Think motherhood when you think about new state legislation aimed at California's $3 billion stem cell agency.
That's the strategy on the latest bill that targets the world's largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research, all of which comes at the expense of California taxpayers.
Think of those millions of taxpayers as investors. Who can say they should not receive a tidy return on their $6 billion (including interest) commitment? Who can oppose a nonpartisan, thorough-going review of the agency, which has stumbled more than once and which is riddled with built-in conflicts of interest? Especially when that agency lives in a constitutionally protected, ivory-tower world, far from the bloody financial fray now underway beneath the Capitol dome.
While motherhood is not as popular as it once was, these are motherhood questions for lawmakers and hard to oppose.
The current political climate may now be as receptive for passage of the bill, SB1565, as at any time. Legislative demonstrations of fiscal prudence are the order of the day in the Capitol. Stifling government profligacy is the paramount virtue.
CIRM gave supporters of the legislation more leverage when the agency offered an ill-timed plan to boost the maximum pay ranges of CIRM's top executives by 50 percent, or $200,000 annually in some cases. The CIRM pay plan received a public and negative airing on the same day that a $16 billion state budget deficit was announced. A subcommittee of CIRM directors balked at the executive pay proposal, but it will surface again next Wednesday. Introduction of the CIRM legislation came only a few days after that subcommittee hearing, probably not coincidentally.
The lead author on the CIRM bill is Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, who is chair of Senate Health Committee. Republican Sen. George Runner of Antelope Valley, who is part of the GOP leadership, is co-author.
Their position is that CIRM has offered an inadequate return to California investors/taxpayers. Kuehl and Runner instead propose to guarantee in state law that California residents have affordable access to therapies developed with state cash, an issue which affects CIRM's intellectual property rules. The lawmakers also want to mandate a study of CIRM with recommendations for changes. Kuehl said that one reason for her latest legislation involves breaches of the agency's conflict-of-interest policy by a number of its directors.
The bill needs 70 percent approval of both houses of the Legislature –- a super, supermajority requirement created by Prop. 71. The unique and unprecedented requirement is intended to protect the agency, but lawmakers may now regard it as a challenge to their authority.
CIRM has opposed similar legislation in the past, but it has not taken an official position on SB1565, which is the embodiment of simplicity in some ways. It could be easily severed to put the requirement for a study on CIRM operations in a separate measure, which could help its chances.
CIRM is likely to oppose the study, however, because it could generate public hearings and open the door to greater changes in CIRM procedures. At the very least, the hearings could lead to critical news coverage and possibly threaten CIRM's credibility and clout.
Next Wednesday some CIRM directors and executives will be visiting with lawmakers following the agency's Oversight Committee meeting. Kuehl's legislation is likely to come up during those sessions along with the pay proposal. CIRM supporters should be prepared with some good answers.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Background Documents Now Available for CIRM Meeting, More to Come
The California stem cell agency has begun posting background information for its Oversight Committee meeting next Wednesday in Sacramento. Agenda topics with background documents include: a proposal for a $20 million "tools and technology" program, policies for administering lab grants, bios on new scientific grant reviewers, a plan to delegate authority to the president on both relocation expenses and requests for regulations as well as the previously posted documents on the 50 percent pay range hike.
Still to be posted is information on the IP item, amendments to the interim lab grant administration policy and the draft biotech loan policy, which is also not on the March 11 agenda of the biotech loan task force.
All the documents can be found via this location.
Still to be posted is information on the IP item, amendments to the interim lab grant administration policy and the draft biotech loan policy, which is also not on the March 11 agenda of the biotech loan task force.
All the documents can be found via this location.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Wright's Departure From CIRM Illustrates Agency's Voting Practices
The 29-member board of directors for the California stem cell agency has a new vacancy, caused by the impending impending departure of Janet Wright, a Chico cardiologist, for a new job in Washington, D.C.
Ordinarily, the loss of one of 29 members would be insignificant. But Wright's departure affects actions involving CIRM's mammoth $758 million stem cell lab construction program.
It also illustrates what some may consider the board's bizarre voting structure and its built-in conflicts of interest.
