Monday, August 27, 2007
Lab Grant RFA Now Available
The California stem cell agency has posted the request for applications for $227 million in lab construction grants, the largest round in its history. Letters of intent are required by Sept. 26. The news release can be found here. The RFA can be found here.
CIRM Loses its No. 1 Scientist
The top scientist at the California stem cell agency, Arlene Chiu, will soon depart in a move that reinforces the importance of maintaining the organization's stability and finding a new, permanent president.
CIRM has been in a lame-duck mode since last December when former President Zach Hall announced that he planned to leave. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, said Chiu's resignation "underscores the importance" of finding a permanent president.
Simpson said the failure to have a new, permanent CEO in place represents "a substantial failure of leadership first and foremost on the part of board Chairman Bob Klein and to a lesser extent on the part of all board members."
Earlier this month, the CIRM Oversight Committee installed Richard Murphy, former president of the Salk Institute, as interim president for at least six months as it continues to seek a permanent replacement for Hall.
CIRM is still a young organization (less than three years old) with a small staff (26 persons)that has seen other significant departures relatively recently. They include Kirk Kleinschmidt, director of legislative relations; Mary Maxon, the lead staff person on intellectural property, Scott Tocher, associate general counsel; and scientific officer Ruth Globus. While it would be incorrect to say that all CIRM staff departures this year are related to the presidential situation, voids in permanent leadership create uncertainties and instability. Departures for unrelated reasons can take on a life of their own, triggering others to consider making job changes. Couple that with the regularly long hours that CIRM staffers put in, and you have the potential for more losses.
In several ways, the press release on Chiu's departure acknowledged those concerns. Indeed, the headline on the release did not even say she was resigning. Carefully crafted to stress continuity and stability, it noted that she will continue through the end of October on a fulltime basis and after that as a consultant on some of CIRM's important efforts. Chiu as well issued a statement emphasizing the progress at CIRM and the credentials of interim President Murphy.
On a personal note, Chiu is one of the first persons that we met at CIRM. Her diligence, integrity and dedication have always impressed us. And as one of the earliest regular staff members, she set a tone and example that was important in establishing a healthy organizational culture at the new enterprise.
She was recruited by Hall, who issued the following statement, which is not currently available on the CIRM Web site:
Here is the complete statement from Simpson:
CIRM has been in a lame-duck mode since last December when former President Zach Hall announced that he planned to leave. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, said Chiu's resignation "underscores the importance" of finding a permanent president.
Simpson said the failure to have a new, permanent CEO in place represents "a substantial failure of leadership first and foremost on the part of board Chairman Bob Klein and to a lesser extent on the part of all board members."
Earlier this month, the CIRM Oversight Committee installed Richard Murphy, former president of the Salk Institute, as interim president for at least six months as it continues to seek a permanent replacement for Hall.
CIRM is still a young organization (less than three years old) with a small staff (26 persons)that has seen other significant departures relatively recently. They include Kirk Kleinschmidt, director of legislative relations; Mary Maxon, the lead staff person on intellectural property, Scott Tocher, associate general counsel; and scientific officer Ruth Globus. While it would be incorrect to say that all CIRM staff departures this year are related to the presidential situation, voids in permanent leadership create uncertainties and instability. Departures for unrelated reasons can take on a life of their own, triggering others to consider making job changes. Couple that with the regularly long hours that CIRM staffers put in, and you have the potential for more losses.
In several ways, the press release on Chiu's departure acknowledged those concerns. Indeed, the headline on the release did not even say she was resigning. Carefully crafted to stress continuity and stability, it noted that she will continue through the end of October on a fulltime basis and after that as a consultant on some of CIRM's important efforts. Chiu as well issued a statement emphasizing the progress at CIRM and the credentials of interim President Murphy.
On a personal note, Chiu is one of the first persons that we met at CIRM. Her diligence, integrity and dedication have always impressed us. And as one of the earliest regular staff members, she set a tone and example that was important in establishing a healthy organizational culture at the new enterprise.
She was recruited by Hall, who issued the following statement, which is not currently available on the CIRM Web site:
"Persuading Dr. Arlene Chiu to come to CIRM from NIH was one of the most important accomplishments of my presidency. As the senior CIRM scientist during its first three years - a time of constrained resources, Arlene recruited, mentored and led the scientific team responsible for awarding the first $200 M in grants for stem cell research in California - a remarkable legacy. She has a deep understanding of stem cell research, expert knowledge of grants administration, and extraordinary personal qualities of integrity, grace and a passion for the mission of CIRM. Arlene has left her mark on the DNA of CIRM. She will be hard to replace."Murphy and Klein also issued statements which can be found in the CIRM press release. Chiu's statement can also be found in the press release.
