agency was a bit balky at releasing the budget figures.

The largest single expenditure was $48,643 for rooms, facilities and equipment at the PARC 55 Renaissance Hotel in San Francisco. Rooms were discounted 30 percent for the 32 persons that the agency picked up expenses for. CIRM paid $45,200 to Mosaic Event Management to run the event. Travel expenses for speakers and others ran an estimated $20,000. Another estimated $9,000 is slated to go to science writer Kelly LaMarco, who is preparing an executive report of the meeting.

The event generated $23,450 in registration and other fees.

The expenses do not include a reception for attendees that was hosted at the St. Francisco Hotel by the California Healthcare Institute, a biomedical industry group.

Why Do Scientists Cheat?

"If you're not in first place, you're no place," says one bioethicist in an article in the Christian Science Monitor about what it calls "a year of research ethics challenges."

The springboard for the piece by reporter Peter Spotts is the Korean affair. But Spott recounted scientific scandals at the Veterans Administration, MIT and the University of Vermont.

He also dealt with dubious dealings at NIH.

"In a survey of NIH-funded scientists, released in June, only 1.5 percent of 3,000-plus respondents acknowledged having falsified or plagiarized information. But 15.5 percent admitted to altering their research approach under pressure from funding sources, and 12.5 percent admitted to looking the other way when colleagues used flawed data."

The comment about "first place" came from Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center, a bioethics institute in New York state. He noted that scientists have the usual human failings but work in an intense environment where only the best ideas rise to the top. He did not say "perceived" best ideas, but he should have.

Christmas Comes Early for Sen. Ortiz

The Korean stem cell scandal is a bit of political gift to California state Sen. Deborah Ortiz.

While it certainly was not something she was hoping for, the hoo-ha surrounding Hwang Woo-suk has created an atmosphere that will aid Ortiz' efforts to tighten oversight of the California stem cell agency, protect egg donors and ensure that California reaps the benefits of its $6 billion research investment.

Ortiz, a Sacramento Democrat who is the most influential California legislator on stem cell matters, authored legislation earlier this year to protect egg donors. Public awareness of the bill was minimal, and it was vetoed, with little notice, by the governor.

Ortiz plans to re-introduce the measure come January. It will have a much more favorable environment given the heightened awareness created by the Korean cash-for-eggs affair, which involved egg donations from junior researchers as well. That is considered improper by some.

Her proposed constitutional amendment, SCA13, will also gain support as a result of the Korean scandal. The measure would increase state oversight of the agency and is intended to provide more benefits to California from research commissioned by CIRM. It requires a two-third vote of both houses and voter approval. But the proposal has key Republican support, which should help ease its passage in the legislature.

Ortiz is undoubtedly going to exploit – directly or indirectly -- what one observer has called the "flabbergasting" disclosures coming from Korea to bolster support for the proposal, which has been opposed by CIRM and its allies.

Term limits will force Ortiz out of the legislature at the end of 2006 so she has a limited time to accomplish her legislative objectives. She is reportedly eyeing a statewide office and also needs a solid record to campaign on.

Earlier this year – prior to the Hwang affair – Ortiz indicated that stem cell matters were at the top of her agenda.

"I have about a year left in the Legislature, but this will probably be my No. 1 priority.  The stakes are too important if we don’t meet the intent of the initiative, and if we don’t make good on the promises we made to the voters," she said during a hearing on intellectual property and CIRM.

Look for a major push by Ortiz after the turn of the year that will involve PR, op-ed pieces, public appearances, support-building among stem groups and more.

California Stem Cell Leaders Speak to Korean Scandal

A number of California stem cell researchers discussed the Korean stem cell scandal in a piece by reporter Bruce Lieberman in the San Diego Union-Tribune, including two members of the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency. Here are some excerpts from the article:

"'It's a black eye on the whole world of science,' Richard Murphy, president of the Salk Institute in La Jolla (and CIRM director), said. 'Exciting areas of research are always competitive . . . but healthy competition never justifies sloppy research, cutting corners or dishonest behavior.'"

