New CIRM President in Two Weeks?

The California stem cell agency appears to have a new president waiting quietly in the wings.

The agency late Friday called a special meeting of its Oversight Committee for 7 a.m. June 26 to consider presidential candidates and compensation. The meeting will follow a session of the presidential search subcommittee at 5 p.m. June 25.

One of the issues in the presidential search has been compensation, largely driven by California's high housing costs, particularly in San Francisco.

Former CIRM President Zach Hall, who already lived in San Francisco, was paid $389,000 annually when he was hired. But it appears that salary will be boosted by the Oversight Committee.

At the time Hall was hired, some folks were not too happy about the level of executive compensation at the agency.

Announcement of a new president does not mean that he or she will soon be on the scene fulltime. Usually, such a person has to wind up affairs in a previous position, move, etc.

The meetings on June 25 and 26 will be conducted via conference calls. Access will be available at many locations throughout the state and in Australia, where one of the Oversight Committee members is visiting. The public can listen in and take part from those locations. The specific addresses can be found on the agendas.

The agenda for the June 26 meeting is not yet posted. Here is a link to the June 25 agenda, which is quite cryptic.

Short Update on ESC Research Nationally

All the excitement of paint-drying is how the blog of the American Journal of Bioethics describes stem cell research action at the federal level.

Jim Fossett, director of health and Medicaid studies at the Rockefeller Insitute, made the comment in a brief overview of what is up around the country, including the Golden State. An excerpt:

"California’s far from the only state that’s been active on the stem cell front this year. New York has more or less firm plans to spend some $600 million on stem cell research, and gossip has it that Governor Eliot Spitzer may introduce a proposal for a bond issue to support this research on a larger scale. Maryland has just awarded some $20 million in stem cell research grants, and the state legislature has just approved an FY2008 budget that appropriates some $23 million in research support. Connecticut is spending some $10 million per year on stem cell research. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has just unveiled a major package of stem cell initiatives that would spend some $1.25 billion in state and private funds, outlined here."

More from IPBiz

IPBiz, the intellectual property blog operated by patent attorney Lawrence Ebert, has more to say on WARF, the California stem cell agency grant to CHA RMI and the failings of this blog, the California Stem Cell Report. You can read it all here.

Lawyer Critical of California Stem Cell Report

Patent attorney Lawrence Ebert covers considerable ground this morning in a post called "National Academy of Sciences Attacked."

Ebert has written extensively on the WARF stem cell patent issues, disputing the assertions of critics challenging the WARF patent.

Today Ebert takes on this blog(the California Stem Cell Report), the Los Angeles Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune. A sample:

"Although the californiastemcellreport is ripping into NAS, the stemcellreport is rather silent on the mediocre reporting of the San Diego Union-Tribune on past attempts of California stem cell workers to obtain broad patent coverage on embryonic stem cells and on the superficial reporting of the Los Angeles Times on the Cha duplicate publication matter."

Ebert is deeply concerned about the legal issues concerning the patents. Our perspective is somewhat broader. While certain actions -- either in the world of patents or politics -- may be legal, they are not necessarily in the best interests of society, science or business. An extreme non-science example: Racial segregation used to be the law of the land in many areas of the United States.

Ebert appears to be well-schooled in patent law. Others equally well-schooled differ with him. We are inclined to favor those who are on the side of open science rather than those who seek to lock down every piece of loose intellectual property they can find. But that is a value judgement -- not law.

Nonetheless we encourage you to read Ebert's comments. He may be right.

The National Academy of Sciences: Feeding the Anti-Science Movement

The National Academy of Sciences has not distinguished itself with its response to the flap about barring the public from a meeting of public officials discussing interstate cooperation on billions of dollars in stem cell research financed with taxpayer funds.

We have not heard from the academy concerning the hooha but it finally responded to a letter of protest from John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica, Ca., who was ousted from the meeting in California last month. An academy official said the meeting was "private" although state officials were there at taxpayer expense discussing issues of public import in at least 10 states.

