"It doesn't get bigger than this."
Alan Trounson is one of the scientists we sought to support our challenge of the the human embryonic stem cell patents held by WARF. He in fact filed a statement to the PTO on our behalf. He agrees with our view that the work done by Jamie Thomson was important and laudable, but not patentable because it was "obvious" to those in the field based on prior research.
Trounson is a stem cell scientist with a worldwide reputation for excellence. I hold him in the highest regard.
He has experience in both basic research and translational research -- moving discoveries in the lab to actual cures.
Trounson has expressed his willingness to turn away from his laboratory and take the helm at CIRM fulltime. He also will divest himself of any investments in stem cell companies. Both steps are necessary.
I believe Trounson can make a major contribution to CIRM, California and stem cell research in general as president, so long as he never forgets his responsibility and accountability as a public official to the citizens of California. If needed, FTCR will remind him of those duties.
Vision Statement for Relationship Between CIRM President and the Governing Board (ICOC)
Alan Trounson
The art of delivery of new developments in science and medicine, in my experience, has been dependent on creating partnerships with others with expertise in a different discipline. A shared vision then provides for a working relationship where the partners invest their expertise in achieving the potential outcome.
Historical Partnerships in Delivery of New Developments
There are many historical examples of productive partnerships, and in my case the key models include:
1.In vitro fertilization and associated technologies Trounson (scientist) and Dr. Carl Wood (clinician). Wood was a man of extraordinary vision and lateral thinking who provided the clinical platform for the embryology developed in basic research by Trounson and colleagues. There are now >4 million IVF children in the world as a consequence of this partnership and others.
2. The Institute of Reproduction and Development (IRD) Trounson (female reproduction and development – Deputy Director) and Dr. David de Kretser (male infertility expert – Director) came together as a partnership to develop a new Institute of Reproduction and Development at Monash University by fusing their research groups – Centre for Early Human Development (Trounson) and Andrology research group (de Kretser) in 1990. The IRD was the first research only institute at Monash University and rose quickly to international prominence as the world leading research institute in human reproduction, with more than 350 scientists by 2001. de Kretser was appointed Governor of Victoria in 2006 and Trounson left to establish the National (Australian) Stem Cell Centre in 2002.
3.The Australian Stem Cell Centre (ASCC) Trounson (scientist), Robert Moses (biotechnology business) and Dianna DeVore (patent attorney and molecular geneticist) joined in a partnership to win the Australian Biotechnology Centre of Excellence from all other disciplines in biotechnology. The ASCC was initiated with a grant of A$54 million for 3 years, followed by another tranche of A$54 million to carry through to 2011. Moses was made foundation Chairman of the Board, Trounson CEO and DeVore COO.
4. Embryonic Stem Cells Trounson (embryologist) and Martin Pera (embryonal carcinoma specialist from Oxford) joined together in a partnership at the IRD to develop human embryonic stem cells. They were successful, producing these cells in the late 1990s and led the new science of directing differentiation of these extremely interesting cells into the neuronal and other lineages.
5. Monash Immunology and Stem Cell Laboratories Trounson (stem cell biologist - Director) and Richard Boyd (thymic immunologist – Deputy Director) joined together to form a new research centre at Monash University – Monash Immunology and Stem Cell Laboratories. The two disciplines of stem cells and immunology created a unique focus for the delivery of stem cell technologies. Regulating the immune system is critical for delivery of allogenic cell therapies, and embryonic stem cells are being developed to reprogram tolerance and autoimmunity for transplantation and regenerative medicine.
Prospective Partnership Between Governing Board (ICOC) and the President of the CIRM
Partnership with the ICOC offers a unique mechanism for integrating key stakeholders from academic research, industry and advocacy in the discovery and development processes as we move toward therapies. The initiative (Prop 71) creates a participatory partnership between the leadership of the President of the CIRM and the governing board; the board represents a high-value spectrum of knowledge in medical research, patient advocacy and biotech experience that the President can draw upon in advancing the mission.
