Jim Fossett of the Rockefeller Institute has pulled together a reasonably complete account of private donor support for stem cell research in the United States – something in the neighborhood of more than $1.7 billion.
Interestingly California is rather low on the list with a piddling $100 million. Missouri is No. 1 with $985 million from the Stowers.
The rundown is part of a policy brief called "Federalism by Necessity," which describes state and private efforts at human embryonic stem cell research. It supports Fossett's belief and mine that we are not likely to see an upsurge in federal stem cell spending after the next presidential election.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Giving Bush The Treatment
Stanford's Chris Scott looks at how George Bush might encounter stem cell therapy some years down the road in a case involving the famed "Jenna" line of stem cells. You can read it here on Scott's blog, The Stem Cell Blog.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Bee Editorializes on CIRM Presidential Search
The Sacramento Bee editorialized this morning on the search for a permanent president of the California stem cell agency, wondering whether obstacles exist that make recruitment difficult.
The editorial pointed out problems with compensation. It noted the structural issues in the management structure along with the role of California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein. And it said interim president Richard Murphy has taken steps to ease concerns about possible conflicts of interest. The final paragraph of the editorial also said:
"In fact, it's quite possible that Murphy could help the institute fashion a management structure in line with that of other prestigious research institutions. Earlier this year, Murphy described the institute's executive structure as a 'dog's breakfast' -- in other words, 'a mess.' For six months, he'll be boss of the kitchen. Bon appetit."
The editorial pointed out problems with compensation. It noted the structural issues in the management structure along with the role of California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein. And it said interim president Richard Murphy has taken steps to ease concerns about possible conflicts of interest. The final paragraph of the editorial also said:
"In fact, it's quite possible that Murphy could help the institute fashion a management structure in line with that of other prestigious research institutions. Earlier this year, Murphy described the institute's executive structure as a 'dog's breakfast' -- in other words, 'a mess.' For six months, he'll be boss of the kitchen. Bon appetit."
CSUS' $31 Million Training Proposal Faces More Scrutiny
A "breathtaking," $31 million proposal to train 4,000 young persons in biotech skills has been sent off for more critical examination by two directors of the California stem cell agency.
Last week six representatives of the California State University and College system presented the five-year plan to CIRM's directors, who both praised and criticized it. One, Janet Wright, called it "breathtaking" and "visionary."
The proposal represents a joint effort by the 114 community colleges in California and the 23-campus state university and college system (which does not include the University of California).
The proposal keyed off the widespread belief that biotech firms in California have difficulty finding skilled workers. Such expressions by industry groups often can be translated to: "We cannot find enough workers at the wages we are willing to pay."
John Reed, head of the Burnham Institute and a member of the CIRM Oversight Committee, questioned whether CIRM is the best source for funding the training program. He noted that Prop. 71 was aimed at providing funding for research that is not available from the federal government. He said there is no prohibition against any agency providing biotech training. Reed asked for specific statistics on the need in California as opposed national statistics provided by CSUS. (Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune had more from Reed on his views.)
Ed Penhoet, vice chairman of CIRM, also expressed an interest in more information. He wanted to know how successful are CSUS' existing training programs.
Other questions could be asked as well. If there is a great need for training and if biotech is as important to the California economy as argued by CSUS, one could wonder why the system is not already doing the training on its own. It would seem to be a basic part of the system's mission. One could ask whether alternative approaches to the training exist – something less costly than $31 million. However, the figure translates to $7,500 a student, which might be a bargain.
One could wonder why this proposal was not presented to the staff earlier and vetted for answers to just such questions, including Reed's and Penhoet's, prior to coming to the board. The CIRM board is constantly pressed for time for matters that only it can decide, such as the rules for the $227 million lab program, which came up later in the day of the presentation. By mid-afternoon, Oversight Committee members were disappearing to catch planes and to take care of their other many responsibilities. A written, staff analysis of the plan would have already developed answers to questions posed by Oversight Committee members and saved valuable time.
CSUS promised to address all the concerns in writing before the October meeting of the Oversight Committee, when committee members David Serrano Sewell and Marcy Feit are scheduled to report back on the proposal. Hopefully, they will ask the staff to weigh in as well.
Last week six representatives of the California State University and College system presented the five-year plan to CIRM's directors, who both praised and criticized it. One, Janet Wright, called it "breathtaking" and "visionary."
The proposal represents a joint effort by the 114 community colleges in California and the 23-campus state university and college system (which does not include the University of California).
