Presidential Search Committee Anticipates No Public Action Tonight

The presidential search subcommittee of the California stem cell agency has begun its meeting but is not expected to announce any action tonight.

Dale Carlson, chief communications officer for CIRM, said the group convened its teleconference meeting and promptly went into executive session to consider presidential selection issues. He said the group was not scheduled to make an announcement this evening.

The full Oversight Committee meets tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. to consider presidential salaries and candidates.

Coming Up

The presidential search subcommittee of the California stem cell agency meets at 5 p.m. California time today (midnight Greenwich Mean Time 6/26) with an unusual international teleconference meeting of the full Oversight Committee scheduled for 7 a.m. California time (2 p.m. Greenwich) tomorrow.

Presidential compensation and candidates are on the agenda for the Oversight meeting. But first they will pass through the subcommittee.

We expect to bring you coverage of any action by the subcommittee tonight, which will be largely behind closed doors, if anything is announced. The meeting is estimated to run for perhaps two hours.

Internet Radio Program: Stem Cells After Bush

The award-winning California public radio program, Forum with Michael Krasny, Tuesday morning will explore stem cell issues in the wake of the presidential veto.

The KQED program will begin at 9 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time and can be heard live on the Internet as well as downloaded after the broadcast. You can find directions on how to tune in on your computer at this location.

Scheduled to appear are bioethicist and law professor Alta Charo, Christopher Scott, executive director of the Stem Cells in Society Program at Stanford, and Dale Carlson, chief communications officer for the California stem cell agency, as well as yours truly, David Jensen, the publisher of this web site..

Listeners can call in with their questions on a toll-free number, 866-733-6786. Comments can be sent in to forum@kqed.org

CIRM Plan: $85 Million Split Among 25 Stem Cell Researchers

Polish up your resumes, folks. The California stem cell institute is preparing to give away $3 million a year or so to 25 promising, "young" researchers and physician-scientists. The money could be awarded as early as next winter.

The concept for the five-year program was approved by CIRM's Oversight Committee earlier this month. It is aimed at drawing the best and brightest into stem cell research in California -- and not just embryonic stem cell research.

The $85 million proposal encountered virtually no opposition at the Oversight Committee meeting. However, it did shed some light on issues related to have and have-not institutions, quality of grant recipients and spreading the CIRM wealth geographically around the state.

Arlene Chiu, interim chief scientific officer for CIRM, presented the concept to the ICOC. She told the board:

"Independent scientists at this early stage in their careers are very vulnerable...because they face a number of challenges: Tight federal funding pressures to get data and results out quickly, to publish papers, and demonstrate productivity and the potential of their work. They also must get grants to support their fledgling labs. And last, and certainly not least, physician-scientists often have to have clinical service as well. Faced with these challenges, plus the restrictions and uncertainties imposed by the presidential policy on human embryonic stem cells, it's not surprising that many new faculty are discouraged, feel discouraged from rushing into this new field."

Under the plan, the awards would go to persons who hold fulltime, faculty-level positions at academic or non-profit institutions in California and who are "young," meaning in the early stages of their careers. Academic institutions with a medical school could submit four applications in support of new Ph.D.'s and two new physician-scientist faculty members. Institutions without a medical school would be limited to two applications. The grants would go for research, salaries and possibly educational loans. They are akin to Pioneer grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health.

Chiu said the cap on the applications from each institution was needed to keep the total number from become unmanageable given the problems of processing them with CIRM's small staff. Ed Penhoet, vice chairman of the ICOC, said the total could hit 600 or 700 without a cap. He said he was more concerned about the load on grant reviewers, who come from out-of-state.

Philip Pizzo, dean of the the School of Medicine at Stanford, and others advocated no institutional cap on applications. Pizzo said,

"This is a very big award that you're putting forth, that it's best to have the very most outstanding individuals."

Later he said,

"I'll say this carefully, and I hope no one will be offended. I think we must have a very high standard. The tendency that we've had recently is we're trying to spread things around, and I think it's good. We should do that, but we should have a high bar on these grants and not simply come in and say,well, we need to have many more of them to sort of prime the seat. I think that would be going in the wrong direction."