Here is the complete statement from Simpson:
"Dr. Chiu is one of the all-too-often unsung heroes of CIRM, regularly going beyond the call of duty to ensure scientific excellence in the agency's efforts. She has built an excellent scientific staff that should be able to carry on in her absence.News coverage of Chiu's resignation was light. Here are links to the stories we saw: Jim Downing of The Sacramento Bee, Kristen Philipkoski, Wired.com, Sacramento Business Journal (the same story appeared in other Business Journals), and the Associated Press.
"We agreed to disagree on some things, like the amount of transparency and openness that belongs in the peer review process; but I have tremendous respect for her and her contributions.
"I believe Dr. Chiu's departure underscores the importance of the oversight committee performing its single most important task: hiring a president and chief executive.
"Had the committee done so in a timely way, I believe Dr. Chiu would still be at CIRM. Given the situation, the selection of Richard Murphy as interim president is a necessary stopgap to hold the agency together.
"But the failure to hire a permanent president, given Zach Hall's announcement of his plans last December, is a substantial failure of leadership first and foremost on the part of board Chairman Bob Klein and too a lesser extent on the part of all board members."
Back in Mexico
For those of you unfamiliar with all the details of this blog, we produce it primarily from west coast of Mexico where we live on a sailboat. We have returned once again to Mexico after a stay in the Old Country minding grandchildren and providing low-skill labor for our children. But never fear. The items will continue to be posted on a reasonably regular basis. Later today, we will have an item on the departure of Arlene Chiu, the top scientist at the California stem cell agency.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Cash is Coming: Time for Stem Cell Firms To Show Up
Attention California stem cell firms: If you are looking for millions in grants from the state's stem cell agency and if you want to have an impact on how the money is given out, mark Sept. 7 on your calendar.
On that date, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has scheduled an "interested parties" meeting with teleconference locations in San Diego and San Francisco.
Here are some of the topics to be discussed.
"What unique situations might arise in for-profit organizations as opposed to academic or non-profit settings that would impact a current or previously-funded CIRM project (e.g., partnering, bankruptcy)? How should these changes be effectively managed?
"Given that the CIRM will require annual financial and programmatic reports, as well as reports of licensing activities, patent applications, and commercialization activities, what information can reasonably be provided to the CIRM by grantees or their successors? How can the CIRM best monitor the performance and commercial development activities of grantees and licensees of CIRM-funded patented inventions?
"In the context of the CIRM’s preference for California suppliers of goods and services, what proposals or concerns should be considered by the CIRM in managing potential pass-through costs to non-Californian entities?
"Given that there are various methods of accounting for grant-related activities in for-profit organizations, how well do the Proposition 71 definitions of 'direct research funding costs' and 'indirect costs' reflect these activities?"
A couple of things can said about the Sept. 7 session. One is that the CIRM staff has done a fine job of posting a public notice of this session well in advance. That allows time for interested parties to prepare and to come to the table with well-thought-out suggestions. We might add that it is also useful if recommendations are written, which provides more nuanced information that can be easily referred to later. Oral presentations are necessarily shorter and transitory.
The other comment that can be made is that California's biotech community sometimes seems as if it doesn't know that regulations and grant procedures are being established that could have a major impact on their enterprises within the next year or so. While it is difficult to quantify, business turnout at some CIRM sessions seems limited to a handful of firms. CIRM has $3 billion to hand out. If biotech firms want a healthy chunk of that on good terms, now is the time to make their case. Otherwise, they can continue to wrestle with the usual financial alligators. And, as they know, that can be an unpleasant and fruitless experience.
On that date, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has scheduled an "interested parties" meeting with teleconference locations in San Diego and San Francisco.
Here are some of the topics to be discussed.
"What unique situations might arise in for-profit organizations as opposed to academic or non-profit settings that would impact a current or previously-funded CIRM project (e.g., partnering, bankruptcy)? How should these changes be effectively managed?
"Given that the CIRM will require annual financial and programmatic reports, as well as reports of licensing activities, patent applications, and commercialization activities, what information can reasonably be provided to the CIRM by grantees or their successors? How can the CIRM best monitor the performance and commercial development activities of grantees and licensees of CIRM-funded patented inventions?