The impact of Wright's departure could be felt as early as next week's meeting of the board, which is known as the Oversight Committee or ICOC. One of the matters on the agenda involves the lab grant program. Only board members whose institutions are not affected can vote on the matter. Those affected cannot even take part in the discussion.
Earlier this year we wrote about what amounts to a floating ICOC quorum with a "quartet majority," and how it can reduce many of the board members to silent sphinxes on some issues. To recap how it works, Prop. 71 uses the number of ICOC members eligible to vote as the basis for a quorum, rather than the total number of persons on the ICOC. Prop. 71 also states that a quorum is 65 percent of those eligible to vote. Action can be taken by a majority of a quorum. So when 10 persons are eligible to vote, the quorum is seven . A majority would be only four.
In January, only 10 members of the board, including Wright, were allowed legally to participate in the discussion of lab grant matters. She filled a patient advocate position on the board and rarely, if ever, was disqualified from participating or voting. Six of the 10 persons in the lab grant case are patient advocates. The others mostly represent industry, which sometimes has strong backing from patient advocates who want to see cures on the market quickly.
In theory, with absences, a quorum on lab grant issues could be as low as three, or so it appears. That would mean only two persons are needed to take action on some far-reaching and important issues. However, the possibility of that actually happening seems remote.
As for Wright's replacement, that is up to state Treasurer Bill Lockyer. According to state law, he must pick a patient advocate to fill the position. Lockyer's spokesman, Tom Dresslar, told the California Stem Cell Report,
Wright's new job was first reported in the Chico Enterprise-Record Feb. 26, which said she has become vice president for science and quality with the American College of Cardiology. She had worked in Chico for 23 years.
(An earlier version of this item incorrectly stated that the Wright had left for her new job last month. That information, reported by the Chico Enterprise-Record, was incorrect. As of March 17, CIRM could not say when she would no longer be on the board. Wright did not respond to email queries.)
Ordinarily, the loss of one of 29 members would be insignificant. But Wright's departure affects actions involving CIRM's mammoth $758 million stem cell lab construction program.
It also illustrates what some may consider the board's bizarre voting structure and its built-in conflicts of interest.
The impact of Wright's departure could be felt as early as next week's meeting of the board, which is known as the Oversight Committee or ICOC. One of the matters on the agenda involves the lab grant program. Only board members whose institutions are not affected can vote on the matter. Those affected cannot even take part in the discussion.
Earlier this year we wrote about what amounts to a floating ICOC quorum with a "quartet majority," and how it can reduce many of the board members to silent sphinxes on some issues. To recap how it works, Prop. 71 uses the number of ICOC members eligible to vote as the basis for a quorum, rather than the total number of persons on the ICOC. Prop. 71 also states that a quorum is 65 percent of those eligible to vote. Action can be taken by a majority of a quorum. So when 10 persons are eligible to vote, the quorum is seven . A majority would be only four.
In January, only 10 members of the board, including Wright, were allowed legally to participate in the discussion of lab grant matters. She filled a patient advocate position on the board and rarely, if ever, was disqualified from participating or voting. Six of the 10 persons in the lab grant case are patient advocates. The others mostly represent industry, which sometimes has strong backing from patient advocates who want to see cures on the market quickly.
In theory, with absences, a quorum on lab grant issues could be as low as three, or so it appears. That would mean only two persons are needed to take action on some far-reaching and important issues. However, the possibility of that actually happening seems remote.
As for Wright's replacement, that is up to state Treasurer Bill Lockyer. According to state law, he must pick a patient advocate to fill the position. Lockyer's spokesman, Tom Dresslar, told the California Stem Cell Report,
"It's our intent to move with due diligence and as expeditiously as possible. Treasurer Lockyer's objective is to find a qualified person with impeccable credentials who demonstrates a strong commitment to helping ensure CIRM provides Californians what they voted for when they passed Prop. 71."If you are interesting in serving on the board or want to recommend someone, you can write the treasurer at this Internet location.
Wright's new job was first reported in the Chico Enterprise-Record Feb. 26, which said she has become vice president for science and quality with the American College of Cardiology. She had worked in Chico for 23 years.