Klein, the visionary financier and designer of innovative systems, Chair of the governing board, and Trounson will form a partnership to deliver the incredible opportunity of cell therapies for regenerative medicine. Together they have the financial, political and scientific capacity to take the well prepared CIRM strategy to the desired outcomes in the clinic efficiently and effectively. The partnership provides the further opportunity to engage nationally and internationally with other leading groups in stem cell science to avoid duplication of effort and to hasten clinical applications.
"It's a surprise move to have someone of his prominence in this role. This is a recognition of the incredible impact the California initiative has had. He's voting with his feet."California stem cell chairman Robert Klein, who headed the presidential search, was obviously pleased by the move. He cited Trounson's "global vision."
"'I have great respect for Alan as a scientific colleague and a deeply ethical and moral individual who will provide great leadership to the CIRM in coming years,' said Larry Goldstein, an embryonic stem cell researcher at the University of California San Diego who has collaborated with Trounson."The Los Angeles Times' Engel quoted John Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Right as saying, "This is an excellent move. I am wonderfully impressed and completely surprised."
"As well as founding the Australian Stem Cell Centre at Monash University in 2003, Trounson has founded or co-founded eight companies. Among those companies is globally recognized Embryonic Stem Cells International in Singapore.Trounson told the Sydney Morning Herald:
"Started in 2000 with angel investor money and investment from Singapore's research-loving government, Embryonic Stem Cells International holds the commercial rights and intellectual property to the initial six embryonic stem cell lines developed by the founders, who include Ariff Bongso, a Singapore IVF specialist considered to be a pioneer in deriving stem cells from human embryos."
"It's obviously a tremendous personal opportunity and honour, but it is also a sign of the high regard in which Australian research organisations and scientists are held internationally in stem cell research.Trounson surfaced in American media earlier this year in support of challenges to stem cell patents held by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Organization.
"This is a research field in which our achievements are world class - I see myself as an ambassador for all Australian medical researchers."
"Trounson's career has not been free of controversy. He was criticized in 2002 after showing Australian legislators -- who were voting to legalize embryonic stem cell research -- a video of a rat that he said had been cured of paralysis using embryonic stem cells. It turned out that the rat had been given slightly older cells called foetal germ cells.Here are links to stories on the Trounson appointment. CIRM has not yet posted a news release. San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News , The Sydney Morning Telegraph, The Associated Press, Cellnews.
"Trounson said Friday that he had apologized to the parliament and learned "a very valuable lesson about ensuring precision in what you say to people."
"Many people are watching CIRM, says Mary Woolley, head of Research!America, a health-research advocacy group in Virginia. With other investments in research flat, the institute is 'in a vanguard,', she says. 'It's really important for CIRM to get it right....Baker continued:
"'Failed searches happen all the time,' she says. Without a clear consensus about what they are looking for, she continues, a board could go through a search three or four times, each ending in disappointment."
"Board member Jeff Sheehy, an AIDS patient advocate, thinks experts with an industry background might be most adept at transforming research into therapies. 'My pill bottles don't say UCSF,' he explains. 'Someone from the foundation world or the business community might be an interesting choice.'"Baker quoted Hamilton Moses, a biomedical consultant in Virginia who focuses on non-profit governance.
"'CIRM operates at the nexus of the Political (with a capital P), scientific, institutional, and business forces of an aggressive state that views economic development as a priority.' Its organization, he adds, doesn't help. 'Noah's Ark' boards, where each member is appointed to represent a constituency, rarely work.'"Baker continued:
"'This is mainly a skilled management job, requiring wisdom, scientific expertise, and a good list of known contacts to go to for advice and help, but not necessarily a background in medicine or stem cells,' says Bruce Alberts at the University of California, San Francisco, who served two six-year terms as president of the US National Academy of Sciences. Management jobs require many tasks that scientists find boring, adds (Tom) Cech, (president of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute). Only someone with tremendous skills at working with diverse groups of people could thrive in this job."She quoted California stem cell chairman Robert Klein as saying that none of the presidential candidates has cited the board's or his own role as an obstacle.