"In the context of the CIRM’s preference for California suppliers of goods and services, what proposals or concerns should be considered by the CIRM in managing potential pass-through costs to non-Californian entities?
"Given that there are various methods of accounting for grant-related activities in for-profit organizations, how well do the Proposition 71 definitions of 'direct research funding costs' and 'indirect costs' reflect these activities?"
A couple of things can said about the Sept. 7 session. One is that the CIRM staff has done a fine job of posting a public notice of this session well in advance. That allows time for interested parties to prepare and to come to the table with well-thought-out suggestions. We might add that it is also useful if recommendations are written, which provides more nuanced information that can be easily referred to later. Oral presentations are necessarily shorter and transitory.
The other comment that can be made is that California's biotech community sometimes seems as if it doesn't know that regulations and grant procedures are being established that could have a major impact on their enterprises within the next year or so. While it is difficult to quantify, business turnout at some CIRM sessions seems limited to a handful of firms. CIRM has $3 billion to hand out. If biotech firms want a healthy chunk of that on good terms, now is the time to make their case. Otherwise, they can continue to wrestle with the usual financial alligators. And, as they know, that can be an unpleasant and fruitless experience.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Fresh Comment
An anonymous comment has been posted on the Kessler item Aug. 10 concerning his professional aspirations.
Comments can be left on any item by clicking on the word "comments" below the item or they can be sent directly to me at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Comments can be left on any item by clicking on the word "comments" below the item or they can be sent directly to me at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Wisconsin and California: Dueling Views on Stem Cell IP
Cyberspace is sizzling between California and Wisconsin in a stem cell contrempts involving Tom Still, president of the Wisconsin Technology Council, and John M. Simpson, the stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights of Santa Monica, Ca.
Well, sizzling might be a little strong. But these two former newspaper editors are whacking each other around a bit.
It all started Aug. 11 with an opinion piece that Simpson wrote for the web site of the Wisconsin Technology Network.
In it, he argued that a basic question is being left not entirely answered as states step up to the stem cell funding plate. He wrote:
Well, sizzling might be a little strong. But these two former newspaper editors are whacking each other around a bit.
It all started Aug. 11 with an opinion piece that Simpson wrote for the web site of the Wisconsin Technology Network.
In it, he argued that a basic question is being left not entirely answered as states step up to the stem cell funding plate. He wrote:
"Who should control, profit, and otherwise benefit from discoveries made in state-funded laboratories across Wisconsin? How you settle such matters are known as intellectual property policy, and like most states, Wisconsin apparently doesn't have a coherent, across-the-board policy."On Aug. 20, Still responded, also on the Wisconsin Technlogy Network:
"Not only does Simpson think the historic Bayh-Dole Act has been a colossal waste of time and money, even though many experts believe it unchained the innovative potential of the nation's research universities, but he doesn't understand the basics about 'technology transfer' on those same campuses."Simpson responded in a comment filed Tuesday below Still's column:
"I never said the Bayh-Dole Act 'has been a colossal waste of time and money.' I said that it was 'flawed.' That means it has problems that need fixing. I also would assert that it ought not serve as the model for state funding programs without appropriate modification."Simpson's final paragraph in his response to Still:
"Again, I do appreciate your thoughtful and carefully reasoned analysis of my first column. I'd ask you to ponder what I've just suggested and look forward to your comments."
CSUS Responds on $31 Million Training Plan
Susan Baxter, executive director of the California State University Program for Education and Research in Biotechnology, sent the following comment on our item Aug. 13 on the $31 million training proposal her system presented to the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency.
You wrote, “One could wonder why this proposal was not presented to the staff earlier.”
The CCC/CSU partnership presented its proposal to CIRM staff in August of 2006. Since then, conversations between CIRM staff and CSU and CCC faculty have taken place. Many of the concepts and ideas presented in the proposal were considered during the scientific strategic planning process at CIRM. The CIRM Scientific Strategic Plan, approved by the ICOC in December 2006, includes a five year goal to “increase the workforce of stem cell researchers in California” and calls for CIRM to increase the number of scientists (basic, translational and clinical), as well as trained technical staff. CIRM will also strive to increase the diversity of the workforce at all levels. The CSU/CCC proposal clearly connects to the CIRM Scientific Strategic Plan and conversations about the proposal with CIRM staff are continuing.