"'We would have figured out very quickly that there was some problem here. . . . And the truth would have come out much sooner had we been in a position like we normally are – to be able to jump in and work with complete freedom,' said John C. Reed, president of the Burnham Institute in La Jolla(also a CIRM director). 'It's very important that we have laboratories throughout the country and around the world to . . . verify whether observations made by one group are reproducible by another.'"

"Dr. Evan Snyder, head of stem cell research at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, said the embarrassing South Korea episode shows how science's built-in system of checks and balances can root out misconduct.
"'This was an example of the scientific community doing what it does routinely, which is police itself,' Snyder said.

The story also quoted Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for State Sen. Deborah Ortiz, the lead author of a proposed ballot measure to tighten controls on the California stem cell agency.

"'This whole unfortunate episode has pointed to the need for good governmental oversight of this important research," Jordan said last week. 'We want to maintain the public's confidence in stem cell research, and the best way to do that is through accountability and openness.'"

Korean Markets Warn Off Shy Stem Cell Investors

Those timid souls known as venture capitalists are not likely to be encouraged by the events in Korea, and that is likely to reflect poorly on the stem cell investment climate in California, at least for the short term.

Some, however, might argue that it is a buying opportunity – prices are down because of temporary market indigestion in swallowing the bad news out of Asia.

In the past few days the news has not been good for those holding Korean biotechnology investments. According to Reuters, prices in Korean biotech stocks "plunged" on Friday, one company by 15 percent.

The market reaction is another reason why private capital is not interested in funding the type of research that the California stem cell agency would if it were not snarled in a lawsuit.

Korean News Fuels Fire Against CIRM

As the negative news about stem cell research rolled in from across the Pacific, the Los Angeles Daily News (circulation 195,000) carried a hostile article about the California stem cell agency written by one of the minions of a "free market think tank" in Sacramento.

The opinion piece was authored by K. Lloyd Billingsley, editorial director of the Pacific Research Institute, which calls itself a "free market think tank." The facts of the piece are all familiar to followers of the agency.

However, he quoted Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute, another similar organization, as arguing:

"Voters might be disposed to undoing Prop. 71" when they believe in alternatives "and when the problems of Prop. 71 permeate the public consciousness. One year after the vote, that is beginning to happen."

The views of such folks as Billingsley and Smith find fertile ground when the stem cell turf is disturbed by the Korean uproar. Two months ago such views would have had much less impact than they do now. Beyond that, the references to the voters disposition makes it clear that the opponents of Prop. 71 are looking at a ballot measure involving the agency. That means CIRM and its friends should be rallying anybody who could be considered their allies. The best bet for the agency is to keep a measure off the ballot, whether it is SCA13 or an initiative backed by well-financed fundamentalist forces.

Bioethics Blog Weighs Hwang Damage

In our earlier item on the implications of Hwang affair, we should have included the comments from the Editors Blog of the American Journal of Bioethics, which has spent a fair amount of time on the issue.

In a posting from today (Friday) on the site, blog.bioethics.net, they wrote:

"So what will happen as the story becomes a huge huge media story tomorrow is anyone's guess. The key questions though seem likely to involve a billion versions of: 'Will ethical lapses in this lab damage stem cell research elsewhere?'
Answer: yup. And no amount of late-in-the-day standards creation will change that. People are going to ask whether the mechanisms whereby stem cell money is doled out have to be made much more rigorous. And yet again, the U.S. government will be zero help, since our rule for how to fund stem cell research is based on the altogether stupid idea that some tiny collection of embryonic stem cells in Wisconsin are ok in terms of ethics and money, but anything made after August 9, 2001 is evil and not to be funded."