"...(T)he diversity of the board is an asset, he says; basic scientists who value 'curiosity-driven research' and patient advocates intent on clinical progress have much to teach each other. The trick, he says, is establishing mechanisms so groups work together. '''I bring that experience, an understanding of how the board can interact effectively with the institution.'"She pointed out that the Salk Institute, which Murphy left in July, had four presidents in four years before he joined the organization in 2000.
"But if there is one thing people agree on, it is that CIRM is an organization like no other. 'CIRM represents an experiment,' says Moses. 'It is too soon to know whether it will be successful.'"
"Like the Women's Health Initiative, bottom-line data from Allhat and Catie were subject to parochial secrecy. Catie's complete safety data are only being released this September, almost four years after the study was completed. Moreover, the drugs involved in these studies were for conditions where one expects a great deal of individual variation in how people might respond. The studies didn't take measure of that.Some readers wrote to the WSJ concerning Gottlieb's piece, including Bryan R. Luce and Dennis A. Revicki, both senior vice presidents at United BioSource in Maryland. They said,
"Now the government is sponsoring a poorly designed trial to test whether Avastin, a drug that is meant for injection into the veins to treat cancer, can also -- when injected directly into the eye -- treat macular degeneration, a leading cause of blindness. Never mind that Avastin's manufacturer, Genentech, developed a completely new drug called Lucentis, which is specifically designed to be injected into the eye and is better adapted to treat blindness.
"Since a single cancer infusion of Avastin contains a large volume of the drug, breaking that same dose down into the small aliquots needed for the eye injections is literally pennies on the dollar, making the government's study of it -- when it was clearly not designed for eye treatments -- a matter of cost containment. Surely if Avastin ends up harming those eyes -- a plausible consequence of this off-label, if not illegally 'compounded' use -- it won't be Uncle Sam on the hook with product liability lawyers, but Genentech.
"Not all government-funded studies have speckled histories. Many uncover significant advances. Problems arise when the government pursues studies to achieve its own economic goals, where political motivations seem to intrude on the design and conduct of the trials and bias not only how results are interpreted, but more especially, how they are reported."
"It seems to us, the solution is clear. Government-funded research and interpretation need to be fully open for critical peer review by independent and stakeholder experts from any sector (including manufacturers) at all stages of the process. Similarly, funded research by private industry would be well advised to follow suit. Then, perhaps, we would have less rancor and better supportable scientific evidence for informing clinical and public policy and the health and well being of the public would be better served."Gottlieb is dubious of some government-funded studies. Others are equally dubious of business-funded studies that seem to overlook results that are not favorable to introduction of a new product. Meanwhile astronomical prices are charged patients to recoup drug development costs. Increasingly this mulligan stew of medicine and science and business is leaving few satisfied. Even fewer will be satisfied if the $3 billion ($6 billion including interest) investment by California taxpayers results in therapies that are out of the reach of millions who need them.
"California universities have landed large donations to build new labs and begin their research. In May 2006, UC San Francisco received a $16-million donation. Two months later, UC Irvine landed a $10-million gift from Newport Beach fund manager Bill Gross and his wife, Sue. Stanford University has received gifts of $20 million and $33 million for research and construction."Ornstein quoted Broad as saying,
"California, in my mind, will without a doubt be the leader in North American stem cell research as a result of Proposition 71 and the great research universities we have."California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will take part in the news conference at 10 a.m. today PDT announcing the gift. The news conference will be webcast live on the governor's website, www.gov.ca.gov.
"The response yesterday to the institute's questions was a surprise to the institute staff.The response from the companies seems strikingly different than earlier, more hostile reactions from the California Healthcare Institute, which says it represents the biomedical industry in California. However, the reaction was not too surprising to those who attended the Burrill stem cell meeting in San Francisco last spring. A CHI representative appeared on a panel with several representatives of stem cell companies, who did not echo the lobbying group's more strident position.