(An earlier version of this item incorrectly stated that the Wright had left for her new job last month. That information, reported by the Chico Enterprise-Record, was incorrect. As of March 17, CIRM could not say when she would no longer be on the board. Wright did not respond to email queries.)
Kurt Cobain, CIRM and Green Footprints
Next week the directors of the California stem cell agency are meeting in the Crest Theater in Sacramento, an unusual and colorful location for a meeting of a state agency. Normally it is a venue for classic movies, such as a fully restored version of "Gone With The Wind," as well as musical performances. However, hundreds of new citizens have been sworn in there as well, including the mother of the late Sacramento Mayor Joe Serna.
We have just received an additional tidbit about the Crest from Jerry Schroeder, the architect responsible during its restoration and who has a keen eye for truly important historical matters. Here is what he had to say.
"In the basement, in the green room, there are green footprints walking up the wall put there by an unknown-at-the-time musician called Kurt Cobain. He got into a can of paint while waiting to go on stage. The footprints have been preserved as part of the restoration project."
See the item below for specifics about what CIRM is likely to do as it sits above Cobain's footprints.
We have just received an additional tidbit about the Crest from Jerry Schroeder, the architect responsible during its restoration and who has a keen eye for truly important historical matters. Here is what he had to say.
"In the basement, in the green room, there are green footprints walking up the wall put there by an unknown-at-the-time musician called Kurt Cobain. He got into a can of paint while waiting to go on stage. The footprints have been preserved as part of the restoration project."
See the item below for specifics about what CIRM is likely to do as it sits above Cobain's footprints.
Monday, March 03, 2008
CIRM's Fifty Percent Pay Range Hikes Back Again
Directors of the California stem cell agency next week will take up once more a proposal to increase the top pay range of the key executives of the agency by 50 percent or as much as $200,000 annually in some cases.The proposal stalled last month when a subcommittee of the directors balked, citing both the state's budget crisis and what they considered the dubious justification for some of the higher increases.
California is currently facing a $16 billion budget deficit, and the political heat around it is scalding. The pay proposal, however, would have no impact on the state budget because Prop. 71 was crafted to constitutionally protect the CIRM budget from cuts by lawmakers and the governor. Nonetheless, the pay proposal represents to some lawmakers and the public an example of profligate government spending.
One would suspect that the backers of the proposal, CIRM Chairman Robert Klein and President Alan Trounson, would have a plan to ease concerns of skeptical CIRM directors. However, that is not evident from the public documents now available. The March 12 agenda for the directors (the Oversight Committee) contains only a one-sentence reference to the matter. (The meeting location is pictured above. More details on that at the end of this item.)
When they were first proposed, the pay range hikes contained no detailed, written analysis supporting the increase. That analysis is still lacking.
The Sacramento meeting will also take up a draft biotech loan loan policy, which has moved through a series of hearings and is the subject of a $50,000 study to examine its economic underpinnings. The loan proposal could total as much as $750 million, according to Klein, and could be available to both the private sector and nonprofit groups. The biotech loan task force will hold another meeting March 11. The draft policy is not yet available from CIRM.
Also on the agenda for next week are proposed changes to intellectual property regulations and changes in the grant administration policy for the $758 million (including matching funds) lab construction program.
Incidentally, this is the first time that the ICOC has met in a venue where the Cab Calloway once performed. The Sacramento's meeting will be at the Crest Theater(see photo), a venue that hosts both film and live performances. It is located on the K Street mall, virtually in the shadow of the Capitol, and was restored some years ago under the direction of an architect friend, Jerry Schroeder. The March 12 agenda did not indicate whether popcorn would be served.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wired Piece on CIRM Lab Program
The California stem cell agency's latest news concerning its vaunted $758 million (including matching funds) lab construction program received a little more attention today in a piece by yours truly on Wired.com.
The article is a slightly briefer version of what we wrote Thursday on this blog, but it did include later information about the availability of the latest application information on the CIRM website. Ellen Rose, spokeswoman for CIRM, says the applications should be up sometime next week.
Regarding the "attention" reference above, Wired has a slightly larger reach than this modest website. According to Wired's web site, it has 4 million "average unique users" a month.