David Baltimore, former president of Caltech and a Nobel Laureate, replied,

"There are only 25 grants. If four of those grants were given to one institution, that would be probably scandalous. For six grants to be given to one institution would certainly be scandalous when it's such a limited resource for the state."

Also speaking for limits on each institution were Oversight Committee Chair Robert Klein, Claire Pomeroy, dean of the School of Medicine at UC Davis, and patient advocates Jeff Sheehy and Sherry Lansing, a former Hollywood film executive. .

At one point, Oswald Steward, chair and director of the Reeve, Irvine Research Center at UC Irvine, supported Pizzo as did Duane Roth, chairman and CEO of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp., who said he favored stringent criteria for the awards.

The discussion of the faculty award program reflected some of the questions recently rippling through CIRM. Do the big, well-established programs continue to receive generous grants? How much should go to institutions without the reputations and facilities that UC San Francisco and Stanford have? Should the location of institutions be a consideration? Does spreading the money around mean that unworthy science is being funded? Does it dilute funding for what is very expensive research, a question raised by Penhoet, who said,

"I just wanted to caution against trying to cut the budgets and spread it around over more people. This is a disease most prevalent at the National Science Foundation. You end up with lots of people with not enough money to do anything important. So I think we're better off to choose the very best people and fund them well rather than try to spread the money further. This research is expensive. Salaries are high, all of these things. It takes a lot of money to do modern cell biology and microbiology."

The questions of sharing the wealth have surfaced particularly during recent sessions of the Facilities group, which is developing criteria for a $200 million research lab construction program. The issues are likely to surface anew on July 12 when that group actually writes the specifics.

As for the faculty awards, Chiu will bring back more specifics to the ICOC in August. Review of applications, which she estimates could come from as many as 35 institutions, is tentatively scheduled for this fall. Approval of grants could come during the holiday season. Consider them a Christmas bonus.

A Retrospective on CIRM: The View from Wyoming

The former president of the California stem cell agency – Zach Hall -- reflects on his two years in the job, CIRM's accomplishments and the challenges facing in the $3 billion program in a piece in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Reporter Terri Somers wrote the Sunday story on the eve of this evening's and tomorrow's meetings dealing with the appointment of a new president. Hall had planned to leave the agency this month, but accelerated his departure following an acrimonious session of CIRM's Facilities group.

Hall was circumspect on some topics, including the longstanding structural problems at CIRM with its dual executive arrangement that is locked into state law by Prop. 71.

Nonetheless, Somers' story offered some insights. She wrote that the president has no clear voice in grant funding. Hall noted that the CIRM president has no seat on CIRM's controlling body, the Oversight Committee, as contrasted to the NIH. Hall said:

"Proposition 71 poses an administrative challenge in that it gives significant leadership responsibility to both the chairman and president. In a small organization, which at the time I was president it was, two strong leaders often posed a challenge. Both of us had (previously) been in leadership positions and had strong views about how things should be done.

"This sometimes led to conflict. In the end, results can best be judged by the record of accomplishment of the institute."

Hall on relations with Oversight Committee members:

"'In retrospect, I think I could have probably worked harder to improve my relations with some of the board members. I think it wasn't clear to me as early as it might have been how important that was,' Hall said. 'I mostly confined my interactions to official occasions, and I think it would have helped if I did some things to meet with people individually.'"

Somers continued:

"There are a number of internal problems at CIRM that need to be worked out, he said.

For example, there needs to be a unified vision among the groups represented on the board and the staff, he said.

"'I hope that out of that process would come a strong sense of mutual trust, which I think was one of the issues at the facilities working group meeting.'"

Hall on relations between CIRM staff and the 29-member Oversight Committee, which sometimes engages in micromanagement (our word, not Hall's):

"The institute has a tremendously talented staff and I think it is important the board trust the staff to do its work, and work in the direction that is congenial with where the board wants to go. There needs to be a sense that the board doesn't need to participate in every decision, or be involved in all details of the administration."