The Half Empty Implications of the Hwang Affair

Is the Hwang Woo Suk affair the WMD issue of stem cell research? Does it fuel the foes of embryonic stem cell work? How will it affect the California stem cell agency?

Just some of the questions being addressed as the affair has blossomed from cash-for-eggs to possible outright fraud.

In California, as elsewhere, the Korean stem cell scandal is something of a half-empty, half-full matter. Supporters say it demonstrates the need for solid research with top notch oversight and well thought out rules. On the other hand, foes certainly will use it to argue that stem cell researchers cannot be trusted. But there is little doubt that the tangled controversy will create confusion and uncertainty on the part of the public about stem cell research, which has recently enjoyed generally good press.

For CIRM it arguably creates an unfavorable climate for the sale of tens of millions of dollars in notes sorely needed to finance the agency. However, a case certainly will be made that now is the time to get behind CIRM and its high standards.

Zach Hall, president of CIRM, was somewhat circumspect in a statement:

“The withdrawal of the results by Drs. Schatten, Hwang and the South Korean group is a serious setback for stem cell research in the area of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Such incidents have happened before in science and are always unfortunate both for the field and for the scientists involved. The good news is that many talented researchers will continue their work on nuclear transfer and I am confident that the field will recover and quickly move ahead.”

The Center for Policy and Genetics in Oakland, a longtime CIRM critic, said on its web site:

"Given that investigative journalists, not scientists, uncovered the falsified data, how can the senior US and British scientists who asked the media to refrain from questioning the 'validity of the experiments' justify their request?"

The center continued:

"Now that it is clear that the voluntary guidelines for embryonic stem cell research recommended by lead scientific bodies in the US are inadequate, how can we move to put in place enforceable regulations that will protect women and allow legitimate embryonic stem cell research to advance?"

Reporter Gina Kolata of the New York Times touched on one of the deeper implications of the affair. She quoted Laurie Zoloth, director of the Center for Bioethics, Science and Society at Northwestern University, as saying it "raises questions about whether the science is good."

"'Good as in true and real and morally worthy of our funding,' she explained. 'That is so most especially in this twilight sort of terrain with a lot of open questions that people disagree about. 'Is this our version of WMD.?' Dr. Zoloth said."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, reporters Antonio Regalado and Gordon Fairclough said:

"Regardless of the outcome, the case once again underscores the limitations of top scientific journals in verifying the results of the research they publish. Journals typically recruit independent reviewers to review papers. But such reviews don't involve actually repeating the experiments, which makes intentional fraud difficult to detect."

John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American, wrote online:

"How much of a colossal black eye will this scandal give to embryonic stem cell work in general? I commented on that point previously, back when it looked like Hwang's headaches all centered on the research ethics. But outright fraud carries this to a whole new level. Frankly, I've been surprised that some of the usually vociferous opponents of embryonic stem cell research haven't been making more of a fuss about the Hwang affair all along. I kept waiting to hear them argue that the ethical laxity of the Korean lab only proved that the moral of judgment of stem cell researchers couldn't be trusted--that no matter what promises the scientists made to uphold human dignity in their work, they would surely start committing atrocities once they were allowed to operate freely. (My hunch is that the clear willingness of so many in the stem cell community to push for strong codes of scientific ethics has blunted this attack so far.) Something tells me that those kinds of criticisms will become much more common shortly."

One industry perspective came in a piece by Barbara Demick and Karen Kaplan in the Los Angeles Angeles Times. They quoted Michael West, president and chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, Mass., as saying his company "would redouble its research efforts now that there might be a fresh opportunity to be the first to create individualized embryonic stem cells."

"This is a chance for the U.S. to recapture the lead in this field," he was quoted as saying.

As for the opponents, Kolata talked to two, including Nigel Cameron, president of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

"'Where's the beef? Where are those cures? Why is it that there is no private money going into this research? The business community values it at zero,'" Kolata quoted Cameron as saying.