"Representatives from the biotechnology industry said they only need to tweak the (intellectual property) policy to make it work for companies.
"For instance, the companies don't want to publicly disclose competitive information, such as what percentage of royalties they receive for licensing out their discoveries or the amount of their product sales.
"Industry representatives said they also are concerned about how the state defines money for research and money for goods and services. Currently, Proposition 71, the voter initiative that created the stem cell institute, requires all the research it funds to be conducted in California. Goods and services bought with state funds do not necessarily have to come from California.
"If clinical trials are defined as a 'research' expense, rather than 'goods and services,' it could be a problem, company executives said.
"For speed, efficacy and even savings, companies often conduct clinical trials worldwide in order to get quick enrollment and a diversity of participants."
"The potential problems have to do with a complex and unsettled question: how federal tax law will apply to a novel state research venture, supported by tax-exempt bonds, that involves a state split of private profits.The issue of taxability was nearly invisible prior to Tansey's article, which subsequently generated allegations of bait-and-switch tactics and statements that Klein had a moral responsibility to be more forthright about the matter.
"But IRS rules largely forbid the states to use tax-exempt bonds to benefit specific private enterprises rather than serving a general public good -- and to share revenue from an enterprise to the extent that the state becomes like a business partner."
"The integrity of Prop. 71 is at stake in the royalty(taxable bond) debate. During the campaign, advocates of Prop. 71 mentioned royalties repeatedly, with Klein touting it on the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. This wasn't by accident. California was in the midst of a budget crisis, so Klein needed to create the impression - no matter how tenuous - that Californians would get some direct return on their investment."Leavenworth described the conduct during the campaign at best misleading. "At worst, it was a cynical ruse," he wrote.
"Bonds have never been used before to fund research, and so we want to be certain that the Prop 71 offerings are eligible for tax-exempt status. (See, for example, the transcript of the 11/05 IP task force meeting beginning at page 19 (http://www.cirm.ca.gov/transcripts/pdf/2005/11-22-05.pdf)) The Treasurer's office assumes that they'll qualify, but will be seeking guidance from the IRS to be sure. In the meantime, this first offering will be taxable."The response from spokesmanTom Dreassler in the treasurer's office was similar:
"We want to complete the initial sale ASAP so we can pay back the bridge financing provided by the state General Fund and private foundations. At this point, however, we do not have an IRS determination that we can sell stem cell bonds as tax-exempt. So, we will issue this initial $250 as taxable. Then we hope to get a formal determination from the IRS that establishes the extent to which we can issue tax-exempt stem cell bonds. Once we get that ruling, we can refinance the $250 million as tax-exempt, thus cutting taxpayers' costs. Our long-term intent is to sell as much as possible of the $3 billion as tax-exempt, consistent with the IRS determination."CIRM presumably could eliminate the cost of the added interest by withdrawing requirements that royalties be paid. However, that is extremely unlikely. Meanwhile, the IRS opinion could be some time in coming.
“These grants are designed to encourage newly independent investigators to pursue bold and innovative studies across the full range of stem cell types – human and animal, embryonic and adult. We will consider providing successful applicants salary and research funding for up to five years, ensuring that they have stable, secure financial support as they begin their independent scientific careers.”
"I challenge you to find a state agency that has been more effective. Those grants don’t just happen, it takes hard work and lots of meetings. And, we’ve been transparent throughout the entire process. Thus, the system envisioned by Prop 71 works. I can appreciate that it’s your job to read the tea leaves and make some half baked spin, but you’re just wrong here."Hamilton responded in part,
"I intended no denigration of the ICOC membership, but it’s a bureaucratic fact that when you have a 26-headed hydra trying to run a public agency, whoever controls the agenda and many if not most staff resources effectively directs the body’s effort — and that’s more or less what (California stem cell chairman) Bob (Klein) does."You can read the entire exchange, including the original article, here. Scroll down to the bottom to find the comments.
