For those of you in the New York City area interested in the big money issues involved in intellectual property and the California stem cell agency, you are supposed to be able to hear the proceedings at the Carlyle hotel late Monday afternoon.
The luxury hotel prides itself on its privacy, but CIRM tells us that the proceedings will be able to be heard beginning at 4 p.m. EST. CIRM has promised to provide a room location at the Carlyle, but it has not been forthcoming. You may want to double-check before you make a special effort to be at the Carlyle.
If you do attend, please drop us a note on your impressions about the affair. Send it to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. Or you can post it directly on the blog, by clicking on the word "comments" that follows each item.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Researcher Cibelli Quits California Stem Cell Agency
Stem cell researcher Jose Cibelli, who co-authored a fraudulent paper in the Korean scandal, has resigned from his work with the California stem cell agency.
The Sacramento Bee reported his departure this morning in an editorial. Cibelli is under investigation at Michigan State University, a probe he requested himself.
The Bee wrote:
Among other things, the Standards Working Group deals with the ethics of stem cell research, which came up at a Dec. 1 meeting in which Cibelli participated (see Cibelli item Jan. 12). The discussion included the Korean scandal, but The Bee says it was given short shrift. That triggered a contrary response from the group's co-chair, Bernard Lo of UC San Francisco.
The Bee said,
The newspaper continued:
Perhaps coincidentally, the CIRM's Governance Subcommittee has scheduled a meeting one week from today that includes discussion of a policy for removal of working group members.
The Sacramento Bee reported his departure this morning in an editorial. Cibelli is under investigation at Michigan State University, a probe he requested himself.
The Bee wrote:
"'Until that issue is resolved, Cibelli has voluntarily withdrawn from his activities on the Standards Working Group, as of Tuesday of this week,' said institute spokeswoman Nicole Pagano."
Among other things, the Standards Working Group deals with the ethics of stem cell research, which came up at a Dec. 1 meeting in which Cibelli participated (see Cibelli item Jan. 12). The discussion included the Korean scandal, but The Bee says it was given short shrift. That triggered a contrary response from the group's co-chair, Bernard Lo of UC San Francisco.
The Bee said,
"For now, it is unclear if Cibelli knew about Hwang's fabrications or simply was duped. Either way, the incident doesn't speak well of his ability to set and enforce rigorous standards on scientists who hope to receive grants from the California institute."
The newspaper continued:
"In a Dec. 29 editorial, this page criticized the institute Standards Working Group for not delving into the South Korean scandal. The working group's chair, Bernard Lo, sent us a highly misleading letter (published Jan. 8) that suggested the working group had engaged in such a discussion at its Dec. 1 meeting, even though it hadn't.
"Much more has been disclosed about Hwang since that meeting. As a result, Lo has no excuse not to have a full discussion about the scandal on Jan. 30. That's when the Standards Working Group is scheduled to meet again - without Cibelli."
Perhaps coincidentally, the CIRM's Governance Subcommittee has scheduled a meeting one week from today that includes discussion of a policy for removal of working group members.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
CIRM IP Plans: The 25 Percent Solution for the Golden State
The California stem cell agency has come up with a proposal to generate cash for California from inventions developed as the result of state-funded research grants.
It was among a number of matters addressed in a working draft of intellectual property policies that will be considered Monday at a CIRM meeting at Stanford (click here to find offsite locations at UCLA, Sacramento area and New York City).
The revenue sharing proposal calls for the state to receive 25 percent of the grantee organization's share of money garnered under a license agreement of a CIRM-funded patented invention. That would be after the individual grant recipient gets his or her cut. And the sharing plan does not kick in until revenues exceed $500,000. CIRM would require that the 25 percent fee be used for research and education that will benefit California.
Other proposals in the working draft are aimed at consistency with the Bayh-Dole Act, which is the model for splitting up the goodies on federally funded research. However, the draft is also designed to avoid some of the negative consequences of Bayh-Dole.
Here are the other "core principles" of the proposed IP policy, in addition to the state revenue sharing plan.
The proposal additionally contains interesting efforts to set up databases, assure wide and no-cost dissemination of research results and an emphasis on speedy development of therapies. Whether the CIRM proposal will meet the demands of critics is yet to be determined. It is a detailed and complex proposal, and, to use a cliché, the devil is in the details. For example, how can CIRM guarantee that its 25 percent fee goes for research and education? If the money goes into the state general fund, it is up for grabs for just about anything. Locking the money into research and education probably requires legislation, which could mean horse-trading with lawmakers, a practice that CIRM publicly eschews. That doesn't even address the question of whether research and education are the appropriate uses. Why not use the funds to aid low income seniors with chronic health care problems? Or why not use it to provide health care for women egg donors who suffer serious adverse consequences as a result of their contributions to stem cell science?
That is not to mention, why 25 percent? Is that a reasonable figure? How did the IP Task Force arrive at it?
We should note that plan was unveiled with no public outreach. It was simply posted quietly to CIRM's web site, two – possibly three -- business days before Monday's meeting. As we remarked earlier, amazingly casual for something that could involve billions of dollars. And it allows almost no time for serious responses by all interested parties at Monday's hearing.
It was among a number of matters addressed in a working draft of intellectual property policies that will be considered Monday at a CIRM meeting at Stanford (click here to find offsite locations at UCLA, Sacramento area and New York City).
The revenue sharing proposal calls for the state to receive 25 percent of the grantee organization's share of money garnered under a license agreement of a CIRM-funded patented invention. That would be after the individual grant recipient gets his or her cut. And the sharing plan does not kick in until revenues exceed $500,000. CIRM would require that the 25 percent fee be used for research and education that will benefit California.
Other proposals in the working draft are aimed at consistency with the Bayh-Dole Act, which is the model for splitting up the goodies on federally funded research. However, the draft is also designed to avoid some of the negative consequences of Bayh-Dole.