Hall on the private sector and the future:

"The institute's next president, he said, could really make an impact by developing a strategy for working with private industry. So far, the institute has developed plans only for dealing with nonprofit research institutions and universities. Ultimately, the institute wants to partner with companies by helping with clinical trials and getting therapies to patients.

"'This is a whole new territory, and we don't have good models,' Hall said.

"'Because of the way the field has developed, a lot of important discoveries have been made on the private side, and we don't always know what they are. We need to know who it's worth putting money into, while not violating their need for confidentiality, which will be a challenge.'"

Hall's plans? Enjoy the summer at his place in Wyoming and serve on the scientific advisory board of the New York Stem Cell Institute.

Coming Up

Later today, we will have a look at CIRM's plans to establish an $85 million program to fund as many as 25 California physician-scientists with as much as $400,000 a year.

NAS Letter Arrives

We have received word from John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, that he has now received (on June 21) a response from the National Academy of Sciences regarding his letter of protest about his ouster from a stem cell meeting in May. The NAS letter to him was dated June 13 and postmarked June 15. Copies of it were also sent to some other parties, one of whom received it as early as June 14. We carried an item on the NAS response last week based on the copy of the letter.

If It Can't Stand the Light of Day...

Attention Scientists! Want to keep the gravy train moving and the research grants flowing? Want to see more shiny new labs with the latest in sparkling equipment?

Build public confidence. Open the doors and explain the mystery. Don't shut out the people. Don't feed the anti-science Luddites.

Much has been written about distrust of scientists and their arcane ways. Most people are more concerned about the pedestrian issues of daily life than the esoteric issues that researchers probe. The public turns its attention to scientific matters in times of major achievement but also in times of scandal and suspicion. And when little is known about a subject, bad information can easily carry the day in the court of public opinion.

Which brings us to the National Academy of Sciences and its closed door sessions on the seemingly innocuous subject of interstate cooperation on embryonic stem cell research. We have written a few times about how the academy ousted a member of the public from its meeting on the matter last month in California. The academy apparently plans to continue this dubious policy.

Today the question is: Why should you care? The answer: If you favor good science, well-funded by government, you have something at stake.

Can scientists be trusted with public money? Are they open to public concerns? High-handed tactics, closed door meetings and secret agendas generate negative responses to those questions and play into the hands of those who fear science and seek to bring it to heel. No good reason exists for barring the public from the meetings on interstate cooperation. The meetings are attended by public officials discussing public policy about billions of dollars in public money.

The NAS itself owes its existence to an act of Congress. Many of its proceedings are already public, including such sessions as one dealing with adverse biological and health effects of cell phones and another dealing with "The 1,000-ship Navy -- A Distributed and Global Maritime Network." Is interstate cooperation on stem research more "sensitive" than those issues? We think not.

In many cases, the NAS has the legal right to close its doors. But the various state stem cell officials should not be party to such proceedings concerning interstate cooperation. We have queried a number of participants in May's closed door meeting to see if they planned to continue to attend meetings that bar the public. None has responded although we promised to carry their comments verbatim. Several possible reasons exist for the non-response. The officials may feel that this flap -- a relatively minor matter in many ways at this point -- will go away. They may feel uncomfortable as public officials in stating that they approve of closed door meetings. And they may be unwilling to publicly offend the National Academy of Sciences.

The NAS itself has not responded to our repeated queries. It also has not responded even to questions about the date for the next interstate meeting. And its written response to the man ousted from the May meeting was delivered to him one week after it went to agencies that were copied in on the letter.

When we worked in the California governor's office years ago, we were sometimes asked by top appointees about public meetings. Our response was, "If it can't stand the light of day, don't do it." That is good advice also for the National Academy of Sciences and its meetings on stem cell cooperation.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this contained slightly different information re the NAS response to the ousted man. This item has been updated to reflect the latest information.)

TV Coverage on California Stem Cell Research

California's $3 billion stem cell research program received favorable mention in some television news coverage of the president's stem cell veto.