The article is a slightly briefer version of what we wrote Thursday on this blog, but it did include later information about the availability of the latest application information on the CIRM website. Ellen Rose, spokeswoman for CIRM, says the applications should be up sometime next week.
Regarding the "attention" reference above, Wired has a slightly larger reach than this modest website. According to Wired's web site, it has 4 million "average unique users" a month.
CIRM Loans Turning Into Cash
(Editor's note: The following was based on incorrect information from the state treasurer's office. The notes were repaid and no windfall exists.)The California stem cell agency appears to be the beneficiary of an $11 million windfall.
It comes in the form of cash from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation -- $10 million – and another $1 million from California venture capitalist J. Taylor Crandall.
Both had invested those sums in bond anticipation notes (BANs)issued by CIRM and were to have been repaid following the agency's California Supreme Court victory over its foes.
However, the state treasurer's office says the notes have "surrendered" by both the foundation and Crandall, meaning CIRM gets to keep the cash. The other purchasers of the bond anticipation notes have been repaid. And so has the state's $150 million loan to CIRM.
In response to a query from the California Stem Cell Report, Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, said,
"We don't have any new bond issues planned. The timing of the next issue largely will be determined by CIRM's requirements. We understand CIRM may make some facility grants soon. Initial funding for those grants would come from the state's Pooled Money Investment Account."Crandall is managing partner of Oak Hill Capital Partners and has "senior responsibility" for its technology, media and telecom groups.
The Moore Foundation is the creation of Gordon Moore (see photo) and his wife. Moore is one of the founders of Intel. Ed Penhoet, vice chairman of CIRM, was president of the foundation at the time of the BAN purchase.
Light Coverage of CIRM Lab Leverage
The San Diego Union-Tribune and the San Francisco Chronicle both carried stories this morning on the half-billion dollars pledged to match lab construction grants scheduled to be awarded in May by the California stem cell agency.
Sabin Russell of the Chronicle quoted David Serrano Sewell, a member of the CIRM board of directors, as saying,
Sabin Russell of the Chronicle quoted David Serrano Sewell, a member of the CIRM board of directors, as saying,
"Sometimes it has been hard to see that vision come to fruition, but it has here."Terri Somers of the San Diego paper wrote,
"Louis Coffman, vice president of the San Diego (stem cell) consortium, said he could not reveal the sources of the pledged donations."That strikes us as somewhat of an odd position since these contributions will need to be publicly verified at some point.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
AP Story on WARF Patent Matter
Re the WARF patent fight(see item below), here is a link to The Associated Press Story, which has been now carried on the San Jose Mercury News website.
Stem Cell Patent Fight Enters Another Round
Players in the ongoing saga of stem cells, WARF, California and patents rolled out another chapter today with folks on both sides finding something to make them happy. WARF apparently fired out the first news release, declaring it was "pleased by the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to uphold the claims of a key stem cell patent."
The opposing side, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica, Ca., and the Public Patent Foundation, said the decision showed the following gains for researchers.
"The original broad patent was abandoned showing it was underserved and new amended claims have been narrowed.FTCR and the patent group have been personally supported by CIRM President Alan Trounson in their challenge to the WARF patents.
"The original patent covered all embryonic stem cells no matter how they are derived, but the amended 'non-final' ruling, while permitting the patent, narrowed the claim only to stems cells derived from pre-implantation embryos.
"The newest stem cell research technology — Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IPS cells) — would clearly not be covered by the narrowed patent.
" Stem cells derived from fetal tissue could have been claimed under the old patent, but now cannot be."
The Wall Street Journal picked up on the story in its health blog, quoting Ken Taymor(see photo), a longtime follower of California stem cell affairs and executive director of the Center for Law, Business at UC Berkeley.
"It’ll be several years before the patent fight shakes out, according to Taymor, who co-authored a recent article on the subject in the journal Cell Stem Cell. 'In the mean time, there is all this other patenting activity that’s going on — patenting activity that’s not being challenged,' he said.The story received a fair amount of attention in Wisconsin. At the time of this writing, only one newspaper in California, which is the leading biotech state in the nation, had carried a story. That publication is the San Jose Business Journal, and it wrote based on a Geron press release.