Here are the other "core principles" of the proposed IP policy, in addition to the state revenue sharing plan.
"Ownership: CIRM grantee non-profit organizations will own intellectual property that arises from CIRM-funded research activities.
"Broad Sharing: Intellectual property, including but not limited to data, knowledge, scientific articles, biomedical materials and patented inventions, that are made in the performance of CIRM-funded research will be shared broadly and promptly with the scientific community. This CIRM sharing policy is structured to extend the sharing of CIRM-funded intellectual property beyond practices commonly in use by the scientific community in 2005.
"Research Exemption: Patented inventions that are made in the performance of CIRM-funded research are to be made available for research purposes (at no cost) in California research institutions.
"Licensing: For patented inventions that are made in the performance of CIRM-funded research, grantee organizations are expected to negotiate non-exclusive licensing agreements where possible except in those circumstances when exclusivity is required to encourage the successful commercial development of the invention into products and services that can benefit the public. Further, grantee organizations are expected to grant licenses to companies with defined plans for access to resultant therapies for Medi-Cal and uninsured Californian patient populations.
"March-in rights: CIRM will retain march-in rights to be exercised in the event that CIRM-funded inventions are not developed in a timely manner or in the event that public health and safety concerns arise."
The proposal additionally contains interesting efforts to set up databases, assure wide and no-cost dissemination of research results and an emphasis on speedy development of therapies. Whether the CIRM proposal will meet the demands of critics is yet to be determined. It is a detailed and complex proposal, and, to use a cliché, the devil is in the details. For example, how can CIRM guarantee that its 25 percent fee goes for research and education? If the money goes into the state general fund, it is up for grabs for just about anything. Locking the money into research and education probably requires legislation, which could mean horse-trading with lawmakers, a practice that CIRM publicly eschews. That doesn't even address the question of whether research and education are the appropriate uses. Why not use the funds to aid low income seniors with chronic health care problems? Or why not use it to provide health care for women egg donors who suffer serious adverse consequences as a result of their contributions to stem cell science?
That is not to mention, why 25 percent? Is that a reasonable figure? How did the IP Task Force arrive at it?
We should note that plan was unveiled with no public outreach. It was simply posted quietly to CIRM's web site, two – possibly three -- business days before Monday's meeting. As we remarked earlier, amazingly casual for something that could involve billions of dollars. And it allows almost no time for serious responses by all interested parties at Monday's hearing.
Correction
In the "Klein Should Quit" item Jan. 18, we misspelled the first name of an official of the Center for Genetics and Society. It should be Marcy -- not Marcia -- Darnovsky.
More on the Mystery of The Bonds
The San Franciso Examiner also carried a story this morning on the call for Robert Klein to resign. The piece by Marisa Lagos had a couple of interesting tidbits that we have not seen elsewhere.
One involved these two paragraphs:
"Daniel Perry, vice president of the national lobbying group the Coalition for Advancement of Medical Research, said the report 'poisons the atmosphere.'
"I think [the criticisms] are unfair and unwarranted, and certainly not respectful of a decision that a majority of California voters made,' he said."
The other came from Lagos' exclusive coverage of a speech Klein gave earlier this week in San Franciso. According to Lagos, he discussed the controversy about the question of whether the California stem cell bonds would be taxable to investors as opposed to nontaxable. Varying estimates place the cost to the state of the taxable bonds at more than $500-million over the cost of nontaxable bonds. The San Francisco Chronicle reported last year that Klein, during the campaign for Prop. 71, concealed the fact that taxable bonds were likely to be required. That deception was one of reasons for the call for Klein's resignation.
However, Lagos says that in his speech earlier this week, Klein argued that "even if all the bonds are taxable, they will still end up costing taxpayers less than $6 billion, the number sold to voters."
Klein has never fully laid out a response to the Chronicle story. His latest comments will keep the issue alive.
One involved these two paragraphs:
"Daniel Perry, vice president of the national lobbying group the Coalition for Advancement of Medical Research, said the report 'poisons the atmosphere.'
"I think [the criticisms] are unfair and unwarranted, and certainly not respectful of a decision that a majority of California voters made,' he said."
The other came from Lagos' exclusive coverage of a speech Klein gave earlier this week in San Franciso. According to Lagos, he discussed the controversy about the question of whether the California stem cell bonds would be taxable to investors as opposed to nontaxable. Varying estimates place the cost to the state of the taxable bonds at more than $500-million over the cost of nontaxable bonds. The San Francisco Chronicle reported last year that Klein, during the campaign for Prop. 71, concealed the fact that taxable bonds were likely to be required. That deception was one of reasons for the call for Klein's resignation.
However, Lagos says that in his speech earlier this week, Klein argued that "even if all the bonds are taxable, they will still end up costing taxpayers less than $6 billion, the number sold to voters."
Klein has never fully laid out a response to the Chronicle story. His latest comments will keep the issue alive.
CCST IP Report Smacked for Short-changing State
The intellectual property recommendations of the California Council on Science and Technology concerning stem cell research would short change the state, according to a consumer advocacy group.
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica took issue with the council's final IP report and recommendations to follow what it called the "flawed" federal model. The release of the recommendations came only a few days before Monday's hearing by CIRM into who should benefit economically from inventions derived from state-funded research.
John Simpson, stem cell project director for the foundation, said:
The foundation also said:
The council's final report has attracted little media attention. Reporter Laura Mecoy of The Sacramento Bee may have been the only reporter to note its issuance.
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica took issue with the council's final IP report and recommendations to follow what it called the "flawed" federal model. The release of the recommendations came only a few days before Monday's hearing by CIRM into who should benefit economically from inventions derived from state-funded research.