The proposal keyed off the widespread belief that biotech firms in California have difficulty finding skilled workers. Such expressions by industry groups often can be translated to: "We cannot find enough workers at the wages we are willing to pay."
John Reed, head of the Burnham Institute and a member of the CIRM Oversight Committee, questioned whether CIRM is the best source for funding the training program. He noted that Prop. 71 was aimed at providing funding for research that is not available from the federal government. He said there is no prohibition against any agency providing biotech training. Reed asked for specific statistics on the need in California as opposed national statistics provided by CSUS. (Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune had more from Reed on his views.)
Ed Penhoet, vice chairman of CIRM, also expressed an interest in more information. He wanted to know how successful are CSUS' existing training programs.
Other questions could be asked as well. If there is a great need for training and if biotech is as important to the California economy as argued by CSUS, one could wonder why the system is not already doing the training on its own. It would seem to be a basic part of the system's mission. One could ask whether alternative approaches to the training exist – something less costly than $31 million. However, the figure translates to $7,500 a student, which might be a bargain.
One could wonder why this proposal was not presented to the staff earlier and vetted for answers to just such questions, including Reed's and Penhoet's, prior to coming to the board. The CIRM board is constantly pressed for time for matters that only it can decide, such as the rules for the $227 million lab program, which came up later in the day of the presentation. By mid-afternoon, Oversight Committee members were disappearing to catch planes and to take care of their other many responsibilities. A written, staff analysis of the plan would have already developed answers to questions posed by Oversight Committee members and saved valuable time.
CSUS promised to address all the concerns in writing before the October meeting of the Oversight Committee, when committee members David Serrano Sewell and Marcy Feit are scheduled to report back on the proposal. Hopefully, they will ask the staff to weigh in as well.
Friday, August 10, 2007
FTCR: Secrecy Supports Anti-Science Crowd
Does openness on research grant reviews mean bad science? Does cloaking the identities of massive public institutions serve a public purpose?
Earlier today we asked John M. Simpson , longtime CIRM watcher for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, for his thoughts on the secrecy policies at CIRM(see item below). Here is what he had to say.
Earlier today we asked John M. Simpson , longtime CIRM watcher for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, for his thoughts on the secrecy policies at CIRM(see item below). Here is what he had to say.
"CIRM's penchant for secrecy makes no sense. People who want public money should have to explain how they will use it in public.
"This is not complex. Other states, like Connecticut, have figured out how to do it.
"The argument is that scientists won't apply for grants out of fear that their applications might be rejected. Frankly, all the scientists I know have thicker skins than that. Their egos aren't fragile. In fact a number of junior scientists have said they'd like to see some sun shine into the secrecy-shrouded peer review process.
"But let's set the the question of the individuals' identity aside for a moment. There is absolutely no ground for a refusal to identify the institutions which have applications under consideration.
"The only thing I can figure is that the current scientific culture is elitist and subscribes to the view that the public can't be trusted to make good judgments. Ironically, in the end that's an approach which leads to the know-nothing, anti-science attitude of the current federal administration.
"I want to support science and scientists, but when you insist upon retreating behind closed doors you do not make it easy for me or for yourselves. Engage the public; explain what you do and why. Do it in public. You'll be surprised and pleased at the support you get."
CIRM Says No to Public Access on Faculty Grants
The California stem cell agency today refused to disclose the names of the institutions whose faculty members are seeking $85 million in public funds.
Dale Carlson, chief communications officer for CIRM, said that the institutions' names would not be disclosed until after the grants are awarded in December. He said the justification for the secrecy was the same as for the secrecy on applications for previous research grants.
Basically CIRM wants to ensure candor in the evaluation of individual research proposals and avoid embarrassing them or damaging their reputations. But CIRM did not make it clear how institutions such as UCLA or Stanford could be embarrassed or harmed by the disclosure that they nominated scientists for the prestigious awards or how the evaluation process could be damaged by such identification.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, said that not only should the institutions be named but that the individual scientists also should be publicly identified.
In some ways, CIRM is more open than other more cloistered institutions, such as the NIH, we are told. But in other ways, it remains tightly under wraps.
Comparisons are difficult to make with other government agencies or universities. CIRM, although it is a state agency and operates with state funds, is not subject to the normal gubernatorial or legislative oversight. Operational minutia concerning the agency is codified in state law and cannot be changed without another vote of the people or a super, super-majority vote in the legislature. Such independence does not exist at the University of California or the NIH.