Second, you wrote, “The proposal keyed off the widespread belief that biotech firms in California have difficulty finding skilled workers.”
To clarify, we recognize that life science graduates are not often exposed to medical product development. Typically, a life science student’s first exposure to real-world research is in academic laboratory coursework or in faculty research laboratories. In contrast, the life sciences industry works within a highly regulated environment in order to develop safe, effective human therapies. Increased exposure and understanding of this business environment will better prepare California’s students for careers in the life science industry, including the emerging stem cell industry sector which faces unique challenges as it develops clinical best practices for new cell-based product testing, formulation, and delivery. Also, exposing life sciences students to issues and challenges around clinical research and product development may encourage more interest in this aspect of therapeutic, device and diagnostic development. Not only does the field need physicians interested in clinical research, but also project managers, statisticians, engineers, computer scientists, preclinical researchers and regulatory experts able to work in interdisciplinary teams. The CSU/CCC is uniquely positioned to deliver this high-level workforce to assist in ground-breaking research efforts and bring them to commercialization.
You wrote, “One could wonder why this proposal was not presented to the staff earlier.”
The CCC/CSU partnership presented its proposal to CIRM staff in August of 2006. Since then, conversations between CIRM staff and CSU and CCC faculty have taken place. Many of the concepts and ideas presented in the proposal were considered during the scientific strategic planning process at CIRM. The CIRM Scientific Strategic Plan, approved by the ICOC in December 2006, includes a five year goal to “increase the workforce of stem cell researchers in California” and calls for CIRM to increase the number of scientists (basic, translational and clinical), as well as trained technical staff. CIRM will also strive to increase the diversity of the workforce at all levels. The CSU/CCC proposal clearly connects to the CIRM Scientific Strategic Plan and conversations about the proposal with CIRM staff are continuing.
Second, you wrote, “The proposal keyed off the widespread belief that biotech firms in California have difficulty finding skilled workers.”
To clarify, we recognize that life science graduates are not often exposed to medical product development. Typically, a life science student’s first exposure to real-world research is in academic laboratory coursework or in faculty research laboratories. In contrast, the life sciences industry works within a highly regulated environment in order to develop safe, effective human therapies. Increased exposure and understanding of this business environment will better prepare California’s students for careers in the life science industry, including the emerging stem cell industry sector which faces unique challenges as it develops clinical best practices for new cell-based product testing, formulation, and delivery. Also, exposing life sciences students to issues and challenges around clinical research and product development may encourage more interest in this aspect of therapeutic, device and diagnostic development. Not only does the field need physicians interested in clinical research, but also project managers, statisticians, engineers, computer scientists, preclinical researchers and regulatory experts able to work in interdisciplinary teams. The CSU/CCC is uniquely positioned to deliver this high-level workforce to assist in ground-breaking research efforts and bring them to commercialization.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Leveraging the Media, Money and Change
One could call it the rhetoric of money and momentum. "Bidding wars," "stealing" and "fierce" competition. It's all are part of the coverage of California stem cell issues that is emerging in the wake of the announcement that a noted Japanese researcher is opening a lab in San Francisco.
Dale Carlson, chief communications officer at the California stem cell agency, fed the generally positive stories with the separate release of a list of nearly 50 other researchers who have moved to California since the passage of Prop. 71. The list turned an already meaty scientific story into an even meatier one – a trend with national and global implications.
Reporter Daniel Levine of the Journal of Life Sciences produced a good example. His Aug. 20 piece was headlined "Money Changes Everything." He wrote that the move by Shinya Yamanaka caps a trend that has "changed the landscape for stem cell research by drawing top scientists to the Golden State."
Levine also queried Stanford, UCLA and UC San Francisco to flesh out the scientific migration and recruitment story.
We are likely to see at least a few more stories along this line as the news filters out from scientific and regional publications.
In another story on the Yamanaka move, reporter Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times said that Yamanaka expects to be reprogramming human cells to create embryonic stem cells in the "next year or two."
Leuty also reported that the scientist is expected eventually to move his entire lab operation to the Gladstone Institutes. Yamanaka has a 20 person lab at Kyoto University. The Gladstone operation is expected to have four to six persons shortly.
Leuty said the "first fellow" in Yamanaka's California operation is funded by a grant from the California stem cell agency.
Dale Carlson, chief communications officer at the California stem cell agency, fed the generally positive stories with the separate release of a list of nearly 50 other researchers who have moved to California since the passage of Prop. 71. The list turned an already meaty scientific story into an even meatier one – a trend with national and global implications.