John Simpson, stem cell project director for the foundation, said:
"Too often the flawed federal rules only benefit drug and biotech companies underwriting their research, but providing no fair and easy access to the medical cures the public financed."
The foundation also said:
"A recent analysis of the effect of federal rules on the 50 top-selling drugs over a five-year period found that forty-five of them received millions of dollars of taxpayer money with virtually no payback to patients or taxpayers."It continued:
"The Council acknowledges that there are other models for managing the discoveries -- so-called intellectual property (IP) -- that result from publicly-funded research. These include public domain for science, patent pooling and experimentation with licensing that would require access to drugs and cures at an affordable prices."
The council's final report has attracted little media attention. Reporter Laura Mecoy of The Sacramento Bee may have been the only reporter to note its issuance.
Prop. 71 Inspiring "Awe" Elsewhere
"If you look at Prop. 71, it's like the income tax code. You
read our initiative, it's like a haiku."
So says Bernie Siegel, who is leading a $200 million embryonic stem cell research effort in Florida.
His comments came in an article in Capitol Weekly in Sacramento that examined efforts to fund stem cell research in other states. The piece by Malcolm Maclachlan demonstrated that there is some truth to the old saw that pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their backs.
Also quoted in the article was Fiona Hutton, former spokeswoman for CIRM and the Prop. 71 campaign. She is president of Red Gate Communications, which is helping with stem cell efforts in Missouri and Kansas. Those campaigns are aimed at protecting stem cell research rather than providing funding. She noted that many of the efforts in other states did not gain footing until Prop. 71 passed.
While Siegel pointed to the complexties of Prop. 71, he also said it validated the concept of state-funded stem cell research.
"I'm not a critic of Prop. 71. I'm in awe of Prop. 71," Siegel said.
read our initiative, it's like a haiku."
So says Bernie Siegel, who is leading a $200 million embryonic stem cell research effort in Florida.
His comments came in an article in Capitol Weekly in Sacramento that examined efforts to fund stem cell research in other states. The piece by Malcolm Maclachlan demonstrated that there is some truth to the old saw that pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their backs.
"'A key lesson so far has been that low profile efforts seem more effective,' said Aaron Levine, a PhD. candidate at Princeton University who has been studying stem cell campaigns in different states. 'Because Proposition 71 dealt with such large sums of money, it became a national, if not international, issue and attracted significant opposition,'" Maclachlan wrote..
Also quoted in the article was Fiona Hutton, former spokeswoman for CIRM and the Prop. 71 campaign. She is president of Red Gate Communications, which is helping with stem cell efforts in Missouri and Kansas. Those campaigns are aimed at protecting stem cell research rather than providing funding. She noted that many of the efforts in other states did not gain footing until Prop. 71 passed.
While Siegel pointed to the complexties of Prop. 71, he also said it validated the concept of state-funded stem cell research.
"I'm not a critic of Prop. 71. I'm in awe of Prop. 71," Siegel said.
Coverage of the Call for Klein's Resignation
The call for the resignation of California stem cell chairman Robert Klein received coverage in a number of California newspapers this morning, but not much out of state at this point.
Stories were carried in San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee and the Oakland Tribune and allied papers. For example, the San Jose story also appeared in the Contra Costa Times. The Oakland story appears in other newspapers in the same ownership chain.
Missing from the coverage was the Los Angeles Times. Newsday in New York state had a reporter on the conference call yesterday for the report card news, but no story today. One may appear later.
For the most part, the stories were cast in a predictable fashion. But the San Jose story by Steve Johnson had this interesting line:
"David Magnus, director of Stanford University's Center for Biomedical Ethics, said the stem cell institute has had some problems. Nonetheless, he added, it has 'moved at light speed' at adopting its policies compared with the state Department of Health Services, which hasn't yet complied with a 2003 law ordering it to draft its own stem-cell research guidelines."
Stories were carried in San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee and the Oakland Tribune and allied papers. For example, the San Jose story also appeared in the Contra Costa Times. The Oakland story appears in other newspapers in the same ownership chain.
Missing from the coverage was the Los Angeles Times. Newsday in New York state had a reporter on the conference call yesterday for the report card news, but no story today. One may appear later.
For the most part, the stories were cast in a predictable fashion. But the San Jose story by Steve Johnson had this interesting line:
"David Magnus, director of Stanford University's Center for Biomedical Ethics, said the stem cell institute has had some problems. Nonetheless, he added, it has 'moved at light speed' at adopting its policies compared with the state Department of Health Services, which hasn't yet complied with a 2003 law ordering it to draft its own stem-cell research guidelines."
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Ortiz Calls for More CIRM Accountability
The most influential California state legislator on stem cell issues appeared to agree with much of the criticism of CIRM in today's report card, but stopped short of calling for the resignation of its chairman.
Here is the text of the statement by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, chair of the Senate Health Committee:
“It is critical for all of us who supported Proposition 71 and its promise of cures for debilitating and chronic diseases and conditions to have confidence that the grants are awarded fairly and productively, and that California’s $3 billion to $7 billion investment is protected.
“While the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has taken steps toward addressing concerns about public accountability and open government, they are not enough. The CIRM must adopt stronger standards for disclosure of conflicts of interest, including prohibiting the institute’s president from waiving such disclosures at his discretion. CIRM also must narrow its exceptions from open meeting and public records laws to allow greater disclosure about grant applications that are funded or rejected.
“The CIRM also must adopt regulations to protect patients who donate embryos for research, and take strong steps to protect the pocketbooks of Californians by ensuring taxpayers receive a financial return on their investment in stem cell research that is consistent with the wording of the initiative and the promises that were made during the campaign.