We mentioned the ABC News blog item earlier. The same reporter, Ned Potter, who wrote the blog also prepared a piece for the network's national news program, which carried on camera commentary from Arnold Kriegstein of UC San Francisco and Dale Carlson, chief communications officer for CIRM.

In Sacramento, Channel 10 carried a piece by Marcey Brightwell that discussed California's program with a special focus on UC Davis and researcher Jan Nolta.

As we have mentioned earlier, TV news coverage is important because more people get their news that way than by reading the newspaper. TV news coverage of the California stem cell agency is also rare.

You can see the actual video of the stories by clicking on here for Channel 10 and here for ABC.

A Dissection: CIRM's Presidential Meeting Next Week

A couple of alert readers have raised questions concerning next Tuesday's special meeting of the Oversight Committee of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, which is scheduled to consider presidential candidates and a new salary for the position.

The teleconference meeting will be conducted from sites that span the length of California, reaching even into Australia. They offer an unusual opportunity for the public to take part in discussions of the agency.

Veterans of California state public meetings have some idea how this might work. Others are not entirely clear and wonder whether it really meets the requirements of state open meeting laws.

One stem cell observer, who asked for anonymity, wrote in an email:

"I have this image of a large crowd being ushered in and immediately being ushered out, waiting 90 minutes and then being ushered in and then out again."

That observer is not far off. However, it is unlikely that a large crowd will be on the scene at any of the locations. Most Oversight Committee meetings draw only about 10 or so members of the public, and that is when the meeting is only in one location.

We could be wrong, but this is likely how the session on Tuesday morning will go.

The committee will convene in public. It will then go into executive session to consider personnel matters – the hiring of a new president. Such sessions are permitted by state law. The public will have to wait outside the meeting room while this goes on. Then the meeting will go public. At that point, the committee has the ability to vote on the salary for a presidential candidate in public session and a new president because the matters have been properly noticed as required by state law. The committee does not have to vote on those matters. They could be delayed to another time. But once the committee is back in public session, members of the public can address the presidential topics or any other topic they choose. However, by state law the committee cannot act on matters that have not been announced in advance.

That means that a person could show up at one of these locations, sit around for about 90 minutes or so and not hear any significant discussions of CIRM matters. Unless you are interested in saying something to the directors of the $3 billion research effort, it may not be worth your time to attend the meeting. Or you may want to test public access -- required by law -- to site locations around the state for the teleconference meeting.

Will the new president be announced or voted on at Tuesday's meeting? Probably, but again we could be wrong. There is only one reason to put consideration of presidential candidates on the agenda, and that is to vote on them. One possible scenario is that the candidate is all but in the bag, with only ratification of a new salary or compensation package needed to clinch the deal. Another scenario could be that California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein put consideration of presidential candidates on the agenda just in case the deal would come to fruition in time for the 7 a.m. meeting next Tuesday. But given the unusual nature of the session, that may be unlikely.

Finally, if the Oversight Committee does fail to make a decision on Tuesday, it could mean that some sort of snag has once again hit the presidential selection process.

Stem Cell Research State by State

Stateline.org today carried a detailed overview of embryonic stem cell research efforts state by state, including the case of a woman who unsuccessfully tried to donate a leftover embryo from her IVF treatment in Michigan.

She was told she had to go to another state because Michigan law bans research on human embryos.

Writer Christine Vestal put together the piece, which goes into some detail on each state with links to the agencies that do the work.

Here is an excerpt:

"Seven states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin — are providing seed money for the fledgling science, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) in May called on lawmakers in his state to follow suit.

"Six other states — Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota — ban the research. Three states — Iowa, Massachusetts and Missouri — have affirmed its legality but do not offer funding.

"In Florida and Texas, lawmakers are deadlocked on the issue. Most states have steered clear of it altogether."

The Bush Veto: 'Strong Words From the Government of California'

California today received prominent mention on an ABC News blog by science correspondent Ned Potter concerning the presidential veto.