The letter from the NAS demonstrated a fundamental failure to grasp that secrecy on this subject is not in the best interests of the public or of the academy. Closing the door only generates suspicion and distrust and unnecessarily feeds the anti-science movement in this country.

Here is the text of NAS letter to Simpson and Simpson's response. First the letter of E. William Colglazier, executive officer of the NAS.

"I am responding to your letter of May 24 regarding the meeting at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on May 23 and 24 involving representatives of states involved in stem cell research. That meeting was an invitation-only planning session, which we were requested to convene, to discuss the potential interest of states regarding sharing information and improving coordination in the future. As the states decide how and when to move forward with information sharing and interstate coordination activities, I expect that there will be ample opportunities for public involvement."

Simpson's reply:

"Thank you for your June 13 response to my letter of May 24 expressing concerns about the private meeting of representatives of state stem cell research programs. You give me great comfort.

"Any doubts that I had about earlier characterization of the National Academy of Sciences as a paternalistic organization that believes the public cannot be trusted to understand science have been put to rest.

"Moreover, your suggestion that 'there will be ample opportunities for public involvement' in the future misses the point.

"The meeting in Irvine, CA, was of representatives of publicly funded stem cell research programs talking about public policy. The public should have been involved from the beginning, not at some vague future date at the convenience of the scientific bureaucracy.

"You should apologize for closing the meeting, and any future sessions of this group must be open to the public.

"The National Academy of Sciences' paternalistic approach only serves to undercut public confidence in any policies that may emerge from the interstate meetings. This does not serve the interests of the states, the National Academy nor stem cell research."

As we mentioned earlier, public officials from any state should not attend any further closed-door meetings on this matter. No good reason exists for banning the public. All of the issues can and should be discussed in public. Airing differing views early is one good way to write intelligent policy and build public support.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this incorrectly quoted Simpson's letter as saying xxxx at the convenience of the scientific democracy (instead of bureaucracy).

Public Matters, Public Money Topic of "Secret" Agenda

For a look at what one might call the "secret" agenda discussed during last month's closed-door session promoting interstate cooperation on stem cell research, you can find the documents posted on the web site of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

The National Academy of Sciences barred the public from the California meeting. An academy official said the session was private despite the fact that it involved public officials, dealing with public matters and public money.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the foundation, received the documents before he was ousted by the academy official.

Topics discussed at the Irvine, Ca., session included intellectual property (not a small matter for California taxpayers), reciprocity between states, model legislation and research oversight. All are clearly part of the public agenda on embryonic stem cell research.

Ironically, also on the table was a draft mission statement, calling for the nascent "Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research" to promote "efficient and responsible use of public funds." Ironic because private, closed door meetings discussing how to use billions of dollars in taxpayer funds can hardly be called responsible.

For more on this subject, see the "Fails Responsibility" below.

Transcript Now Available on SB771

The transcript of the meeting of the CIRM Intellectual Property Task Force dealing with SB771 is now available online at this link. The meeting was the subject of the "looming compromise" item below.

National Academy of Sciences Fails Public Responsibility Test on State Stem Cell Issues

"Absolutely outrageous," "outmoded, elitist" complete with a "public-can’t-understand-science attitude" -- the National Academy of Sciences.

That is the description of the group as provided by John M. Simpson, the normally mild-mannered stem cell project director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights of Santa Monica, Ca., who has trekked north and south through California for a couple of years following and influencing California's $3 billion stem cell research effort.

Simpson was justifiably irked when he was barred last month from a NAS-supported meeting of public officials by Fran Sharples, life sciences director of the the NAS. Simpson had been invited to the first meeting of the group in Connecticut, but could not attend. When he showed up for a follow-up meeting in Irvine, Ca., Sharples said that it was private and he could not attend despite having being invited earlier.

But invitation or not, Simpson's point is that this is public business – not some private, secret affair.

Attending the session in May were representatives of 10 state public stem cell research programs from across the nation. The two-day session was aimed at creating the Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research. Among its goals would be "creating opportunities for collaboration among different states' stem cell programs and harmonizing regulations."

All of which is of great importance to state research efforts, which are funded by public money – not NAS funds – and which are generally required to operate in public under open meeting and open records laws.