“I am committed to reintroducing vetoed legislation to protect women who donate eggs for research by requiring full disclosure and written consent regarding possible adverse health risks associated with the procedures. I also am committed to moving legislation to further open up the deliberations of both the CIRM and the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, guard against conflicts of interest and ensure Californians receive a fair return on their investment and that medical cures created through this taxpayer-funded research are made available to Californians at affordable prices."
Here is the text of the statement by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, chair of the Senate Health Committee:
“It is critical for all of us who supported Proposition 71 and its promise of cures for debilitating and chronic diseases and conditions to have confidence that the grants are awarded fairly and productively, and that California’s $3 billion to $7 billion investment is protected.
“While the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has taken steps toward addressing concerns about public accountability and open government, they are not enough. The CIRM must adopt stronger standards for disclosure of conflicts of interest, including prohibiting the institute’s president from waiving such disclosures at his discretion. CIRM also must narrow its exceptions from open meeting and public records laws to allow greater disclosure about grant applications that are funded or rejected.
“The CIRM also must adopt regulations to protect patients who donate embryos for research, and take strong steps to protect the pocketbooks of Californians by ensuring taxpayers receive a financial return on their investment in stem cell research that is consistent with the wording of the initiative and the promises that were made during the campaign.
“I am committed to reintroducing vetoed legislation to protect women who donate eggs for research by requiring full disclosure and written consent regarding possible adverse health risks associated with the procedures. I also am committed to moving legislation to further open up the deliberations of both the CIRM and the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, guard against conflicts of interest and ensure Californians receive a fair return on their investment and that medical cures created through this taxpayer-funded research are made available to Californians at affordable prices."
Quick Look at Coverage of Stem Cell Report Card
The Sacramento Bee moved quickly today to post a story on the call for the resignation of stem cell chairman Robert Klein. The story came about one hour after the end of the conference call with reporters from across the country.
Some of the media outlets represented during the call were the predictable California outlets. But Newsday, Reuters and the Bureau of National Affairs were represented as well. The Reuters report was not available via the Internet at the time of this writing.
We will carry an item Thursday on news coverage of the report card on CIRM. Meanwhile you can find the story by Bee reporter Laura Mecoy by clicking here. Her story should receive some national attention as well because it is budgeted as part of the Scripps Howard News Service.
Some of the media outlets represented during the call were the predictable California outlets. But Newsday, Reuters and the Bureau of National Affairs were represented as well. The Reuters report was not available via the Internet at the time of this writing.
We will carry an item Thursday on news coverage of the report card on CIRM. Meanwhile you can find the story by Bee reporter Laura Mecoy by clicking here. Her story should receive some national attention as well because it is budgeted as part of the Scripps Howard News Service.
CGS: CIRM Turns in Mediocre Performance; Klein Should Quit
The Center for Genetics and Society Wednesday gave the California stem cell agency a mediocre "C minus" grade and called for the resignation of its chairman, Robert Klein.
The 32-page report card by the Oakland-based watchdog group said, "CIRM's first year has been a great disappointment."
Her statement (the full text follows this item) said,
The center is a nonprofit group based in Oakland that supports embryonic stem cell research. Members of its staff have regularly attended meetings of the agency and its subcommittee during the past year, testifying about the center's concerns.
The center gave CIRM "D" grades in the following areas: "maximizing health equity," minimizing conflicts of interest, cooperating with the state legislature, providing responsible leadership. The agency received its best grades – "C plus" – for establishing ethical safeguards and research standards and protecting women who provide eggs for research and other research subjects.
Klein came in for considerable criticism by CGS:
Another CIRM critic commented on the call for Klein to resign. John Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica CA, said:
Today's CGS report card cited the built-in conflicts of interest at the agency and noted the coziness of such arrangements:
On the "health equity" issue, the report said,
It said CIRM "could require that any successful therapies developed with its money be made available to the state’s medical insurance programs at reduced or no cost. Or it could require grant recipients to set aside a portion of any IP revenue in an accessibility fund."
CGS said CIRM has put in pace stem cell research guidelines recommended by the National Academies, but those are inadequate in some areas.
During the conference call among reporters, CIRM officials noted that while CIRM can set standards for only the research it funds, there are no state or federal standards for stem cell research. They suggested that the state legislature and CIRM work together to develop consistent standards.
CGS also gave CIRM a "C plus" for protection of women, but noted that there are no provisions for helping women egg donors who suffer serious side effects from the egg donation process.
The center's report said that CIRM faces "regulatory challenges never previously confronted by any other public body in the United States."
The 32-page report card by the Oakland-based watchdog group said, "CIRM's first year has been a great disappointment."
"In terms of governance, the CIRM has often failed to operate as an accountable,responsible, and transparent state agency. In the area of politics, it has failed to establish a cooperative relationship with state legislators. And in the policy arena, the CIRM has fallen far short of the expectations raised during the initiative campaign that led to its creation: It has so far failed to adopt policies to ensure that any successful stem cell therapies will be affordable to most Californians, or to reassure Californians that they will see any share at all of financial returns that the research they are funding may generate," CGS said.In response to our inquiry, CIRM spokeswoman Nicole Pagano said the agency had a "great first year."
Her statement (the full text follows this item) said,
"This is the kind of criticism-based activism that seems designed more for publicity than any practicable purpose.
"They have been working against Proposition 71 since the beginning, despite the overwhelming support of voters in California who approved the measure well over one year ago.
"Their report rehashes old issues that they have already expressed to our board; which they have duly considered and addressed."
The center is a nonprofit group based in Oakland that supports embryonic stem cell research. Members of its staff have regularly attended meetings of the agency and its subcommittee during the past year, testifying about the center's concerns.
The center gave CIRM "D" grades in the following areas: "maximizing health equity," minimizing conflicts of interest, cooperating with the state legislature, providing responsible leadership. The agency received its best grades – "C plus" – for establishing ethical safeguards and research standards and protecting women who provide eggs for research and other research subjects.