At the same time, the board is rife with conflicts – all entirely legal because they were approved by voters in Prop. 71, which created the agency. Fifteen members of its board of directors, for example, have ties to institutions that could stand to benefit by tens of millions dollars in its latest $227 million lab grant program.
What that means is that CIRM should be more, rather than less open in order to maintain public confidence in its worthy endeavors.
Dale Carlson, chief communications officer for CIRM, said that the institutions' names would not be disclosed until after the grants are awarded in December. He said the justification for the secrecy was the same as for the secrecy on applications for previous research grants.
Basically CIRM wants to ensure candor in the evaluation of individual research proposals and avoid embarrassing them or damaging their reputations. But CIRM did not make it clear how institutions such as UCLA or Stanford could be embarrassed or harmed by the disclosure that they nominated scientists for the prestigious awards or how the evaluation process could be damaged by such identification.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, said that not only should the institutions be named but that the individual scientists also should be publicly identified.
In some ways, CIRM is more open than other more cloistered institutions, such as the NIH, we are told. But in other ways, it remains tightly under wraps.
Comparisons are difficult to make with other government agencies or universities. CIRM, although it is a state agency and operates with state funds, is not subject to the normal gubernatorial or legislative oversight. Operational minutia concerning the agency is codified in state law and cannot be changed without another vote of the people or a super, super-majority vote in the legislature. Such independence does not exist at the University of California or the NIH.
At the same time, the board is rife with conflicts – all entirely legal because they were approved by voters in Prop. 71, which created the agency. Fifteen members of its board of directors, for example, have ties to institutions that could stand to benefit by tens of millions dollars in its latest $227 million lab grant program.
What that means is that CIRM should be more, rather than less open in order to maintain public confidence in its worthy endeavors.
Not Upcoming
Our report on the $31 million CSUS training proposal to the California stem cell agency has been delayed until this weekend.
CIRM Presidential Search: Looking for the Right Phenotype
Is there too much "reflection" in the search for a permanent president of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, which has been operating on a lame-duck-CEO basis since December?
At least one member of the agency's 29-member Oversight Committee thinks so. Jeff Sheehy told The Scientist that the board is focusing excessively on persons with strong scientific backgrounds and not enough on good managers.
Writer Bob Grant quoted Sheehy as saying,
At least one member of the agency's 29-member Oversight Committee thinks so. Jeff Sheehy told The Scientist that the board is focusing excessively on persons with strong scientific backgrounds and not enough on good managers.
Writer Bob Grant quoted Sheehy as saying,
"I feel like we have a lot of deans of medical schools on our board, and they keep looking in the mirror. I'm not sure that's the phenotype that we need in this job."Grant continued:
"Sheehy added that Murphy's appointment only delays the institute's need to seriously consider this identity issue. 'In a way he's a band-aid on a deeper problem we have,' said Sheehy, 'which is not coming to terms with what the job is. I think we keep punting on this issue.'"The main focus of Grant's piece was the appointment of Richard Murphy, former head of the Salk Institute in the San Diego area, as interim president. Murphy was quoted as saying,
"My job as president is going to be, first and foremost, to make sure the operation of CIRM is efficient and effective."Murphy added,
"I don't think that the role of the president is to evaluate science."Grant noted Murphy will not take part in decisions affecting San Diego institutions. Grant also wrote:
"Evan Snyder, stem cell program director at San Diego's Burnham Institute for Medical Research, told The Scientist that though Murphy has recused himself from making direct funding decisions when San Diego institutions are involved, he will be valuable to the community because of his intimate knowledge of science in the area. 'He has an appreciation for what's going on in San Diego, and I know that will be a great benefit to us,' Snyder said. The Burnham Institute has already received almost $13.5 million in CIRM money."In a separate addition to the story, Grant quoted California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein as making it clear that it was not seeking candidates for the permanent position who want to maintain active labs. That was a stumbling block in the previous presidential search.
Fifty-nine Scientists Reach for CIRM's Golden Ring
The odds do not appear to be too bad in the California stem cell agency's new and generous $85 million faculty award program. It could make 25 stem cell researchers quite happy this holiday season.
Fifty-nine persons filed letters of intent to apply for the awards that could run as high as $3 million annually. CIRM could give out as many as 25 grants, if it decides it has that many worthy candidates. That, of course, means one out of 2.36 applicants could be funded.
The scientists come from 29 California institutions, whose names were not immediately disclosed. We have asked for the names of the institutions and will carry CIRM's response when it is forthcoming.