Simpson wrote a letter of protest to Ralph J. Cicerone and E. William Colgazier, respectively president and executive officer of the academy, concerning its egregious behavior.

Simpson said,

"When the public is shut out of the process, we can only wonder what is being done behind closed doors. For instance, in the quest to 'harmonize' regulations between states will only the lowest common denominator in regulations be adopted?"

And again this month, Simpson said,

"We completely support efforts to foster co-operation among the states, but the notion that the National Academy of Sciences would close such a meeting to the public is absolutely outrageous. It is the outmoded, elitist, public-can’t-understand-science attitude, that ultimately undermines the public’s willingness to fund research. It’s time NAS moved into the 21st century. Their current behavior is exactly what prompts the know-nothing attitude of our president and his right-wing base."

The National Academy of Sciences is a nonprofit organization created by Congress. The intent of Congress was to create an organization that serves the public, albeit indirectly. The Federal Advisory Committee Act which deals with the NAS seems intended to open rather close the academy's proceedings. The action last month in Irvine barring the public from an important stem cell meeting violates the intent if not the letter of that law.

We have asked the NAS for a response or justification (including information on its funding sources) but it has not responded. Nor has it yet responded to Simpson's letter of 18 days ago. We will carry the group's statement verbatim when we receive it.

For now, however, the academy should be embarrassed by its highhanded conduct. Moreover, closing the doors on the public is harmful to the academy and defeats its purpose of advancing the cause of science. Instead the NAS is breeding suspicion and distrust.

The California stem cell agency, as well as those in the other states, should boycott any further meetings of the NAS on the subject of interstate cooperation unless it is willing to open the sessions.

Looming Compromise on CIRM Legislation?

The California stem cell agency seems to be heading towards something of a partial compromise concerning legislation aimed at ensuring a fair return to the state on its $3 billion stem cell research effort.

The bill – SB771 –is now in the Assembly after passing the Senate on a whopping 38-0 vote. Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, chair of the Health Committee, and Sen. George Runner of Antelope Valley, one of the Republican leaders, are co-authors.

The legislation came up for discussion at a meeting late last month of CIRM's Intellectual Property Task Force. Duane Roth, a San Diego pharmaceutical company executive and member of the CIRM Oversight Committee, suggested a modification in sharing net license revenues from CIRM-funded inventions.

According to one Senate analysis:

"The proposed commercial regulations by CIRM require that 17 percent of licensing fees in excess of $500,000 be paid to the state, that three times the grant amount be paid for patented products supported by CIRM, and that the state be entitled to 1% of all revenues in excess of $500,000 for the life of a patent if CIRM provided support over $5 million.

This bill would, instead, require the CIRM regulations provide the state 25% of net licensing revenues resulting from supported research; grant exclusive licenses to firms intending to provide access to resulting therapies to uninsured Californians."

Roth proposed changing CIRM's commercial regulations, which are still being drafted, to 25 percent as in the bill instead of the previous 17.

Roth told the IP task force, according to the transcript:

"I don't think it matters that much to industry that's going to take CIRM money, have an invention, and then license to a third party, whether they keep 83 percent of the revenue or 75 percent. And the reason I'm bringing it up is...it's difficult to explain. It can be explained, but it's difficult. And I think the rationale behind it is the hardest part of the explanation."

Roth also said a change would indicate that CIRM is willing to meet Kuehl halfway on the bill.
A quorum was not present at the IP Task Force meeting, so the group did not take an official vote. But no opposition to the change was expressed. An official policy change would require a vote of the full Oversight Committee, which opposes SB771.

The IP meeting occurred before the measure passed the Senate on the 38-0 vote.

Also discussed at the Task Force meeting was another issue related to SB 771 – affordable access. CIRM has moved away from language linking access to Medicaid prices.

Scott Tocher, a CIRM attorney, outlined problems with the Medicaid price and the rationale for linking access to the California RX Discount program, whose regulations are being formulated by the California Department of Health Services.

Kuehl's bill would require licensees of CIRM-funded therapies to provide access at Medicaid prices to patients whose care is provided with public funds.