Klein came in for considerable criticism by CGS:
"…(Klein) has misused his authority in ways that have significantly undermined trust and confidence. His missteps and arrogance have been widely noted. The editorial page of the Sacramento Bee, for example, has dubbed Klein the 'self-appointed czar' of the stem cell research program and a 'rogue operator.'"Marcia Darnovsky, associate executive director of the center, told reporters during a conference call that Klein had operated CIRM "more like a private enterprise than a public agency."
Another CIRM critic commented on the call for Klein to resign. John Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica CA, said:
"I certainly understand the public outrage that led to the call for Bob Klein to step down, but the stem cell institute's problems go beyond personalities. We'll just have a revolving door of Bob Kleins until the structure is fixed. Fixing the stem cell institute requires two things: First, it needs to follow all of California's good government laws and behave like any other state agency. Second, the institute needs to adopt rules controlling ownership of any Proposition 71-funded medical discoveries that are based on the foundation principles of affordability, accessibility and, accountability."
Today's CGS report card cited the built-in conflicts of interest at the agency and noted the coziness of such arrangements:
"The relationship between the ICOC (CIRM's board of directors) and the institutions it funds can be seen in the first round of training grants, announced on September 9, 2005. Of the 16 institutions that were awarded almost $40 million, 14 are represented on the ICOC. Viewed another way, all but two of the 17 ICOC members affiliated with an institution eligible for this round of funding saw their institutions receive grants."
On the "health equity" issue, the report said,
"To date, CIRM leadership has resisted the inclusion of affordability and accessibility of stem cell treatments as a key criterion in its policy considerations."
It said CIRM "could require that any successful therapies developed with its money be made available to the state’s medical insurance programs at reduced or no cost. Or it could require grant recipients to set aside a portion of any IP revenue in an accessibility fund."
CGS said CIRM has put in pace stem cell research guidelines recommended by the National Academies, but those are inadequate in some areas.
During the conference call among reporters, CIRM officials noted that while CIRM can set standards for only the research it funds, there are no state or federal standards for stem cell research. They suggested that the state legislature and CIRM work together to develop consistent standards.
CGS also gave CIRM a "C plus" for protection of women, but noted that there are no provisions for helping women egg donors who suffer serious side effects from the egg donation process.
The center's report said that CIRM faces "regulatory challenges never previously confronted by any other public body in the United States."
"While some of its difficulties may be 'start-up' problems that might be expected in any effort this large, the greater bulk are the result of numerous missteps and misjudgments, resistance to legislative and public oversight, and a tendency towards arrogance in the face of criticism."It continued:
"We believe it is incumbent upon the CIRM’s leadership, staff, and board to enter the institute’s second year with a new spirit, one that acknowledges—in deeds as well as words—the need for transparency, accountability and public oversight."
Text of CIRM Response to CGS
Here is the full statement from CIRM, which is not expected to be available on the Web, in response to the CGS report card.
"This is the kind of criticism-based activism that seems designed more for publicity than any practicable purpose.
"They have been working against Proposition 71 since the beginning,despite the overwhelming support of voters in California who approved the measure well over one year ago.
"Their report rehashes old issues that they have already expressed to our board; which they have duly considered and addressed.
"We feel we've had a great first year and here are the reasons why:
* 56 public meetings-all with opportunities for public response
* Appointment of ICOC and three working groups that include
nationally recognized leaders in the fields of grant review, stem cell research, and ethics
* Adopted NAS Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
* First grant review and approval of the CIRM Training Grant
Program that will train nearly 200 fellows at 16 institutions statewide.
* Scientific Meeting in October that featured presentations by
stem cell researchers and clinicians from the United States as well as Australia, Canada, Israel, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
* Received $18 million in office space and incentives from the
city of San Francisco
"We have equal enthusiasm for 2006:
* At the end of January our Standards Working Group will finalize their draft to send to the ICOC. Building on the NAS Guidelines, this document will establish the medical, ethical, and scientific standards for CIRM funded research. This document is the first state or national regulation of its kind and it represents a scientific and ethical blueprint for how stem cell research ought to be conducted. With the ICOC's approval, they will undergo the APA process and become formal regulations with the force of law in California.
* Bond Anticipation Note funding our training grants and a smaller research grant
* Planning for a May Scientific Conference examining the risks of Egg Donation; to be co-sponsored by the Society for Gynecologic Investigation
* Strategic planning for the long range funding"
"This is the kind of criticism-based activism that seems designed more for publicity than any practicable purpose.
"They have been working against Proposition 71 since the beginning,despite the overwhelming support of voters in California who approved the measure well over one year ago.
"Their report rehashes old issues that they have already expressed to our board; which they have duly considered and addressed.
"We feel we've had a great first year and here are the reasons why:
* 56 public meetings-all with opportunities for public response
* Appointment of ICOC and three working groups that include
nationally recognized leaders in the fields of grant review, stem cell research, and ethics
* Adopted NAS Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
* First grant review and approval of the CIRM Training Grant
Program that will train nearly 200 fellows at 16 institutions statewide.
* Scientific Meeting in October that featured presentations by
stem cell researchers and clinicians from the United States as well as Australia, Canada, Israel, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
* Received $18 million in office space and incentives from the
city of San Francisco
"We have equal enthusiasm for 2006:
* At the end of January our Standards Working Group will finalize their draft to send to the ICOC. Building on the NAS Guidelines, this document will establish the medical, ethical, and scientific standards for CIRM funded research. This document is the first state or national regulation of its kind and it represents a scientific and ethical blueprint for how stem cell research ought to be conducted. With the ICOC's approval, they will undergo the APA process and become formal regulations with the force of law in California.