CIRM's press release today said,
Fifty-nine persons filed letters of intent to apply for the awards that could run as high as $3 million annually. CIRM could give out as many as 25 grants, if it decides it has that many worthy candidates. That, of course, means one out of 2.36 applicants could be funded.
The scientists come from 29 California institutions, whose names were not immediately disclosed. We have asked for the names of the institutions and will carry CIRM's response when it is forthcoming.
CIRM's press release today said,
"New Faculty Awards will fund the research of promising M.D. and Ph.D. scientists in their early years as independent lead investigators and faculty members. They are intended to develop a new generation of clinical and scientific leaders in stem cell research.The schedule calls for the awards to be approved at the board's December meeting. The deadline for applications is Aug. 30 but those who did not file letters of intent are out of luck. Between now and then, the applications will be reviewed behind closed doors by a group of out-of-state scientists and some members of the CIRM Oversight Committee, who have filed public economic disclosure statements. However, the scientists involved in the review do not have to file public statements. They file secret economic disclosure statements with CIRM. Their private statements are also aimed at identifying potential professional conflicts.
"While previous CIRM research grants focused on human embryonic stem cell research, the New Faculty Awards will support research across the full range of stem cell types – human and animal, adult and embryonic."
Kessler Looking for More Than CIRM, UCSF?
Is one of the directors of the California stem cell agency looking for new challenges?
The In Vivo blog has an interesting piece on David Kessler, a former FDA commissioner and dean of the UC San Francisco medical school.
The item was written by Ramsey Baghdadi, the managing editor of "The RPM Report," a publication devoted to prescription drug regulation, policy and market access.
Baghdadi reviews Kessler's background, declaring that he "is arguably the most controversial commissioner in recent times for the way he took on drug companies, Big Tobacco and even orange juice producers." Baghdadi said Kessler has surfaced recently in the news and that means that "he's angling for something."
Baghdadi's bet is on a position with a large academic research institution where Kessler could finish off his crusade against tobacco as opposed to director of NIH or secretary of Health and Human Services.
The In Vivo blog has an interesting piece on David Kessler, a former FDA commissioner and dean of the UC San Francisco medical school.
The item was written by Ramsey Baghdadi, the managing editor of "The RPM Report," a publication devoted to prescription drug regulation, policy and market access.
Baghdadi reviews Kessler's background, declaring that he "is arguably the most controversial commissioner in recent times for the way he took on drug companies, Big Tobacco and even orange juice producers." Baghdadi said Kessler has surfaced recently in the news and that means that "he's angling for something."
Baghdadi's bet is on a position with a large academic research institution where Kessler could finish off his crusade against tobacco as opposed to director of NIH or secretary of Health and Human Services.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
CIRM Overseers to Consider More Public Disclosure on Lab Grants
California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein has put off requests to open up the lab grant process until the October meeting of the Oversight Committee, but says he is "supportive" of increasing public access to information.
In response to our letter last week asking that the names of applicants, their letters of intent and applications be designated as public records, Klein replied by email Tuesday, saying:
Klein pointed out that only the scientific review sessions are closed. The reviews by the Facilities Working Group are open and the names of applicants would be disclosed at that point.
Simpson said that argument seems to mean that you can't embarrass the institutions about "not doing good science but you can for doing bad facilities." The board has also emphasized that the scientific review is paramount in assessing the applications.
Arlene Chiu, interim chief scientific officer for CIRM, opposed opening the scientific review meetings to the public. She said full candor is needed to evaluate the programs at various institutions. That is not likely to occur if it is done in public, she said.
Our view is that the scientific review should be open, but we understand her argument. Sensitive or "proprietary" information, however, could be evaluated in private, if necessary, with the bulk of the review sessions in public. The same logic could also apply to information on applications, although full disclosure is preferred.
During Wednesday's meeting, Michael Friedman, an Oversight Committee member and president of the City of Hope, said the lab grant process is "the most politically charged" of CIRM's activities. That reflects the fact that 15 out of the 29 members of the Oversight Committee have ties to institutions that could stand to benefit from the grants.
Following Wednesday's meeting, Klein told the California Stem Cell Report that he wanted to "make steady progress towards more disclosure." But he said it may take some time for all to become "more comfortable" with complete openness.
What do you think? Should universities and research institutions seeking $227 million in public funds be required to publicly disclose their identities and other information? You can comment clicking by on the word "comment" below. Ironically, our blog host, Google, permits anonymous postings but, of course, most of you will want to identify yourselves, right? Fire away.