Here are some excerpts:

"Surprisingly strong words from the government of California, which, for lack of federal funding, is the largest backer of research on embryonic stem cells.

Potter continued:

"Dale Carlson of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which handles the $3 billion California has pledged for research over ten years: "California has 25 percent of the biomedical research capability in this country. We need the other 75 percent fully engaged and pursuing these therapies.

"If therapies are going to be discovered we need labs all over the country working on this project. So we’re going to have to wait for a new president and hopefully a new policy to really achieve the potential."

Potter also said Arnold Kriegstein of UC San Francisco expressed "polite frustration" with Bush's position that research can be done without embryonic stem cells. Potter quoted Kriegstein as saying,

"There's been a great deal of discussion about alternative sources for embryonic stem cells, for example using amniotic fluid or umbilical blood and so forth. But the truth is none of these alternatives really have the potential embryonic stem cells do to create cells of different types--heart cells, muscle cells, nerve cells and so forth."

Klein on Bush

President Bush's predictable veto of the federal stem cell bill generated the following response from Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine:

"The President has again dashed the hopes of millions of Americans suffering from chronic diseases and conditions, despite the overwhelming support for stem cell research in this country. If we're going to realize the potential of stem cells to treat Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and 70 other debilitating conditions, we need scientists in every state carrying on this research. California cannot reach the potential of this medical research alone.

"It is a tragedy for patient families throughout this country that this critical new frontier of medical research has been so severely handicapped by the President’s personal religious positions. The Congressional leadership clearly understands the historic potential of stem cell research to reduce human suffering. The Congressional leadership should be commended for serving as the champion of stem cell research in this historic opportunity to impact the devastating medical impact of these terrible, chronic diseases and injuries on America’s children and families."

Down Under With The Niche and Robert Klein

California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein hobnobbed this week with scientists from around the world in Cairns, Australia, at the convention of the International Society of Stem Cell Research.

"The Niche," the new stem cell blog of Nature magazine, reported on some of Klein's doings at the conference, saying that Klein is joining the advisory board for the society. Monya Baker reported that Harvard scientist and incoming president of the society George Daley says Klein is supposed to help ISSCR "figure out what its mission should be."

She said that Daley also wants a "very philanthropically involved" board so the group does not always have to be raising funds.

Baker continued:

"I’m waiting to talk to Klein right now, sitting on the edge of a platform as the crew dismantles a stage in wet Cairns, Australia. He’s talking to three intent people, one a lady in a wheelchair. I’m catching words like 'motivating people' and 'networking' Behind him, a serious-looking woman is taking copious notes. I wish my hand moved that fast. She’s the one who led Klein away when I tried to talk to him."

The headline on Baker's item described Klein as the "Prop. 71 instigator."

San Diego Stem Cell Consortium Unveils Ambitious Plans

Representatives from the high-powered San Diego stem cell consortium laid out their vision Tuesday for a 135,000-square-foot facility to house scientists, engineers, ethicists and to serve as a home for programs for both junior research scientists and senior scholars.

Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on the presentation, which was made to the California stem cell institute. It held a hearing in San Diego as part of its effort to devise procedures for giving away $220 million to build embryonic stem cell labs in California.

The consortium consists of the Salk, Burnham and Scripps institutes as well as the University of California at San Diego. Tuesday's hearing was the first time members of consortium had appeared in public together, Somers reported.

She wrote that at least one group favored the consortium's effort:

"'I don't know why the consortium emerged or how they did it, but the fact that it has is one of the key developments that Proposition 71 (the stem cell initiative) envisioned,' said John (M.) Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

"Proposals for such collaboration should be given extra weight in the grant application process, Simpson said."

Not everyone is enamored of the effort. Somers did not report any negative comments on the CIRM or consortium plans, which were probably not made at the session. But one reader of the newspaper's Web site, identified only as "ghoward79" filed this online comment on Somers' story:

"If it has such promise then private investors would be all over it. Think about the investment returns! Either way companies promoting this are making money off it and they want someone else to pay the price."