* Bond Anticipation Note funding our training grants and a smaller research grant
* Planning for a May Scientific Conference examining the risks of Egg Donation; to be co-sponsored by the Society for Gynecologic Investigation
* Strategic planning for the long range funding"
Coming Up
The Center for Genetics and Society has issued a critical report card on the California stem cell agency. Its recommendations include a major personnel change at CIRM and stiffening conflict-of-interest standards. We will have an item on the recommendations shortly.
IP Report: More Sharing of Stem Cell Research Results
California should take steps to share its stem cell research tools and require stem cell grant recipients to provide a plan for managing their inventions for the benefit of California, the final intellectual property report of the California Council on Science and Technology says.
The general thrust of the final report seems similar to the interim report last summer with some modifications. It also seems aimed at meeting some of the complaints about how the existing Bayh-Dole model has stifled wide dissemination of research.
Here are the key findings:
The general thrust of the final report seems similar to the interim report last summer with some modifications. It also seems aimed at meeting some of the complaints about how the existing Bayh-Dole model has stifled wide dissemination of research.
Here are the key findings:
"We recommend four general principles for the state’s IP policy:
"The policy is consistent with the federal Bayh-Dole Act.
"The policy creates incentives for commerce in California from state-funded research to the greatest extent possible.
"The policy encourages timely publication of results to diffuse knowledge widely, and provides guidance on the kinds of data that are desired to be placed in the public domain or available under open source, Creative Commons, or other broad-use licenses, including software and special databases.
"Requires diligent commercialization of IP-protected technology into products that benefit the public.
"With these principles in mind, we recommend that the state develop IP policies that accomplish the following:
"1. Permit grantees to own IP rights from state-funded research.
"2. Where appropriate, require that grantees (institutions, individuals, or both) provide a plan describing how IP will be managed for the advancement of science and benefit to California.
"3. Grant basic research funds without requiring that grantees commit to providing a revenue stream to the state. If, however, a revenue stream develops over time, require that revenues be reinvested in research and education.
"4. Generally, make state-developed research tools widely available to other researchers.
"5. Require diligent efforts to develop state-funded IP into applications and products that benefit the public.
"6. Retain within the state Bayh-Dole-like “march-in” rights if the owner of IP is not undertaking appropriate steps to transfer or use the technology to benefit the public.
"7. Leave license particulars to the owner who is in the best position to judge how best to ensure that discoveries are made widely available through commercialization or otherwise.
"8. Reserve the right to use IP by or on behalf of the state for research or non-commercial purposes.
"9. Establish and maintain state-administered functions to track all IP generated through state funding."
Big Boost in Funding for CIRM
The California stem cell agency has picked up another $5 million from a wealthy San Francisco Bay area couple, the San Francisco Examiner reports.
Writer Maria Lagos quoted stem cell chairman Robert Klein as saying the money is coming from Herb and Marian Sanders via their charitable foundation. She also said Klein has raised a total of $40 million, but declined to disclose details.
He made the disclosure in a speech to about 75 persons at an event hosted by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research group. CIRM has no information on its web site concerning the funds.
It was not clear whether the money is coming as straight donations or as bond anticipation notes. In either case, it would be a major step in solving the financial difficulties facing CIRM.
The Sanders are co-chairs and co-CEOs of Golden West Financial Corp. of Oakland, the parent of World Savings Bank.
Writer Maria Lagos quoted stem cell chairman Robert Klein as saying the money is coming from Herb and Marian Sanders via their charitable foundation. She also said Klein has raised a total of $40 million, but declined to disclose details.
He made the disclosure in a speech to about 75 persons at an event hosted by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research group. CIRM has no information on its web site concerning the funds.
It was not clear whether the money is coming as straight donations or as bond anticipation notes. In either case, it would be a major step in solving the financial difficulties facing CIRM.
The Sanders are co-chairs and co-CEOs of Golden West Financial Corp. of Oakland, the parent of World Savings Bank.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
IP Advisory
Given the time of day, it does not appear that the stem cell IP report by the California Council on Science and Technology will be forthcoming today. We will carry an item when it is available.
Coming Up
The California Council on Science and Technology is scheduled to release its final report on intellectual property and stem cells later today. We will have an item on it when it becomes available.
LA Times on Cirm: Disappointing, Arrogant, Unresponsive, But Promise Remains Strong
The Los Angeles Times today editorialized about the California stem cell agency, declaring that its first year was "especially disappointing."
The Southern California piece was one of three articles that surfaced this morning dealing with CIRM, including one in Oakland and another critical op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun.
The Times said CIRM has been arrogant, unresponsive and intransigent at times.
Nonetheless, the newspaper wrote, the promise of the agency "remains strong" and could be strengthened even more with beefier standards for ethics and accountability.
Sounding a harsh note in Maryland was an opinion piece by Richard Hayes, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland. He focused on implications of the Hwang affair. But the article also said, concerning Proposition 71,
Reporter Rebecca Vesely of the Oakland Tribune reported on the progress of the agency and its plans for the next year. Her straight-forward piece covered much of the same ground as an article last week by Terri Somers of the San Diego Union Tribune.
The Southern California piece was one of three articles that surfaced this morning dealing with CIRM, including one in Oakland and another critical op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun.
The Times said CIRM has been arrogant, unresponsive and intransigent at times.
Nonetheless, the newspaper wrote, the promise of the agency "remains strong" and could be strengthened even more with beefier standards for ethics and accountability.
"But the oversight committee's chairman, Robert Klein, seems to be allergic to sunshine. Much of the committee's first meeting had to be scrapped when a public-interest lawyer pointed out that it failed to meet the state's open-meeting laws. The institute's first employees were drawn from the Proposition 71 campaign and Klein's stem cell charity group, ignoring the state's civil service rules on advertising for the most qualified candidates," the newspaper wrote.