Reporter Daniel Levine of the Journal of Life Sciences produced a good example. His Aug. 20 piece was headlined "Money Changes Everything." He wrote that the move by Shinya Yamanaka caps a trend that has "changed the landscape for stem cell research by drawing top scientists to the Golden State."
Levine also queried Stanford, UCLA and UC San Francisco to flesh out the scientific migration and recruitment story.
We are likely to see at least a few more stories along this line as the news filters out from scientific and regional publications.
In another story on the Yamanaka move, reporter Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times said that Yamanaka expects to be reprogramming human cells to create embryonic stem cells in the "next year or two."
Leuty also reported that the scientist is expected eventually to move his entire lab operation to the Gladstone Institutes. Yamanaka has a 20 person lab at Kyoto University. The Gladstone operation is expected to have four to six persons shortly.
Leuty said the "first fellow" in Yamanaka's California operation is funded by a grant from the California stem cell agency.
More Adding Up on Private Funding for Stem Cell Research
Attorney Ken Taymor. executive director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy at UC Berkeley, sends the following re our earlier item about state and private funding for stem cell research.
Thanks for bringing James Fossett's excellent report to our attention. A very, very quick search online raises questions about the accuracy of the calculation of private support for stem cell research in California (really a nit, but worth clarifying; I don't think it goes to the heart of his insights). At least three other major gifts have been reported in the press - excerpted below with URLs. In addition, as the report does note, the Show Me state is showing the Stowers the door, so while the money is coming from Missouri, it appears that it will be spent everywhere but Missouri. The news reports on donations in California of which I am aware are as follows:
"Sound pioneer Ray Dolby and his wife gave $16 million to the University of California, San Francisco to start a stem cell center that will perform research without federal funds."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/10/financial/f224444D16.DTL
"USC announced it has received $25 million from the Broad Foundation to create the Broad Institute for Integrative Biology and Stem Cell Research at the Keck School of Medicine of USC."
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/12093.html
"Without seeing a dime of this [Prop 71] money, numerous California universities and research institutes already have committed to expanding their stem cell research programs, often with help from private donors. They are doing it with the help of philanthropists, who have given more than $250 million to California universities and research programs since 2005, Klein said. Those donations include a $20 million gift to the Stanford University Medical School from the New York-based Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund. The money from the fund, which is known for its support of cancer research, allows the school to establish a stem cell research center."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/20061219-9999-lz1n19stem.html
Thanks for bringing James Fossett's excellent report to our attention. A very, very quick search online raises questions about the accuracy of the calculation of private support for stem cell research in California (really a nit, but worth clarifying; I don't think it goes to the heart of his insights). At least three other major gifts have been reported in the press - excerpted below with URLs. In addition, as the report does note, the Show Me state is showing the Stowers the door, so while the money is coming from Missouri, it appears that it will be spent everywhere but Missouri. The news reports on donations in California of which I am aware are as follows:
"Sound pioneer Ray Dolby and his wife gave $16 million to the University of California, San Francisco to start a stem cell center that will perform research without federal funds."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/10/financial/f224444D16.DTL
"USC announced it has received $25 million from the Broad Foundation to create the Broad Institute for Integrative Biology and Stem Cell Research at the Keck School of Medicine of USC."
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/12093.html
"Without seeing a dime of this [Prop 71] money, numerous California universities and research institutes already have committed to expanding their stem cell research programs, often with help from private donors. They are doing it with the help of philanthropists, who have given more than $250 million to California universities and research programs since 2005, Klein said. Those donations include a $20 million gift to the Stanford University Medical School from the New York-based Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund. The money from the fund, which is known for its support of cancer research, allows the school to establish a stem cell research center."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/20061219-9999-lz1n19stem.html
Sunday, August 19, 2007
NAS Opens Session of Public Officials on Stem Cell Cooperation
Following a flap over closed door meetings, the National Academy of Sciences is opening to the public the next meeting of its group looking at interstate cooperation on stem cell research.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, said the next session will be held in Boston in October. He attributed the information to Warren Wollschlager of the Connecticut Department of Health, who will chair the session.
Simpson was thrown out of a California meeting of the group earlier this year by an official from the National Academy of Sciences, who said the session was private. The group consisted mainly of public officials who are associated with state programs funding stem cell research with public funds.