Tuesday's hearing was the last before a July 12 session of the CIRM Facilities Group to actually come up with the specifics of the lab grant procedures, which would then go to the Oversight Committee for approval.

Earlier sessions of the group were well attended, drawing more attendees than the meetings of the Oversight Committee. Transcripts from the sessions are available online. Institutions planning to seek grants or other interested parties would be well advised to read the transcripts. Additional comments can also be sent to CIRM staff, which is mulling over the proceedings in preparation for July's hearing. Waiting until the day of the hearing is a good way to be overlooked.

Time Ripe for CIRM Webcasting

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, made the following observations via email on the meetings of the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency.

"Given problems with quorums I have no problem with telephonic meetings SO LONG AS THE PUBLIC HAS GENUINE ACCESS.(Simpson's capitalization)

"Also think regular meetings should be broadcast on the Internet."

Some time ago we asked CIRM about Webcasting Oversight and other committee meetings. Expense was the reason given for not carrying the sessions on the Internet. CIRM Oversight meetings (currently about six a year) currently run about $20,000 a pop. If one or two could be eliminated each year and replaced with an online session, perhaps the money could be found. An online session capability would also help with meetings of the working groups, where many folks have to travel from out of state.

On the other hand, providing online meeting capability on a free basis would be an excellent opportunity for a high tech firm, such as Cisco or Citrix, which has a substantial California operation, to show its interest in supporting a worthwhile scientific and medical endeavor. It might also simply be good marketing and give a firm an entry point in a sector that is scattered around the globe.

Reaching Down Under: A Chance to Weigh In on California Stem Cell Matters

It is not often that the folks in Australia have a chance to sit in on the deliberations of the elite group that operates the largest single source of funding in the world for embryonic stem cell research.

But next Tuesday all of you folks down under will have a chance, particularly if you are already in the Melbourne area, which, unfortunately, is quite distant from the big stem cell conference this week in Cairns. Likewise, Californians throughout the state will have a rare chance to easily be part of the discussions of the Oversight Committee of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

The occasion is an unusual teleconference session of the 29-member Oversight Committee to consider candidates to take over as president of the $3 billion research program as well as their compensation.

The conference call arrangement was set up because it is physically difficult to bring together all 29 directors of the institute.

Three sites are available in San Francisco and two in Los Angeles, not including one at UCLA and one in Pasadena . Locations are also available in Sacramento, Chico, La Jolla, Newport Beach, Carlsbad, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Mill Valley and Healdsburg. The specific addresses can be found on the meeting's agenda.

A couple of tips: Some of the addresses do not include room numbers, such as the one for the Westin Hotel in Melbourne. That is apparently where Robert Klein, chair of the agency, is staying. Query CIRM in advance at info@cirm.ca.gov if you have questions about the specific locations. Also show up well in advance in case some officious type is inclined to delay your entrance. By law, these are public meetings. If you are hampered or barred from entry, please send me a note at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.

The meeting promises to be short, perhaps 90 minutes, and only has the presidential matter on the agenda. If you like, you can also sit in on the presidential search subcommittee meeting the previous evening at many of the same locations.

Ticklish Topic: The $400,000-plus Salary at CIRM

Whatever the new president of California's $3 billion stem cell research effort is paid, the salary will likely trigger complaints that it is too much.

Currently the top end of the salary range for the position stands at $412,500. The previous president, Zach Hall, earned $389,000.

However, CIRM's Oversight Committee meets on June 26 to consider compensation for its soon-to-be-hired new president. The committee's public agenda does not list the amount being considered, but it certainly is not going to lower the president's pay.

The salary is ticklish because it appears to be quite large for an operation that has less than 30 employees. Salaries of public officials are always touchy because they are easy for the public to grasp. Is $10 million too much for a lab at UC San Francisco or a research grant to UC Riverside? The public has no frame of reference, so it is hard for them to become outraged. But everybody has a frame of reference for wages. High salaries also make good headlines for newspapers, whose historically underpaid reporters and editors are keenly tuned to such matters.