"Unfortunately, the oversight committee continues to insist that members of the working groups, including the research reviewers, do not have to publicly reveal their financial interests in stem cell research. The members of these boards will make crucial recommendations about how to spend billions of taxpayer dollars, and for the public not to know whether they stand to benefit from any particular grant is unacceptable.
"The committee does stipulate that members of the working groups reveal their conflicts of interest to the committee itself, but that is inadequate. The world of stem cell research, industry and advocacy is too incestuous for such an arrangement."
Sounding a harsh note in Maryland was an opinion piece by Richard Hayes, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland. He focused on implications of the Hwang affair. But the article also said, concerning Proposition 71,
"It entrusted control of the money to a new state agency dominated by the very institutions that stand to receive the research grants. It exempted the agency's most important policy committees from California's open meetings and conflict-of-interest laws.
"It failed to guarantee the safety and health of women who provide eggs for cloning research. It contained no provisions to ensure that intellectual property arrangements would benefit the people of California. And late last year, it was revealed that real estate millionaire Robert Klein, the prime author and funder of the initiative and the current chairman of the program, knowingly misrepresented its likely full cost to California voters by perhaps $1 billion.
"What's going on here is both a very old story and a very new one. The old story is the drive for fame, fortune and power and the willingness of some people - in this case, scientists and biotech entrepreneurs - to put their personal drives and ambitions above the common good.
"The new story is the immensity of what is at stake. The new human genetic technologies are giving scientists the power to change the nature of human life forever. They are being developed at breakneck speed. Neither public understanding nor governmental oversight has been able to keep up. Scientists and biotech corporations are playing to our deepest desires and fears in their effort to secure the commanding heights of the technology, the law and the market."
Reporter Rebecca Vesely of the Oakland Tribune reported on the progress of the agency and its plans for the next year. Her straight-forward piece covered much of the same ground as an article last week by Terri Somers of the San Diego Union Tribune.
Monday, January 16, 2006
CIRM and Stem Cell IP Hearings: A Cold Shoulder to the Public
Only four business days remain before the California stem cell agency takes another crack at who will benefit economically from inventions developed as the result of the $3 billion in taxpayer-supported research.
This is one of the major issues for CIRM this year. It is also the subject of separate legislative proceedings, including a proposed constitutional amendment, SCA13, by State Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, that is on the floor of the State Senate. What California does this year will have an impact across the nation as other states also consider whether existing models for sharing the wealth are doing the job.
Despite the importance of the issue, no background material or proposed drafts of regulations can be found in the agenda of CIRM's Intellectual Property Task Force, as posted on the Web at the time of this writing. It simply says, "Consideration of draft IP Policy." Amazingly casual for a matter that could involve billions of dollars.
No draft of proposed regulations, much less a synopsis of what is under consideration. No explanation of whether the entire issue is on the table or whether particular subsets are to be considered. No links to previous material on the CIRM web site, which could have easily been done.
The scanty agenda of the IP task force is no exception. Generally, little or no material is available in a timely manner in advance of CIRM meetings. That makes it virtually impossible for interested parties or the public in general to prepare thoughtful comments on some very complex and important issues. All they have is three minutes at the end of the meeting to make some off-the-cuff observations. Even some members of the agency's Oversight Committee have complained about not having enough time to review agenda material because it is so tardy.
A cynic would conclude that CIRM is not interested in keeping affected parties even partially informed. Our opinion is that this is another example of the chronic cold-shoulder CIRM gives to much of its public disclosure responsibilities. The agency began business like this 12 months ago. Then it could be contributed to start-up problems. But it is past time for CIRM to fulfill its promise of adhering to highest standards of openness and transparency. Even small school districts in California do a better job of making their agenda material available online in advance of meetings. An agency that proposes to give away $3 billion must do better.
There is a new fillip to the task force's meeting, however. It will be accessible to the public in New York City at the Carlyle Hotel. One of the task force's members, former Hollywood executive Sherry Lansing, will be staying at the hotel and is going to participate via an audio hookup. The Carlyle describes itself as a "purveyor of privacy and a sanctuary of refined taste," but a CIRM official assures us that the public will be permitted to listen in on the deliberations. They also are likely to be allowed to speak during the public comment sessions.
The actual session of the task force meeting will take place at Stanford University. Other offsite locations for the 1 p.m. Jan. 23 session are in Elk Grove near Sacramento and UCLA. Specific room numbers are available in the agenda. We will carry the room number for the Carlyle when we receive it.
Additional material for the agenda may be posted by CIRM by this Friday. But for those of you who simply can’t wait, here are some links that will help to understand what CIRM is getting at. We should note that nearly all of the CIRM material comes from postings weeks after the date of the events. Moreover, even the text of CIRM's interim IP policy on training grants, approved more than a month ago is still not available online.
The transcript of the Dec. 6 meeting of the Oversight Committee. Discussion of IP begins on page 96.
The full transcript of the IP Task Force meeting Oct. 25.
The full transcript of the Nov. 22 IP Task Force meeting.
The full text of the National Research Council’s report: Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health (2006). This is recommended reading by the chairman of the IP Task Force, Ed Penhoet.
Interim report on stem cell IP by the California Council on Science and Technology.
Draft of the interim policy for IP training grants presented at the December meeting of the Oversight Committee. This was approved with some slight modifications. The text of the approved policy is not available online at the time of this writing.
A host of material from the Oct. 31 hearing by Sen. Ortiz into intellectual property, including the transcript, background on Bayh-Dole and alternative intellectual property models.
Statement and testimony by the Center for Genetics and Society on CIRM Intellectual property policies.
Statements by the Foundation of Consumer and Taxpayer Rights on CIRM intellectual property policies.