The Task Force transcript is expected to available online soon on the CIRM web site.

More on Cha Retraction

Both the Los Angeles Times and The Scientist magazine have reported on the retraction involving Alan DeCherney and Kwang-Yul Cha, which we carried on June 7.

Here are the links to the story in the Times by William Heisel and the piece in Scientist byAndrea Gawrylewski.

A Commercial Perspective on Resetting Stem Cell Clocks

Andrew Pollack of the New York Times wrote a piece Thursday that contained some interesting comments from California folks on mice and resetting their stem cell clocks.

Some excerpts:

"'Once you muck around with the genome, all bets are off,' said Dr. Thomas B. Okarma, chief executive of Geron, a company trying to develop medical treatments from human embryonic stem cells. Dr. Okarma said getting approval from the Food and Drug Administration would become 'enormously more complicated.'"

Pollack continued:

"Joydeep Goswami, vice president for stem cells and regenerative medicine at Invitrogen, a company that sells tools for stem cell research, said the new technique could get more companies interested in stem cells.

"Not only does it eliminate the ethical issues, he said, but it also might provide a way around stem cell patents held by the University of Wisconsin that some scientists and corporate executives say have hindered work in the field.

"Still, an even bigger hurdle for investors has been the uncertainty of whether stem cells can be turned into lucrative medical treatments. Some experts say this might take a decade or more, too long for many investors to wait."

More from Pollack:

"Dr. Okarma of Geron pointed out that after mouse embryonic cells were first isolated, it took about 18 years before human embryonic cells were similarly derived. Geron, based in Menlo Park, Calif., paid for the work with human cells at the University of Wisconsin and has exclusive commercial rights to certain types of tissues created from human embryonic stem cells.

"Dr. Okarma also said it might not be desirable to use skin cells as a starting material because they might have been genetically mutated by exposure to ultraviolet radiation."

Pollack continued:

"William M. Caldwell IV, chief executive of Advanced Cell Technology, said his company had not been able to obtain enough human eggs needed for therapeutic cloning. So the new approach, Mr. Caldwell said, is 'a technology that everyone should take a hard look at.'"

Fertility and Sterility Editor Retracts Comments About Cha

The editor of the Fertility and Sterility Journal has retracted and apologized for his remarks alleging plagiarism and perjury linked to Kwang-Yul Cha, a South Korean scientist whose organization includes a Los Angeles lab that was approved for a $2.6 million California stem cell grant.

The May 31 letter was written by Alan DeCherney to Cha following articles in the Los Angeles Times and The Scientist concerning DeCherney's allegations. The charges received additional attention after CHA RMI in Los Angeles successfully competed for the CIRM grant.

Following approval of the research funds, two organizations that monitor CIRM said the news reports raised troubling questions.

Here is the text of the DeCherney letter, written on the letterhead of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The letter was supplied to the California Stem Cell Report by a representative of the Cha organization.

"Dear Dr. Cha,

"I am writing to apologize for the distress and any reputational damage my statements to The Scientist (February 20, 2007) and the Los Angeles Times (February 18, 2007) have caused you and your organization. Considering the facts of the matter, I consider my references to 'plagiarism' and 'perjury' to be inaccurate and regrettable. I hereby retract them and give you permission to forward this letter to the authors of both articles, and to their editors, for their information. You may use this letter in full form publicly in any way that you wish.

"I regret that I did not contact you or the other authors earlier to determine the facts of the matter, since it was brought to my attention more than a year ago. Please accept my apology for my hasty remarks to the reporters.

"After checking our records, I acknowledge that Dr. Jeong-Hwan Kim's name was included as an author when the manuscript was originally submitted, though I am not aware of the circumstances that ultimately led to his exclusion from the list of authors. I also acknowledge the fact that two formal requests were made in 2006 (after publication of the article in F&S) asking that Dr. Kim be added to the article as an author and that I did not respond to either of them.