'Those are essential steps for commercialization.'
"What’s more, Geron and WARF hold a lot of the newer stem cell patents. 'So the more interesting question,' Taymor said, 'is what patents do they hold and what’s the scope of the claims that they have downstream in commercialization?' Taymor and his colleagues are looking into that now, and plan to publish their findings."
Here is a link to the story in The Scientist.
California Set for $758 Million Stem Cell Lab Construction Program
California's young stem cell agency has extracted promises of nearly $500 million in matching funds to help build what it calls one of the most ambitious medical science lab construction programs in the nation's history. The agency announced today that the 12 competitors for $262 million in CIRM lab construction grants said they had raised the matching dollars in an effort to win the grants in May. The agency will give higher priority to institutions with larger matching funds.
The largest single "matching and leverage" amount -- $150 million -- came from Stanford, which is seeking a $50 million grant from CIRM. The San Diego Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, which consists of UC San Diego, Scripps, Salk and Burnham, offered $65 million for its $50 million grant request. UC San Francisco logged in with $54 million for a $40 million grant for its building(See photo. Larger version here).
Interestingly, UCLA came up with only $12 million matching for a $30 million request. UC Irvine offered only $23 million for a $37 million grant. (A table with the complete list of the grant requests and size of matching is available here.)
In a news release, CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said the total of about $758 million (including leverage and grants) can mean "a research infrastructure building program that historically exceeds any prior state government research facilities program for a new field of medical science anywhere in the U.S."
CIRM President Alan Trounson said,
"The research facilities established by the CIRM Major Facility Grants will provide a safe haven from federal government restrictions for stem cell scientists to conduct research that will lead to therapies and cures for millions of patients who suffer from chronic disease and injury. These grants are an important part of the CIRM’s goal of making California an ideal environment for all avenues of stem cell science to flourish."However, none of the labs are likely to be built before a new US president changes George Bush's restrictions on stem cell funding. We understand there are other concerns about federal restrictions and have queried CIRM concerning those.
While the sums for lab construction appear vast, some of the applicants may be disappointed. The total amount of grants requested is $336 million, exceeding CIRM's budgeted $262 million by $74 million.
Earlier this year, Klein said he might ask some of the institutions to reduce the size of their requests in order to fund all of the building programs.
CIRM's Facilities Working Group is scheduled to review the applications April 4 and 5 with its decisions going to the CIRM directors for ratification May 6-7. CIRM directors have already ratified the decisions of the scientific reviewers on the grant requests.
You can find the scientific reviews here. However, that document does not list the applicants by name. You will need to pick up the number of the application from today's news release and find the same number on the scientific review document to correlate the two.
The latest applications are scheduled to be posted on the CIRM website sometime in the future. We have queried CIRM concerning that date.
(Our figures on the totals in the grant program differ slightly from those in CIRM's press release. We have based ours on the cumulative totals of the raw figures and then rounded.)
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
'Mystery' Documents Now Available on CIRM Research Standards
Background information has now been posted for Thursday's session of the California stem cell agency's Standards Working Group in San Francisco(see item below). The documents involve a summary and response to public comments on proposed revisions to CIRM MES regulations along with reports dealing with clinical trials and reprogramming of adult stem cells.
Other subjects on the agenda include a report on CIRM guidelines for oocyte donation. That report is not available at the time of this writing.
Other subjects on the agenda include a report on CIRM guidelines for oocyte donation. That report is not available at the time of this writing.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Fresh Comment: CIRM's Mystery Meeting Remains a Mystery
Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society makes an important comment on the "mystery" item we posted. She is absolutely right. Those documents from the California stem cell agency should have been posted days ago if CIRM wanted serious public comment. The daylong meeting on Thursday involves complex issues dealing with the ethics and practice of stem cell research. The session could have major implications for the conduct of CIRM-financed stem cell research, but there is no way to know.
CIRM has repeatedly pledged to adhere to the highest standards of openness. Earlier today, we discussed a relatively minor item that belies that pledge. The failure to provide adequate information on the Thursday session, assuming its subject is of some consequence, is a more significant issue. CIRM can and should do better. You can see Darnovksy's comment by clicking on the word "comment" at the end of the item.