Simpson said in a news release:
For earlier stories on this subject, click below on the label "interstate cooperation."
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, said the next session will be held in Boston in October. He attributed the information to Warren Wollschlager of the Connecticut Department of Health, who will chair the session.
Simpson was thrown out of a California meeting of the group earlier this year by an official from the National Academy of Sciences, who said the session was private. The group consisted mainly of public officials who are associated with state programs funding stem cell research with public funds.
Simpson said in a news release:
"I’m glad to see the change of heart. Too often the scientific establishment has displayed a paternalistic 'trust-us-we-know-best' attitude that in fact undercuts public support for science. Scientists need to engage and educate, otherwise we end up with the know-nothing attitude too often exemplified by the current administration."Our view: The academy is moving in the right direction. This is public business and should be conducted openly. Anything less only feeds the anti-science forces. Closed door meetings and secrecy breed suspicion.
For earlier stories on this subject, click below on the label "interstate cooperation."
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Gaining Brains in California
Thomson, now Yamanaka, plus nearly 50 more. So goes the count of a stem cell scientists dipping their toes – if not their entire corpus – into the California stem cell pool.
A few days ago, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University said he was opening a lab at the Gladstone Intitutes in San Francisco. Yamanaka excited the stem cell world recently with his work in reprogramming adult stem cells to return an embryonic state. Earlier this year, UC Santa Barbara said Jamie Thomson of the University of Wisconsin was establishing a lab at the seaside campus.
Dale Carlson, chief communications officer for the California stem cell agency, said the state is a becoming a mecca for stem cell researchers. He produced a list (see item below) of nearly 50 who have come to California since Prop. 71 created CIRM and funded it with $3 billion in state bonds.
The headline on the story by Mary Anne Ostrom in the San Jose Mercury News read, "Japanese scientist's move reflects state's rising clout." David Hamilton's piece on Venture Beat described Yamanaka's move as "certainly a coup," likening it to a "brain gain." But he also said Yamanaka will be spending only a week a month in San Francisco for the next year or two. Rob Waters of Bloomberg quoted CIRM interim chief scientific director Arlene Chiu as saying it was a "great coup" for Gladstone and California. Steven Edwards of Wired.com called Yamanaka "one of the hottest prizes in stem cell reasearch."
Here is a link to the Gladstone press release. See the item below regarding moves by other scientists to California.
A few days ago, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University said he was opening a lab at the Gladstone Intitutes in San Francisco. Yamanaka excited the stem cell world recently with his work in reprogramming adult stem cells to return an embryonic state. Earlier this year, UC Santa Barbara said Jamie Thomson of the University of Wisconsin was establishing a lab at the seaside campus.
Dale Carlson, chief communications officer for the California stem cell agency, said the state is a becoming a mecca for stem cell researchers. He produced a list (see item below) of nearly 50 who have come to California since Prop. 71 created CIRM and funded it with $3 billion in state bonds.
The headline on the story by Mary Anne Ostrom in the San Jose Mercury News read, "Japanese scientist's move reflects state's rising clout." David Hamilton's piece on Venture Beat described Yamanaka's move as "certainly a coup," likening it to a "brain gain." But he also said Yamanaka will be spending only a week a month in San Francisco for the next year or two. Rob Waters of Bloomberg quoted CIRM interim chief scientific director Arlene Chiu as saying it was a "great coup" for Gladstone and California. Steven Edwards of Wired.com called Yamanaka "one of the hottest prizes in stem cell reasearch."
Here is a link to the Gladstone press release. See the item below regarding moves by other scientists to California.
Names of Stem Cell Researchers Moving to California Since Prop. 71
Here is the list of stem cell scientists who have come to California since January 2005 following the passage of Prop. 71. The list was prepared by the state's stem cell agency. Scientists that it is currently funding have figures next to their names.