In response to our letter last week asking that the names of applicants, their letters of intent and applications be designated as public records, Klein replied by email Tuesday, saying:
"Your letter has been provided to all ICOC board members. I’m supportive of increasing access to information on the major facilities grants. I will ask the board to formally consider this policy as an agendized issue with a staff report at the October 2007 board meeting."Public access to lab grant review proceedings came up during the Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, asked that all meetings in which grant applications are reviewed be open to the public.
Klein pointed out that only the scientific review sessions are closed. The reviews by the Facilities Working Group are open and the names of applicants would be disclosed at that point.
Simpson said that argument seems to mean that you can't embarrass the institutions about "not doing good science but you can for doing bad facilities." The board has also emphasized that the scientific review is paramount in assessing the applications.
Arlene Chiu, interim chief scientific officer for CIRM, opposed opening the scientific review meetings to the public. She said full candor is needed to evaluate the programs at various institutions. That is not likely to occur if it is done in public, she said.
Our view is that the scientific review should be open, but we understand her argument. Sensitive or "proprietary" information, however, could be evaluated in private, if necessary, with the bulk of the review sessions in public. The same logic could also apply to information on applications, although full disclosure is preferred.
During Wednesday's meeting, Michael Friedman, an Oversight Committee member and president of the City of Hope, said the lab grant process is "the most politically charged" of CIRM's activities. That reflects the fact that 15 out of the 29 members of the Oversight Committee have ties to institutions that could stand to benefit from the grants.
Following Wednesday's meeting, Klein told the California Stem Cell Report that he wanted to "make steady progress towards more disclosure." But he said it may take some time for all to become "more comfortable" with complete openness.
What do you think? Should universities and research institutions seeking $227 million in public funds be required to publicly disclose their identities and other information? You can comment clicking by on the word "comment" below. Ironically, our blog host, Google, permits anonymous postings but, of course, most of you will want to identify yourselves, right? Fire away.
Upcoming
The $31 million training proposal by California's state university and college system has been sent off for further study by directors of the California stem cell agency. Members of the Oversight Committee spoke favorably about the concept but also raised questions. We will have more on the subject, probably tomorrow, but you can find a fresh story on the matter by Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune at this link.
Still More On Murphy
The online version of the Wall Street Journal today carried a brief item on the appointment of Richard Murphy as interim CIRM president. If you can't find it here because of paid registration, send an email to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com, and we will forward it to you.
John M. Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights released a formal statement on Murphy. Here is the text.
John M. Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights released a formal statement on Murphy. Here is the text.
"I am concerned that the search has taken so long and don't believe that the board began serious search efforts rapidly enough when Zach Hall announced his retirement plans. Given the unfortunate need for an interim president, I think Richard Murphy will make a good leader.
"At the stem cell board meeting I raised questions about his membership on the board of the California Healthcare Institute, a lobbying group for the biomedical industry.
"I was relieved to learn that Murphy had left that board when he retired from the Salk Institute, although I don't think he should have been a member while on the stem cell board.
"He has been a sensible and steady influence on the stem cell agency's board, and I hope and expect he'll make a a significant contribution to the agency. In my role as constructive critic, it's my job to hold his feet to the fire when necessary and ensure that he does so."
Sharpen the Pencils, Line Up the Finest Grant Writers!
Lab builders around California can expect to see the detailed requirements for $227 million in grants from the California stem cell agency in a couple of weeks.
On Wednesday, the Oversight Committee for the institute gave the go-ahead on the proposal, but with not without some changes. One boosted the funding range on the size of some of the grants. In the CIRM Institute category, the top of the range moved from $40 million to $50 million. In the Center of Excellence category, the top rose from $20 million to $25 million.
Ed Penhoet, vice chairman of the agency, said $40 million might not be enough. He said the board wanted to encourage collaboration on the labs but that if grant size were not large enough, each institution instead might submit separate applications. Jeff Sheehy noted that only one "true" consortium seems to currently exist. That is in the San Diego area and involves UC San Diego, Salk, Burnham and Scripps.
John Reed, another Oversight Committee members and president of Burnham, unsuccessfully sought to change the proposed scoring to give 20 instead of 15 points out of 100 in the "shared resources" category. He argued that would reflect the board's strong encouragement of collaboration. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation of Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, noted the change would help tilt scoring towards consortiums.
The board approved virtually all of the other elements of concept plan for the lab grants, and CIRM staff said the RFA would be out within a couple of weeks. Final approval of the grants is scheduled for next April, with an initial screening of the scientific portions of the applications at a January meeting of the Oversight Committee.