"I want to emphasize that we found no scientific fault with your paper: "Quantification of mitochondrial DNA using real-time polymerase chain reaction in patients with premature ovarian failure," published in Sterility and Fertility. In accordance with the press release issued by the Fertility & Sterility board in April, we determined that you were not responsible for the dual publication. While the Board did not consider the issue of authorship, I have no reason to believe that you should not receive credit as first author. This would be consistent with the customary practice in the United State of the Corresponding Author providing the appropriate authorship credits.

"We hope that this will not discourage you and your scientific colleagues from submitting original research articles to Fertility and Sterility in the future.

"Sincerely,

Alan DeCherney, MD"

Funding of all the grants approved in March, including CHA RMI, has not yet begun. CIRM is reviewing them all as part of its normal practice to assure that each grantee can comply with the terms of the grant.

If you are interested in a PDF copy of the DeCherney letter, please send a request to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. If you would like to read more on this subject, we have posted a number of items in March and April. You can find by using the search term CHA.

Turning Back Time on Mice Stem Cells: Implications for California

Does the news that scientists have found a way to reset the clock on adult mice stem cells mean that the California stem cell institute should fold its $3 billion tent and slink off into the night?

A case can be made that announcement reduces the imperative behind CIRM, formed to fund research into human embryonic stem cells because of President Bush's restrictions on federal financing in that area.

But scientists and CIRM are having none of it. Indeed, the Japanese scientist, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, who made the initial discovery in 2006 predicts that duplicating the procedure in humans would be "more demanding" than the mouse work.

At least three California newspapers visited the subject today, reporting that CIRM and researchers say the development, if ultimately successful, will take years to prove useful in humans and offers just another avenue for potential CIRM funding.

Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote:

"Arlene Chiu, interim chief scientific officer at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the agency in charge of the state's $3 billion stem cell program, said the new work shows a path around a major bottleneck -- the shortage of fresh human eggs available for research.

"'We are interested in new ways of generating pluripotent stem cells,' she said. 'The important thing to us is the product, not the process. But the rarity of eggs is definitely a challenge.'

"Ethical rules in California and other states forbid paying women who undergo the sometimes risky egg-extraction procedures. Harvard's Kevin Eggan, a senior scientist involved in the new experiments, said Wednesday that he and his colleagues have been unable to find even a single egg donor after a year of looking.

"Ethics aside, Eggan said the real reasons his lab pursued an alternative to egg donation 'are really scientific and logistical in nature.' Researchers, he said, are seeking a way to use nonviable embryos.

"In fertility clinics, somewhere between 3 and 10 percent of women's eggs are improperly fertilized, typically with an extra sperm getting inside. That translates into about 15,000 to 50,000 nonviable, one-celled embryos, also known as zygotes."

Steve Johnson of the San Jose Mercury News quoted Christopher Thomas Scott, executive director of Stanford's Program on Stem Cells in Society as saying much more work needs to be done before the techniques can be used in humans:

"To kind of claim that one study is going to do the trick isn't the way that science works."

Johnson also reported that Arnold Kriegstein of UC San Francisco

"... noted that much of the embryonic stem-cell research going on in California involves examining how to turn cells into treatments. Consequently, he said, the knowledge gained from that will be useful no matter which types of cells - embryonic or reprogrammed - ultimately are determined to be best."

Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune had this on the impact of the latest research announcement.

"'It's really remarkable work . . . and as big as Dolly (the cloned sheep) in lots of ways,” said Alan Robbins, chief technology officer at Novocell, a San Diego-based stem cell company. 'If it can be translated into humans, then it opens up the way for designer embryonic stem cells.'"

Gautam Naik of the Wall Street Journal also put together an excellent piece with a great deal on the background and implications of the research.

TV Stem Cell Coverage, Reijo Pera and Stanford

Television rarely covers California stem cell issues yet the medium is one of the most important sources of news for the public.

That is one reason why we like to point out TV coverage when it does occur, as in the case of a report by Erik Rosales on San Francisco station KGO.

He put together a roughly two-minute piece Tuesday, built around the lab grants approved by CIRM's Oversight Committee. Rosales filmed folks at Stanford, featuring Renee Reijo Pera, director of human stem cell research at the school.