Migration of Stem Cell Researchers to California
(Since January 2005)
Established stem cell investigators who moved to California:
Martin Pera, Ph.D., from Monash University (Australia) to USC
Michael Clarke, M.D., from the University of Michigan to Stanford
Stephan Heller, Ph.D., from Harvard to Stanford $2,469,373
Peter Donovan, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins to UC Irvine $2,509,438
Jan Aileen Nolta, Ph.D., from Washington University to UC Davis
Gerhard Bauer, M.D., from Washington University to UC Davis
David Rowitch, M.D., from Harvard to UCSF
Benoit Bruneau, Ph.D., from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto to a joint appointment at the Gladstone Institutes and UCSF
Michael Kahn, Ph.D., from University of Washington to USC;
M. Ian Phillips, Ph.D., from University of South Florida to USC
Deepak Srivastava, M.D. from University of Texas to the Gladstone Institutes and UCSF
$3,164,000
Markus Muschen, M.D., Ph.D., from Heinrich-Heine-Universitat Dusseldorf to Childrens Hospital Los Angeles and USC
Ronald Li, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins to UC Davis
Paul Knoepfler, Ph.D., from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to UC Davis
Young investigators who trained in top labs and moved to California:
Noburo Sato, Ph.D. from lab of Brivanlou at Rockefeller to UC, Riverside
Qi-Long Ying, Ph.D. from lab of Austin Smith, Institute for Stem Cell Research at University of Edinburgh to USC
Kara McCloskey, Ph.D. from Nerem's lab at Georgia Tech to UC Merced
Xianmin Zeng, Ph.D. from Rao's lab at NIH to Buck; Institute $4,140,162
Kathrin Plath, Ph.D., from Jaenisch's lab at MIT to UCLA
Robert Blelloch, M.D., Ph.D., from Jaenisch's lab at MIT to UCSF $631,831
Holger Willenbring, M.D., from Grompe's lab in Oregon to UCSF $342,962
Tiziano Barberi joined City of Hope from Lorenz Studer's lab at Sloan
April Pyle was recruited to UCLA from the Donovan lab at Johns Hopkins
Gage Crump, Ph.D., from Kimmel’s lab at University of Oregon to USC
Tod Kippin, Ph.D., from Van Der Kooy’s lab at University of Toronto to UC Santa Barbara
Leslie Lock, Ph.D., from the Donovan lab at Johns Hopkins to UC Irvine
Gautam Dravid, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins to Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
Dennis Evseenko, M.D., Ph.D., from New Zealand to Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
Andrew Cuddihy, Ph.D., from Canada to Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
Hanna Mikkola, M.D., Ph.D., from Harvard to UCLA $577,037
William Lowry, Ph.D., from Rockefeller University to UCLA $571,575
Bennett Novitch, Ph.D., from University of Michigan to UCLA
Ping Zhou, Ph.D., from Nolta lab at Washington University to UC Davis
Suzanne Pontow, Ph.D., from Nolta lab at Washington University to UC Davis
Camie Chan, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins to UC Davis
Wenbin Deng, Ph.D., from Harvard/Children's Hospital Boston to UC Davis
Chong-Xian-Pan, Ph.D., from the University of Indiana to UC Davis
James Byrne, Ph.D., from Oregon Health Sciences University to Stanford
Established stem cell scientists with part-time appointments in California:
James Thomson, Ph.D. – UC Santa Barbara (University of Wisconsin)
Shinya Yamanaka, M.D., Ph.D. – Gladstone Institutes and UCSF (Kyoto University)
Nissim Benvenisty, M.D. – Cedars-Sinai (Hebrew University)
Michal Schwartz, Ph.D. – Cedars-Sinai (Weizmann Institute of Science)
Dan Gazit, Ph.D., D.M.D. – Cedars-Sinai (Hebrew University)
Clive Svendsen, Ph.D. – Stanford (University of Wisconsin)
Private Sector:
Mahendra Rao, M.D., Ph.D., from NIH to Invitrogen and UC Irvine
Advanced Cell Technologies (Michael West, Ph.D.) has expanded with a new facility in Alameda
Stem Cell Sciences (Peter Mountford, President and CEO) is expanding into California from the UK
Melissa Carpenter, Ph.D., from Canada to CyThera, Inc. in San Diego
Transfers within California:
Emmanuelle Passegue, Ph.D., from Stanford to UCSF
Wange Lu, Ph.D., from Caltech to USC
Renee Reijo Pera, Ph.D., from UCSF to Stanford $2,469,104
David Telander, M.D., from Jules Stein Eye Institute/UCLA to UC Davis
Amander Clark, Ph.D., from UCSF to UCLA
08/15/07
Migration of Stem Cell Researchers to California
(Since January 2005)