On Wednesday, the Oversight Committee for the institute gave the go-ahead on the proposal, but with not without some changes. One boosted the funding range on the size of some of the grants. In the CIRM Institute category, the top of the range moved from $40 million to $50 million. In the Center of Excellence category, the top rose from $20 million to $25 million.
Ed Penhoet, vice chairman of the agency, said $40 million might not be enough. He said the board wanted to encourage collaboration on the labs but that if grant size were not large enough, each institution instead might submit separate applications. Jeff Sheehy noted that only one "true" consortium seems to currently exist. That is in the San Diego area and involves UC San Diego, Salk, Burnham and Scripps.
John Reed, another Oversight Committee members and president of Burnham, unsuccessfully sought to change the proposed scoring to give 20 instead of 15 points out of 100 in the "shared resources" category. He argued that would reflect the board's strong encouragement of collaboration. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation of Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, noted the change would help tilt scoring towards consortiums.
The board approved virtually all of the other elements of concept plan for the lab grants, and CIRM staff said the RFA would be out within a couple of weeks. Final approval of the grants is scheduled for next April, with an initial screening of the scientific portions of the applications at a January meeting of the Oversight Committee.
Link to CIRM Info on Murphy
Here is the link to the CIRM press release on the appointment of Richard Murphy as interim president of the agency.
Murphy Talks About His New Role
The new interim president of the California stem cell agency says he has no intention of being a placeholder until a permanent president is found, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Reporter Terri Somers interviewed Murphy following his appointment. He said,
In other coverage, Andrew Pollack of the New York Times wrote a brief story on the appointment that also mentioned the California Stem Cell Report reporting on the presidential search.
Reporter Terri Somers interviewed Murphy following his appointment. He said,
"I want to be hands-on. That is part of the attraction for me and part of what (the institute) needs right now."Murphy said,
"I think it's an exciting time for the (institute), with application requests ready to be issued for large facilities and applications for new investigators grants going out,” he said. “And now there's also discussion about a new (request for applications) for disease-oriented research groups, which I think is a great way of kick-starting disease-oriented research related to stem cells."Here is more from Somers' story about the sometimes ticklish relationship between California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein and CIRM's former president, Zach Hall:
"'I think Bob and Zach are very talented people. . . . (The institute) did very well in a very short time period,' Murphy said. 'I think Klein is a genius. The guy created Proposition 71 out of nothing and worked very diligently to put (the institute) on the map in a short period of time despite having a lot of hurdles to get over. I look forward to learning a lot from Bob.'"Somers reported that Murphy said "he has no interest in the job long term, although he had been approached several months ago to apply for the permanent position."
"Meanwhile, he said, he expects to continue the very open relationship that he had as a board member serving with Klein.
"Murphy does not think Klein's active role at the institute is causing the president search to drag on. In fact, he and others involved in academia said it is not uncommon for recruitment and hiring for such a position to take a year. Nor do they think money or the high cost of housing is an issue, with the salary range set around $500,000(note: the salary currently is capped at $412,500)."
In other coverage, Andrew Pollack of the New York Times wrote a brief story on the appointment that also mentioned the California Stem Cell Report reporting on the presidential search.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
More On Richard Murphy and His Role at CIRM
As promised, here is more on the appointment of former Salk Institute President Richard Murphy as the interim president of the California stem cell agency.
Murphy was voted on following a 2.5-hour lunch/executive personnel session, which Oversight Committee Chairman Robert Klein originally predicted would last one hour. Only one no vote was heard during the voice vote following the executive session. That was from Jeff Sheehy. We did not have a chance to catch up with him following the meeting, but he told us earlier he was "not comfortable with the direction" the Oversight Committee was going. His comment came shortly after he was the sole negative vote on whether even to allow the subject of a possible interim hire to be considered at today's meeting.
Murphy starts work tomorrow, although he is not scheduled to relocate from the San Diego area to San Francisco until after Labor Day. His contract runs until March 4.
As we reported below, his salary will be $300,000 for roughly six months of service. That compares to the current $412,500 annual salary cap on the permanent president's salary. However, Murphy will not accept fringe benefits from CIRM. The cost of state fringe benefits range from 35 percent of salary to more. Murphy will forgo Salk-financed retirement benefits such as health insurance. That was part of a move to avoid the appearance of any conflicts of interest involving Salk.
Murphy will recuse himself from any decisions involving San Diego area institutions. John M. Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights raised another possible conflict involving Murphy's service on the board of the biomedical industry group, the California Healthcare Institute. That institute has lobbied CIRM for intellectual property rules that are favorable to industry. However, Philip Pizzo, a member of the Oversight Committee and dean of Stanford's medical school, said Murphy had resigned from the CHI board. Pizzo said he knew because he currently services on the CHI panel.