The task force is composed of persons drawn from the CIRM Oversight Committee. They are: Edward Penhoet, chair; Susan Bryant, Michael Goldberg, Sherry Lansing, Ted Love, Philip Pizzo, Francisco Prieto, John Reed, Jeff Sheehy, Oswald Steward and Janet Wright.
This is one of the major issues for CIRM this year. It is also the subject of separate legislative proceedings, including a proposed constitutional amendment, SCA13, by State Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, that is on the floor of the State Senate. What California does this year will have an impact across the nation as other states also consider whether existing models for sharing the wealth are doing the job.
Despite the importance of the issue, no background material or proposed drafts of regulations can be found in the agenda of CIRM's Intellectual Property Task Force, as posted on the Web at the time of this writing. It simply says, "Consideration of draft IP Policy." Amazingly casual for a matter that could involve billions of dollars.
No draft of proposed regulations, much less a synopsis of what is under consideration. No explanation of whether the entire issue is on the table or whether particular subsets are to be considered. No links to previous material on the CIRM web site, which could have easily been done.
The scanty agenda of the IP task force is no exception. Generally, little or no material is available in a timely manner in advance of CIRM meetings. That makes it virtually impossible for interested parties or the public in general to prepare thoughtful comments on some very complex and important issues. All they have is three minutes at the end of the meeting to make some off-the-cuff observations. Even some members of the agency's Oversight Committee have complained about not having enough time to review agenda material because it is so tardy.
A cynic would conclude that CIRM is not interested in keeping affected parties even partially informed. Our opinion is that this is another example of the chronic cold-shoulder CIRM gives to much of its public disclosure responsibilities. The agency began business like this 12 months ago. Then it could be contributed to start-up problems. But it is past time for CIRM to fulfill its promise of adhering to highest standards of openness and transparency. Even small school districts in California do a better job of making their agenda material available online in advance of meetings. An agency that proposes to give away $3 billion must do better.
There is a new fillip to the task force's meeting, however. It will be accessible to the public in New York City at the Carlyle Hotel. One of the task force's members, former Hollywood executive Sherry Lansing, will be staying at the hotel and is going to participate via an audio hookup. The Carlyle describes itself as a "purveyor of privacy and a sanctuary of refined taste," but a CIRM official assures us that the public will be permitted to listen in on the deliberations. They also are likely to be allowed to speak during the public comment sessions.
The actual session of the task force meeting will take place at Stanford University. Other offsite locations for the 1 p.m. Jan. 23 session are in Elk Grove near Sacramento and UCLA. Specific room numbers are available in the agenda. We will carry the room number for the Carlyle when we receive it.
Additional material for the agenda may be posted by CIRM by this Friday. But for those of you who simply can’t wait, here are some links that will help to understand what CIRM is getting at. We should note that nearly all of the CIRM material comes from postings weeks after the date of the events. Moreover, even the text of CIRM's interim IP policy on training grants, approved more than a month ago is still not available online.
The transcript of the Dec. 6 meeting of the Oversight Committee. Discussion of IP begins on page 96.
The full transcript of the IP Task Force meeting Oct. 25.
The full transcript of the Nov. 22 IP Task Force meeting.
The full text of the National Research Council’s report: Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health (2006). This is recommended reading by the chairman of the IP Task Force, Ed Penhoet.
Interim report on stem cell IP by the California Council on Science and Technology.
Draft of the interim policy for IP training grants presented at the December meeting of the Oversight Committee. This was approved with some slight modifications. The text of the approved policy is not available online at the time of this writing.
A host of material from the Oct. 31 hearing by Sen. Ortiz into intellectual property, including the transcript, background on Bayh-Dole and alternative intellectual property models.
Statement and testimony by the Center for Genetics and Society on CIRM Intellectual property policies.
Statements by the Foundation of Consumer and Taxpayer Rights on CIRM intellectual property policies.
The task force is composed of persons drawn from the CIRM Oversight Committee. They are: Edward Penhoet, chair; Susan Bryant, Michael Goldberg, Sherry Lansing, Ted Love, Philip Pizzo, Francisco Prieto, John Reed, Jeff Sheehy, Oswald Steward and Janet Wright.
Big Stem Cell Soiree Scheduled For San Francisco
If you want to pay $1,495, you can hear California stem cell chairman Robert Klein and CIRM president Zach Hall speak at The Stem Cell Meeting March 12-14 in San Francisco.
The Stem Cell Meeting (yes, that is its title) is being produced by Burrill & Company, a San Franciso life sciences merchant bank with more than $500 million under management.
Hall and Klein are among a host of impressive folks, including two representatives from Congress and biotech business execs and researchers, scheduled to appear at the conference at the Palace Hotel.
If you are interested in being one of the top sponsors of the conference – a $45,000 privilege – it looks you are probably too late. Only three were available and those slots seem to have been sold, based on what we saw on the web site for The Stem Cell Meeting.
If you want to see Klein and Hall in action for free, check them out at the next meeting of the CIRM Oversight Committee Feb. 10 in at Stanford.
It has always struck me as odd that public officials appear at gatherings that effectively bar the public from hearing them. However, it is not an uncommon practice.
The Stem Cell Meeting (yes, that is its title) is being produced by Burrill & Company, a San Franciso life sciences merchant bank with more than $500 million under management.
Hall and Klein are among a host of impressive folks, including two representatives from Congress and biotech business execs and researchers, scheduled to appear at the conference at the Palace Hotel.
If you are interested in being one of the top sponsors of the conference – a $45,000 privilege – it looks you are probably too late. Only three were available and those slots seem to have been sold, based on what we saw on the web site for The Stem Cell Meeting.
If you want to see Klein and Hall in action for free, check them out at the next meeting of the CIRM Oversight Committee Feb. 10 in at Stanford.
It has always struck me as odd that public officials appear at gatherings that effectively bar the public from hearing them. However, it is not an uncommon practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)