CIRM has repeatedly pledged to adhere to the highest standards of openness. Earlier today, we discussed a relatively minor item that belies that pledge. The failure to provide adequate information on the Thursday session, assuming its subject is of some consequence, is a more significant issue. CIRM can and should do better. You can see Darnovksy's comment by clicking on the word "comment" at the end of the item.
Fresh Comment
"Anonymous" has posted a comment on the Trounson item below that has confused us. It asks for names of "invited stem cell companies." We wonder if that comment should have been posted to the "routine withholding" item?
Trounson on 'Impressive Research' Backed by CIRM
California stem cell agency President Alan Trounson is in Fast Company.
The magazine and online, that is.
Trounson talked about his new job and his old job, along with some general views on science.
Here are some excerpts from the question-and-answer feature by Elizabeth Svoboda in the March issue.
The magazine and online, that is.
Trounson talked about his new job and his old job, along with some general views on science.
Here are some excerpts from the question-and-answer feature by Elizabeth Svoboda in the March issue.
"What are some of the most impressive research that the institute is supporting?"The article continued:
"For lung diseases like emphysema, we're finding that if you put stem cells into the bloodstream, the cells will be drawn to inflammation in the lung to repair damaged tissue. You can also do repairs on seriously injured hearts. Researchers are showing that colonies of cardiac muscle cells grown from stem cells will integrate quite normally into the hearts of rats and mice."
"The institute has unusual rules for grantees: They must make discoveries available publicly and pay royalties to the state. Why?"
"The citizens of California are funding this research, so it's important for them to be able to access developments at a reasonable rate. It's about enabling research, but it's also about enabling patients to access the benefits."
"What do you hope to contribute to the field for posterity?"
"In a big-picture sense, I want to be up on the mountain looking down on the Serengeti, watching all the animals move through. I want to be remembered for having guided some basic discoveries from the lab to the clinic. If I can help get that process going, I think that's sufficient."
"And how did your family feel about moving?"
"My wife, Karin, is Swedish, and she said, 'Alan, it has taken me 20 years to become an Australian, and you want me to become an American now? I don't think so.' But she came around. The boys think it's pretty cool--the 6-year-old thinks there's Halloween every night in America."
CIRM Ill-served by Withholding Routine Information
With some considerable pride, the California stem cell agency issued a press release earlier this month that it was hosting a San Francisco meeting beginning today of the world's leading agencies involved in financing stem cell research.
It wasn't exactly news. The event and CIRM's role were known to most folks who follow the agency. However, the meeting and how the agency handled requests for information about it demonstrate some of the continuing problems at CIRM with openness and transparency.
Hosting the event seems a legitimate and worthwhile endeavor. As California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein noted in the news release, hosting the International Stem Cell Forum is another demonstration of CIRM's leadership. It also will help facilitate cooperation with activities in California.
However, CIRM has refused to answer one simple and basic question – roughly how much is the hosting going to cost? Keep in mind that CIRM is a state agency. Its financial affairs are all legally public. Keep in mind also that CIRM went out of its way to call attention to its role in the event at the Hotel Monaco, a luxury boutique hotel with rates running from about $250 to $500 a night. The agency should have been prepared to answer routine questions about its news release, such as the cost of a particular activity.
We began making inquiries on Feb. 19. Simple questions: what does "hosting" the event entail, what is the location of the meeting and whether it is open to the public. A spokesperson for CIRM came back quickly the same day with a partial response. She said that hosting includes "paying for the meeting room at the hotel where the meeting is taking place as well as the audio visual set up and possibly some things like copies. We are also paying for 2 dinners (but not alcohol)." After some prompting, the location was disclosed a day later.
But despite additional inquiries, no estimated cost has been forthcoming. One CIRM justification for not supplying a ballpark figure is that it might not be exact. Another is that it takes too much staff time to dig up the estimate.
We assume that CIRM budgets with some care. That means that the estimated cost would be readily available in a matter of minutes from whomever is currently handling CIRM's bookkeeping. The more likely reason for withholding the information is that someone very high in the organization is concerned that the figure might appear too extravagant and generate unfavorable comment.