CIRM often uses the University of California as a benchmark for salaries and financial practices. But you may recall, the UC system stubbed its salary toe in 2005 with dubious pay policies. Nonetheless it is useful to consider some of the salaries at UC. We will use a compensation list for 2004-05 compiled by the San Francisco Chronicle because it is easily available.

As of that fiscal year, one assistant professor at UC Davis, Kee Kim, was paid $776,943. Two members of the CIRM Oversight Committee -- David Kessler, dean of the UC San Francisco School of Medicine, and Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine – earned respectively $540,250 and $537,416. Several persons whose main responsibilities are supervising young men as they play with balls easily topped those levels, with one at UC Berkeley, Jeff Tedford, topping out at $1.6 million. And those figures are all at least two years old.

If you look at the private sector, it is difficult to come up with useful comparisons. CIRM is a tiny agency (with fewer employees than directors) but it operates a massive research spending program. To issue the grants and administer them requires a high level of bureaucratic and scientific skill. To manage and lead those highly skilled CIRM staffers requires an equally skillful president. Not to mention the special adeptness needed to deal with the 29-member Oversight Committee and its chairman, who seems irresistibly drawn into the president's areas of responsibility. And not to mention the nearly uncharted research standards and IP waters that CIRM must navigate from time to time.

Complicating the pay picture are housing prices in San Francisco, which present a special problem for a president coming from out-of-state. The median price for a San Francisco home was $835,000 last month, up 8.4 percent from a year ago. And this is supposed to be a down market – at least nationally -- for housing. Keep in mind that price does not put you in the lap of luxury either.

The Oversight Committee seems heading relentlessly for a pay hike for its president. Its biggest challenge is to concoct a rationale that will mute the protests about the pay. A rationale that will sit well with Betty and Bob in San Bernardino, who are working two jobs and commuting (at $3.50 a gallon) more than four hours a day -- between them -- to pay for a very modest three-bedroom home for themselves and their two children.

One good way to start is to tell the public well in advance of next week's meeting what is exactly on the compensation table, instead of springing the figure at the last minute. Of course, if the amount is not defensible, withholding it may seem to be the best tactic -- at least to some.

Fresh Comment

A comment has been posted anonymously on the "new look" item below. To see it, click on "comments" at the end of the item.

CIRM Has a New Look on the Internet

The California stem cell agency has a new look on its Web page, a redesign dictated by the eServices Office of the Golden State.

The ostensible reason is to create uniformity among state Web sites. So the eServices Office dictated, among other things, that a photograph of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a link to his site be placed on the home page of each state agency.

By November, all state departments must be marching together online.

Based on an initial look, CIRM's new design seems graphically friendly, although it will require a little re-orientation for those who those who are accustomed to the old look.

Several issues emerged, however. The most egregious problem is a failure to post prominently an email address that can be used to contact the agency. The email address should be on the "contact" page. At first we did not think it was anywhere on the site. But we finally found it buried deep on the "regulations" page.

The home page also does not have a link to upcoming meetings. Those can be found by clicking on "calendar" and then on "2007 Past Meetings." The transcripts of meetings are also found under "calendar," which is a tad non-intuitive. Once you are on the transcripts page, the transcripts are listed in a table that reads oddly -- at least to us. The widely separated columns in the table -- a format that seems to invite reading down -- are actually organized to read left to right. The wide separation between the columns, however, creates a barrier to the eye.

The "what's new" feature on the home page is similar to the previous effort. The question is whether it will continue to display only new press releases and statements, which is useful. But what would be really useful would be to post a "what's new" listing whenever a change is made to the Web site, such as when a fresh transcript or meeting agenda is posted.

For inexplicable reasons, the upper right hand corner has links to "content," "footer" and "accessibility." "Content" really should be called "about." "Accessibility" does not need to occupy such prime real estate on the home page. As for "footer," who knows what that refers to.

We have no doubt that CIRM is interested in feedback on the design and how to make it more useful. Send your comments to info@cirm.ca.gov -- an email address that is now nearly "secret."

If you are interested in a PDF copy of the Web site marching orders from the Golden State's eService office, please send a message to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.