You can see the entire piece here, complete with an ad that provides the full commercial TV experience. Click on the image of the hand in the latex glove to start the video.

On the subject of news coverage of Tuesday's grant approval, we should note that it received no TV coverage in Los Angeles as far as we can tell. CIRM called a news conference for noon Tuesday in Los Angeles but no reporters turned up. As we reported earlier, only one main stream media reporter was present for the session of the Oversight Committee, Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Los Angeles is a tough news town, and it usually takes more than handing out $50 million to generate coverage. Perhaps if CIRM had shot the money out of a cannon in the Rose Bowl and had researchers run for the dough....

CIRM Legislation Easily Clears the California Senate

The California State Senate today overwhelmingly passed legislation aimed at ensuring a return to the state on its $6 billion stem cell research investment as well as providing affordable access to therapies that may be developed.

The bill, SB771, cleared the Senate on a 38-0 vote. It now goes to the Assembly, where it also requires a three-fifth vote for approval, not to mention passage through at least two committees.

The measure is authored by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, chair of the Senate Health Committee, and Sen. George Runner of Antelope Valley, chair of the Senate Republican Caucus.

The size of the vote in favor of the bill seems to indicate that the opposition to the bill by the California stem cell institute and the state's biotech industry has not been effective so far. But the vote also could reflect the strength of its authors in the Senate, where their colleagues might be reluctant to offend. The Assembly could be a different matter.

We have not yet seen any news stories on the Senate vote. Those may not be available until Thursday.

(Regarding the $6 billion figure in the first paragraph, that represents the total investment by the state: $3 billion for research and $3 billion in interests for state bonds.)

CIRM Lab Grants: News Coverage Around California and China

Here are links to additional news stories on the $50 million in lab grants approved Tuesday by the California stem cell agency.

Lisa Krieger, San Jose Mercury News, story also appeared in Woodland Daily Demorat, Contra Costa Times and San Mateo County Times, excerpt:

"'We're hoping our facility will be a dynamic place for people to learn and share ideas about embryonic stem-cell research,' said Renee Reijo Pera, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of human stem-cell research at Stanford. UCSF's Arnold Kriegstein, director of the university's stem-cell program, said: 'It's terrific. We'll be able to double the size of our research facilities.'"

Xinhua news service, People's Daily, China, excerpt:

"'Once again, our state is leading the nation in stem cell research,' (Gov. Arnold) Schwarzenegger said. 'With the grants announced today, California has issued more than 200 million dollars in grants to pursue potential therapies and cures for debilitating diseases."

Gary Robbins, Orange County Register, excerpt:

"UC Irvine has collected an additional $3.9 million for the study of human embryonic stem cells, raising its backing from the state to about $17.5 million and making the campus among the most heavily funded in the world in this nascent area of biomedical research."

David Raclin, Riverside Press Enterprise, excerpt:

"The grant is UCR's third of the year from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Two UCR professors were awarded a combined $1.1 million in February."

Richard Halstead, Marin Independent Journal, excerpt:

"(Jim) Kovach (president of the Buck Institute) said it is too early to say if the Buck Institute is likely to aggressively pursue additional grants from the California Institute. Kovach said the Buck Institute might need to dedicate an entire building - 60,000 square feet or more - to succeed in that endeavor."

San Francisco Business Times, excerpt:

"The new shared research laboratory (at the Buck Insititute)will consist of 36 lab benches and spaces for equipment and procedures commonly used in stem cell research. The training facility will include a multi-purpose room and office space for weeklong training courses that will take place four times each year.

Shanna McCord, Santa Cruz Sentinel, excerpt:

"With the grant money, UCSC plans to build a central facility on campus dedicated to human embryonic stem cell research, train scientists and provide new opportunities for faculty, said Ann Pace, assistant director for UCSC's Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering. Renovation of the Sinsheimer Building on Science Hill is part of the plan, including the development of laboratory suites and training rooms, Pace said."

Jeanmarie Todd, Bloomberg, excerpt:

"The grants are 'a prelude to the $222 million in major facility grants'' the institute will consider 'early next year,' according to an e-mailed statement today(6-5-07)."