Murphy, 62, also agreed not to be a candidate during the search for a permanent president at CIRM.
Some of you may recall that Murphy earlier this year was involved in reconfiguring the dual executive structure at CIRM to make it more appealing for recruitment purposes. At one point, he called the agency's executive structure "a dog's breakfast."
As for a look at the conventional news coverage of the appointment of a new, albeit interim CEO for the world's single largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research, we filed a report for Wired.com. Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune was quick with a story on Murphy's appointment at 3:33 p.m. today although she was not present at the meeting.
San Diego is a global hotbed for stem cell research. Somers is currently the leading California reporter on California's stem cell business, which is No. 1 in the nation. No other writer has devoted the energy or time in the last year to the subject, but of course that could change.
We surmise that cost-cutting imperatives, currently rampant in the sagging newspaper business, prevented her from traveling. A poor decision for a paper that circulates in one of the hottest spots in the world for stem cell research, but a decision that is not much different than ill-considered moves by most of the ailing daily newspaper enterprises in this country. What newspapers sell is audience. The buyers are advertisers(75 percent or so revenues have traditionally come from advertisers). When the content is nil or irrelevant, audience shrinks, which it has been doing nationally for several decades as cost-cutting mavens ruled the day in the newspaper business. Business researchers at UC Davis have done a serious study that illuminates this trend.
But, as they say, I digress. Here are some other links to the only other two stories on Murphy we found at the time of this writing, although they are quite brief: Jim Downing, Sacramento Bee; San Francisco Business Times.
Murphy was voted on following a 2.5-hour lunch/executive personnel session, which Oversight Committee Chairman Robert Klein originally predicted would last one hour. Only one no vote was heard during the voice vote following the executive session. That was from Jeff Sheehy. We did not have a chance to catch up with him following the meeting, but he told us earlier he was "not comfortable with the direction" the Oversight Committee was going. His comment came shortly after he was the sole negative vote on whether even to allow the subject of a possible interim hire to be considered at today's meeting.
Murphy starts work tomorrow, although he is not scheduled to relocate from the San Diego area to San Francisco until after Labor Day. His contract runs until March 4.
As we reported below, his salary will be $300,000 for roughly six months of service. That compares to the current $412,500 annual salary cap on the permanent president's salary. However, Murphy will not accept fringe benefits from CIRM. The cost of state fringe benefits range from 35 percent of salary to more. Murphy will forgo Salk-financed retirement benefits such as health insurance. That was part of a move to avoid the appearance of any conflicts of interest involving Salk.
Murphy will recuse himself from any decisions involving San Diego area institutions. John M. Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights raised another possible conflict involving Murphy's service on the board of the biomedical industry group, the California Healthcare Institute. That institute has lobbied CIRM for intellectual property rules that are favorable to industry. However, Philip Pizzo, a member of the Oversight Committee and dean of Stanford's medical school, said Murphy had resigned from the CHI board. Pizzo said he knew because he currently services on the CHI panel.
Murphy, 62, also agreed not to be a candidate during the search for a permanent president at CIRM.
Some of you may recall that Murphy earlier this year was involved in reconfiguring the dual executive structure at CIRM to make it more appealing for recruitment purposes. At one point, he called the agency's executive structure "a dog's breakfast."
As for a look at the conventional news coverage of the appointment of a new, albeit interim CEO for the world's single largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research, we filed a report for Wired.com. Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune was quick with a story on Murphy's appointment at 3:33 p.m. today although she was not present at the meeting.
San Diego is a global hotbed for stem cell research. Somers is currently the leading California reporter on California's stem cell business, which is No. 1 in the nation. No other writer has devoted the energy or time in the last year to the subject, but of course that could change.
We surmise that cost-cutting imperatives, currently rampant in the sagging newspaper business, prevented her from traveling. A poor decision for a paper that circulates in one of the hottest spots in the world for stem cell research, but a decision that is not much different than ill-considered moves by most of the ailing daily newspaper enterprises in this country. What newspapers sell is audience. The buyers are advertisers(75 percent or so revenues have traditionally come from advertisers). When the content is nil or irrelevant, audience shrinks, which it has been doing nationally for several decades as cost-cutting mavens ruled the day in the newspaper business. Business researchers at UC Davis have done a serious study that illuminates this trend.