She also quoted Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of anti-abortion activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, as saying,

"'In one sense, this puts us back to where we were before May of 2005, when there still was some uncertainty about whether this would work at all. In another sense it does illustrate in my mind how hype and ambition have gotten ahead of the science.'

"'How am I going to exploit it?' he said. 'You don't have to. It's just speaking for itself.'"

Coming Up

Later today we will carry a report and assessment on how bad the news is out of Korea for stem cell research. What it means for the credibility of the work and more.

Korean Mess Bad News for Funding of California Stem Cell Agency

The tangled Korea-Egg scandal became more convoluted today with an adamant denial by Hwang Woo-suk that he falsified stem cell research findings.

His statement came after news outlets worldwide published reports quoting a co-researcher as saying that Hwang had essentially confessed.

That did not appear to be the case according to reporter Kwang-Tae Kim of The Associated Press.

"South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk on Friday stood by his purported breakthroughs in stem cell research despite accusations he falsified key evidence, saying his work would be authenticated after tests performed within days," The AP said.

Hwang said he was "shocked" by his co-researcher's statement that work was faked.

Bloomberg.com reported the Korean stock market declined as a result of the flap. Bloomberg wrote:

"'I apologize for creating this uproar both in and out of Korea,' Hwang told reporters at a briefing in Seoul today. 'The fact remains that our research team was successful in creating stem cells from patients' skin cells. Still, there were mistakes made, human errors, in taking photographs and in the preservation of the stem cells.' Hwang said he will seek agreement from his 24 coauthors to retract the study from Science."

Reuters reported:

"'Our six research members made 11 stem cells and all confirmed this,' Hwang said at the packed briefing in a lecture hall. 'We six researchers have no doubt.'" Hwang said the cells had been badly contaminated by a fungus and he planned to ask prosecutors to investigate his suspicion that they may have been tampered with or replaced."
Reuters continued:
"Hwang said he was retracting the paper from Science because of the uproar, even though he did not doubt his findings. He said a follow-up paper had been submitted to another journal and that would restore faith in his team."

Newspaper readers all across the country this morning will see stories about Hwang's alleged confession. If they hear anything on the radio or TV it will lead with his denial. The Internet will have it all. Major confusion will result until this is all sorted out, but meanwhile stem cell research will take a hefty PR hit. And that is not good for the folks trying to sell tens of million of dollars in notes to finance the California stem cell agency.

Does the Korea-Egg Affair Give California More Stem Cell Clout?

The editor in chief of Scientific American, John Rennie, has put together a review of the implications of the Korea-egg scandal, which he described as "flabbergasting."

Writing on his blog, Rennie said:

"In six months, this work went from being one of the most celebrated accomplishments of recent biotechnology--probably a strong contender for future Nobel consideration--to what may become a legendary scientific fraud akin to the Piltdown man."

Rennie addressed a number of questions, one of which was "how does all this affect the international competition for stem cell dominance?" Rennie's answer:

"If Hwang's work is illusory, though, the center of power would seem to have swung back over to the U.S. -- that is to say, California."

Rennie's final paragraph:

"There's an old wry observation that if you look back at disastrously bad decisions made throughout history, you could probably find someone connected to each who would have said, 'Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.' But I can't see how anyone in the Hwang lab could have ever even thought that."

Korea Herald: Hwang Faked Stem Cell Research

The Korea Herald reports that "Hwang Woo-suk fabricated his stem cell research published in journal Science this year and asked the journal to retract his paper."

The newspaper said that Roh Sung-il, who co-authored a Science paper with Hwang, "admitted there remain no embryonic stem cells which his team claimed to create through cloning."

The newspaper continued:

"Lee Wang-jae, a senior SNU (Seoul National University) official, confirmed that the research was fake.

"'Hwang's research team admitted that there were no embryonic stem cells which it claimed had created,' said Lee who was tapped to lead a SNU committee to investigate his research. 'Today is the most shameful day for Korea's science community.'"