This is not the first time CIRM has stonewalled on an event cost. One particular case comes to mind – the first scientific meeting that the agency sponsored a couple of years ago.
In both cases, the agency is ill-served by refusing to release routine information about its activities. Ultimately, the cost will come to light. All CIRM achieves at this point is to foster suspicion and speculation about what other, much more important information is being withheld, such as the breaches last year by some of its directors of CIRM's conflict-of-interest policies. Those remained hidden until disclosed here and by the San Francisco Chronicle.
As for our question about whether the meeting is public, the answer is no. That raises a whole host of additional questions about whether public funds should be used for meetings that bar the very persons who finance them.
(Here is a link to the only news story we have seen on the event.)
It wasn't exactly news. The event and CIRM's role were known to most folks who follow the agency. However, the meeting and how the agency handled requests for information about it demonstrate some of the continuing problems at CIRM with openness and transparency.
Hosting the event seems a legitimate and worthwhile endeavor. As California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein noted in the news release, hosting the International Stem Cell Forum is another demonstration of CIRM's leadership. It also will help facilitate cooperation with activities in California.
However, CIRM has refused to answer one simple and basic question – roughly how much is the hosting going to cost? Keep in mind that CIRM is a state agency. Its financial affairs are all legally public. Keep in mind also that CIRM went out of its way to call attention to its role in the event at the Hotel Monaco, a luxury boutique hotel with rates running from about $250 to $500 a night. The agency should have been prepared to answer routine questions about its news release, such as the cost of a particular activity.
We began making inquiries on Feb. 19. Simple questions: what does "hosting" the event entail, what is the location of the meeting and whether it is open to the public. A spokesperson for CIRM came back quickly the same day with a partial response. She said that hosting includes "paying for the meeting room at the hotel where the meeting is taking place as well as the audio visual set up and possibly some things like copies. We are also paying for 2 dinners (but not alcohol)." After some prompting, the location was disclosed a day later.
But despite additional inquiries, no estimated cost has been forthcoming. One CIRM justification for not supplying a ballpark figure is that it might not be exact. Another is that it takes too much staff time to dig up the estimate.
We assume that CIRM budgets with some care. That means that the estimated cost would be readily available in a matter of minutes from whomever is currently handling CIRM's bookkeeping. The more likely reason for withholding the information is that someone very high in the organization is concerned that the figure might appear too extravagant and generate unfavorable comment.
This is not the first time CIRM has stonewalled on an event cost. One particular case comes to mind – the first scientific meeting that the agency sponsored a couple of years ago.
In both cases, the agency is ill-served by refusing to release routine information about its activities. Ultimately, the cost will come to light. All CIRM achieves at this point is to foster suspicion and speculation about what other, much more important information is being withheld, such as the breaches last year by some of its directors of CIRM's conflict-of-interest policies. Those remained hidden until disclosed here and by the San Francisco Chronicle.
As for our question about whether the meeting is public, the answer is no. That raises a whole host of additional questions about whether public funds should be used for meetings that bar the very persons who finance them.
(Here is a link to the only news story we have seen on the event.)
Monday, February 25, 2008
Fresh Comment
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, has posted his economic disclosure under "comments" on the item below. You can see it by clicking on the word comments on the main item.
A Look Behind the Cyberspace Curtain
It's been a merry old romp.
Three years plus and more than 1,500 items posted. That's the count for the California Stem Cell Report, which began its cyberspace explorations of the stem cell world in January of 2005.
A little more than 12 months ago, we gave you a bit of an annual report on this enterprise, which is the creation solely of yours truly, David Jensen. Along with that came our economic disclosure. Today we will give you an update in both areas.
Nothing has changed on our economic interests, which can be found here. But briefly neither my wife nor I nor any members of our immediate family hold any interest in biotech or stem cell companies or other enterprises that could stand to gain or profit or benefit from the activities of California's stem cell agency.
This blog is financed personally on an extremely low budget. Some people ask why I do it. The answer is that the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and its related activities are interesting, important and unique.