Established stem cell investigators who moved to California:
Martin Pera, Ph.D., from Monash University (Australia) to USC
Michael Clarke, M.D., from the University of Michigan to Stanford
Stephan Heller, Ph.D., from Harvard to Stanford $2,469,373
Peter Donovan, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins to UC Irvine $2,509,438
Jan Aileen Nolta, Ph.D., from Washington University to UC Davis
Gerhard Bauer, M.D., from Washington University to UC Davis
David Rowitch, M.D., from Harvard to UCSF
Benoit Bruneau, Ph.D., from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto to a joint appointment at the Gladstone Institutes and UCSF
Michael Kahn, Ph.D., from University of Washington to USC;
M. Ian Phillips, Ph.D., from University of South Florida to USC
Deepak Srivastava, M.D. from University of Texas to the Gladstone Institutes and UCSF
$3,164,000
Markus Muschen, M.D., Ph.D., from Heinrich-Heine-Universitat Dusseldorf to Childrens Hospital Los Angeles and USC
Ronald Li, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins to UC Davis
Paul Knoepfler, Ph.D., from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to UC Davis
Young investigators who trained in top labs and moved to California:
Noburo Sato, Ph.D. from lab of Brivanlou at Rockefeller to UC, Riverside
Qi-Long Ying, Ph.D. from lab of Austin Smith, Institute for Stem Cell Research at University of Edinburgh to USC
Kara McCloskey, Ph.D. from Nerem's lab at Georgia Tech to UC Merced
Xianmin Zeng, Ph.D. from Rao's lab at NIH to Buck; Institute $4,140,162
Kathrin Plath, Ph.D., from Jaenisch's lab at MIT to UCLA
Robert Blelloch, M.D., Ph.D., from Jaenisch's lab at MIT to UCSF $631,831
Holger Willenbring, M.D., from Grompe's lab in Oregon to UCSF $342,962
Tiziano Barberi joined City of Hope from Lorenz Studer's lab at Sloan
April Pyle was recruited to UCLA from the Donovan lab at Johns Hopkins
Gage Crump, Ph.D., from Kimmel’s lab at University of Oregon to USC
Tod Kippin, Ph.D., from Van Der Kooy’s lab at University of Toronto to UC Santa Barbara
Leslie Lock, Ph.D., from the Donovan lab at Johns Hopkins to UC Irvine
Gautam Dravid, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins to Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
Dennis Evseenko, M.D., Ph.D., from New Zealand to Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
Andrew Cuddihy, Ph.D., from Canada to Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
Hanna Mikkola, M.D., Ph.D., from Harvard to UCLA $577,037
William Lowry, Ph.D., from Rockefeller University to UCLA $571,575
Bennett Novitch, Ph.D., from University of Michigan to UCLA
Ping Zhou, Ph.D., from Nolta lab at Washington University to UC Davis
Suzanne Pontow, Ph.D., from Nolta lab at Washington University to UC Davis
Camie Chan, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins to UC Davis
Wenbin Deng, Ph.D., from Harvard/Children's Hospital Boston to UC Davis
Chong-Xian-Pan, Ph.D., from the University of Indiana to UC Davis
James Byrne, Ph.D., from Oregon Health Sciences University to Stanford
Established stem cell scientists with part-time appointments in California:
James Thomson, Ph.D. – UC Santa Barbara (University of Wisconsin)
Shinya Yamanaka, M.D., Ph.D. – Gladstone Institutes and UCSF (Kyoto University)
Nissim Benvenisty, M.D. – Cedars-Sinai (Hebrew University)
Michal Schwartz, Ph.D. – Cedars-Sinai (Weizmann Institute of Science)
Dan Gazit, Ph.D., D.M.D. – Cedars-Sinai (Hebrew University)
Clive Svendsen, Ph.D. – Stanford (University of Wisconsin)
Private Sector:
Mahendra Rao, M.D., Ph.D., from NIH to Invitrogen and UC Irvine
Advanced Cell Technologies (Michael West, Ph.D.) has expanded with a new facility in Alameda
Stem Cell Sciences (Peter Mountford, President and CEO) is expanding into California from the UK
Melissa Carpenter, Ph.D., from Canada to CyThera, Inc. in San Diego
Transfers within California:
Emmanuelle Passegue, Ph.D., from Stanford to UCSF
Wange Lu, Ph.D., from Caltech to USC
Renee Reijo Pera, Ph.D., from UCSF to Stanford $2,469,104
David Telander, M.D., from Jules Stein Eye Institute/UCLA to UC Davis
Amander Clark, Ph.D., from UCSF to UCLA
08/15/07
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The "Show-Me" State and $985 Million in Stem Cell Funding
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)