The Los Angeles Times, The Sacramento Bee and Davis Enterprise do not seem to have carried stories today. Links to the San Francisco Chronicle and San Diego Union-Tribune were carried Tuesday(see below).

Correction

The "Gives Away $50 Million" item on June 5, 2007, incorrectly stated that of the institutions represented on the Oversight Committee, only one did not receive a lab grant. Actually, there were two, Cedars-Sinai in addition to the City of Hope. Our thanks to the person who called this to our attention.

Lab Grant News Coverage

Here are links to two stories today on the CIRM lab grants(see the item below): Terri Somers, San Diego Union-Tribune, and Carl Hall, San Francisco Chronicle. Hall was not present at the Los Angeles meeting.

Stanford Fires First

Stanford publicist Amy Adams was the first out this afternoon among recipient institutions with a press release on the $4.1 million grant to her Palo Alto institution. You can find her item here.

CIRM Gives Away $50 Million for Stem Cell Labs

"We have to be as generous as we can," said Duane Roth, a member of the Oversight Committee that controls the $3 billion California state stem cell research effort.

The comment from the CEO of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp. came shortly before the board approved its first-ever laboratory grants – some $50 million to 17 institutions. Twenty-two applied.

Roth echoed comments from others on the 29-member committee. Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis Medical School, said, "We're building an array of services across the state."

A handful of the committee members raised questions about whether the panel should be more or less generous than reviewers who made recommendations to the full committee. David Baltimore, former president of Caltech, said, "When a vote has been taken, it sets a very high bar to change that recommendation."

He said the Oversight group should exercise lest it undercut the grant review process.

CIRM's press release said:

"These facilities are scheduled to be complete and available to researchers within six months to two years of the grant awards.

"The grants will fund dedicated laboratory space for the culture of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), particularly those that fall outside federal guidelines. (Current federal policy prohibits research involving hESCs isolated after August 2001 from being conducted in laboratories constructed with any federal funding.) CIRM’s grants will support the development of core laboratories to be used by multiple investigators that may be shared by multiple institutions, and provide an environment for scientific research on hESCs under CIRM’s medical and ethical standards."

It continued:

"The grants will provide funds for the design and renovation of laboratory space, equipment for the new research facilities, and operating expenses for three years. Six of the recipient institutions will receive additional funds to provide training courses for scientists and technical staff in the growth and maintenance of hESCs."

The release quoted stem cell Chairman Robert Klein as saying,

"'Today we passed the $200 million mark in funding for embryonic stem cell research. The grants approved today are a prelude to the $222 million in major facility grants we’ll consider early next year. It’s critically important that California provide a ‘safe harbor’ where scientists can work on new stem cell lines without endangering their institutions’ federal funding. It’s equally important that we help finance new facilities to house the growth of this emerging life sciences field. These grants establish a great collaborative model that leverages the intellectual capital of California’s leading scientific institutions for the benefit of all Californians.'"

Here are the recipient institutions: Salk Institute, $2.3 million; Buck Insitute, $4.1 milion including a stem cell techniques funding course; Scripps, $1.7 million; UC Davis, $2.8 million; UCLA, $2.9 million; UC Santa Cruz, $2.7 million; Children's Hospital Los Angeles, $2.8 million; UC Riverside, $2.9 million; Burnham Insitute, $3.8 million including course funding; Gladstone Institutes, $1.7 million; Stanford, $4.1 million including course funding; UC Berkeley, $2.1 million; UC Santa Barbara, $2.3 million; UC San Diego, $2.8 million; UC San Francisco, $3.9 million including course funding and USC $3.6 million including course funding.
 
UC campuses in Davis, Riverside, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz as well as Scripps moved into funding positions after receiving "mixed" recommendations from the two initial review groups.

Fourteen representatives from the institutions applying for the grants sit on the Oversight Committee. All but one of those institutions, the City of Hope, received funding. Oversight Committee members are barred by law from voting on or participating in discussions involving grants to their institutions.

Only one mainstream media reporter was present for the today's session, Terri Somers, of the San Diego Union-Tribune.