But, as they say, I digress. Here are some other links to the only other two stories on Murphy we found at the time of this writing, although they are quite brief: Jim Downing, Sacramento Bee; San Francisco Business Times.
Former Salk CEO Named as Interim CIRM President
Neuroscientist Richard A. Murphy, the former president of the Salk Institute, was named today as the interim president of the California stem agency.
The Oversight Committee of the agency approved the appointment on a split voice vote(one no). Murphy begins work tomorrow on a six-month, $300,000 contract. He will recuse himself from "any decisions" involving San Diego institutions.
We have more on this later.
The Oversight Committee of the agency approved the appointment on a split voice vote(one no). Murphy begins work tomorrow on a six-month, $300,000 contract. He will recuse himself from "any decisions" involving San Diego institutions.
We have more on this later.
CSUS Cash Wranglers Make Largest Pitch to CIRM
The San Diego Union-Tribune today explored an attempt to "wrangle" $31 million out of the California stem cell agency by the state college and community college systems.
Reporter Terri Somers appears to be the only mainstream reporter in the state writing about the sweeping proposal, which comes up today before CIRM's Oversight Committee in San Francisco.
Here are some excerpts from her story:
Reporter Terri Somers appears to be the only mainstream reporter in the state writing about the sweeping proposal, which comes up today before CIRM's Oversight Committee in San Francisco.
Here are some excerpts from her story:
"This is the first time an entire state system has asked for funding from the state stem cell institute, although several nonprofits have had funding suggestions.She continued:
"'This is definitely the largest request we have seen, and of course their constituency is the largest educational system in the world,' said Robert Klein, chairman of the stem cell institute's board.
"Of the $208 million in research and training grants approved by the institute, $109.9 million has been promised to scientists and laboratories in the University of California system. The UC system, which is separate from the CSU system, is more widely known for its doctorate and post-doctorate programs."
"The strategic plan includes $38 million for training of undergraduate and master's degree-level technical staff. It also includes $147 million for training programs, some of which the Cal State and community college systems can compete for.Somers wrote:
"But the the systems would like the $31 million to set up their own cohesive, statewide programs."
"Whether the stem cell institute could legally fund these proposals is something Klein said he expects its lawyers to discuss today.
"'There is a great deal of flexibility in Proposition 71 to address ideas of high merit,' Klein said of the voter initiative that created the institute."
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Interim CIRM President in The Works?
The California stem cell agency is moving towards hiring an interim president to head the $3 billion institute while it completes its search for a new chief executive.
California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein last week told the California Stem Cell Report that he hoped to advance the search in a "material way" at Wednesday's Oversight Committee. It appears that comment is linked to a cryptic, recently posted addition to the agenda for consideration of a "personal services" contract.
Stem cell scuttlebutt has it that a six-month contract would be offered to the interim president. Some possibilities could include two Oversight Committee members who left the board recently because they no longer held the positions that qualified them for seats on the committee. They are the former president of Caltech and Nobel Prize winner, David Baltimore, and the former head of the Salk Institute, Richard Murphy. Other possibilities include Ed Penhoet, vice chair of the Oversight Committee, and Paul Berg, a Stanford Nobel Prize winner who has filled in as an alternate on the panel.
Former President Zach Hall announced his retirement last December and departed at the end of April. His responsibilities were picked up on an interim basis for the past three months by two current executives at the agency, who already had full plates.
As early as last January, some members of CIRM's Oversight Committee were worried about drift at the institute during the transition to a new president, especially if there were a significant hiatus while a new president was found.
California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein last week told the California Stem Cell Report that he hoped to advance the search in a "material way" at Wednesday's Oversight Committee. It appears that comment is linked to a cryptic, recently posted addition to the agenda for consideration of a "personal services" contract.
Stem cell scuttlebutt has it that a six-month contract would be offered to the interim president. Some possibilities could include two Oversight Committee members who left the board recently because they no longer held the positions that qualified them for seats on the committee. They are the former president of Caltech and Nobel Prize winner, David Baltimore, and the former head of the Salk Institute, Richard Murphy. Other possibilities include Ed Penhoet, vice chair of the Oversight Committee, and Paul Berg, a Stanford Nobel Prize winner who has filled in as an alternate on the panel.
Former President Zach Hall announced his retirement last December and departed at the end of April. His responsibilities were picked up on an interim basis for the past three months by two current executives at the agency, who already had full plates.
As early as last January, some members of CIRM's Oversight Committee were worried about drift at the institute during the transition to a new president, especially if there were a significant hiatus while a new president was found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)