The Golden State's $3 billion enterprise is on the cutting edge of science, business, politics, religion, medicine – not to mention life, death and even sex(certainly one or another stem cell therapy is likely to tackle that last area). How often does one have a chance to dig into all those areas?
The overall readership of this blog is modest by Internet standards. No megamillion counts of page views here. We are currently running about 8,000-9,000 page views a month. Our readers, however, are deeply interested in the subject and seem to represent important sectors in the world of stem cells. They include folks from the UK, Canada, Australia, Korea, India, Germany, Sweden and Singapore. Readers from virtually all the major California research institutions dip into the California Stem Cell Report from time to time. But less than half of the total are from California. Other regions represented include New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Illinois and Texas, Readers also come from enterprises such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of Sciences along with patent attorneys, lawmakers and their aides and investment companies.
This past 12 months, we have branched out somewhat, publishing freelance articles with Wired News online and a couple with The Sacramento Bee.
We also broke the story on the attempt by one of the CIRM directors to lobby the agency on behalf of a grant to his institution. That story led to an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission and a new audit of CIRM. The story also apparently played something of a role in the formulation of the latest legislation targeting CIRM.
We take no particular pleasure in CIRM's missteps. We support human embryonic stem cell research and CIRM's programs generally. Our main effort is simply to present information about CIRM, which has slipped well below the radar of the mainstream media. We do have a point of view, however. Our starting point is that CIRM is a public agency first. Everything else is a poor second. Without public trust and credibility, without conduct that matches the standard for Caesar's wife, CIRM's efforts could easily become a poster child for what can go wrong. Instead of being an exemplar, CIRM could become a nightmare of conflicts and concealment because it is uniquely free from normal state oversight and is riddled with built-in conflicts of interest that are not going to disappear. As we have reported, the conflicts are so deep that more than once the vast majority of CIRM directors have been disqualified at meetings from taking part in public discussions, not to mention being barred from voting. The result is that sometimes decisions can be made by as few as four out of the 29 members on the board.
We are interested in hearing from readers, both on individual items and on the general direction of the blog. If you have suggestions for changes, improvements or whatever, please send them along to me (djensen@californiastemreport.com) or you can post them via the comment function (created by Google), which does not allow myself or others to know your identity.
As for others involved regularly in CIRM affairs and regularly trying to influence the organization, we urge them to disclose their financial interests as well(via the comment function or other means). That includes newspaper reporters, but that is not anymore likely to happen than CIRM opening the scientific grant review sessions to the public.
Three years plus and more than 1,500 items posted. That's the count for the California Stem Cell Report, which began its cyberspace explorations of the stem cell world in January of 2005.
A little more than 12 months ago, we gave you a bit of an annual report on this enterprise, which is the creation solely of yours truly, David Jensen. Along with that came our economic disclosure. Today we will give you an update in both areas.
Nothing has changed on our economic interests, which can be found here. But briefly neither my wife nor I nor any members of our immediate family hold any interest in biotech or stem cell companies or other enterprises that could stand to gain or profit or benefit from the activities of California's stem cell agency.
This blog is financed personally on an extremely low budget. Some people ask why I do it. The answer is that the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and its related activities are interesting, important and unique.
The Golden State's $3 billion enterprise is on the cutting edge of science, business, politics, religion, medicine – not to mention life, death and even sex(certainly one or another stem cell therapy is likely to tackle that last area). How often does one have a chance to dig into all those areas?
The overall readership of this blog is modest by Internet standards. No megamillion counts of page views here. We are currently running about 8,000-9,000 page views a month. Our readers, however, are deeply interested in the subject and seem to represent important sectors in the world of stem cells. They include folks from the UK, Canada, Australia, Korea, India, Germany, Sweden and Singapore. Readers from virtually all the major California research institutions dip into the California Stem Cell Report from time to time. But less than half of the total are from California. Other regions represented include New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Illinois and Texas, Readers also come from enterprises such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of Sciences along with patent attorneys, lawmakers and their aides and investment companies.
This past 12 months, we have branched out somewhat, publishing freelance articles with Wired News online and a couple with The Sacramento Bee.
We also broke the story on the attempt by one of the CIRM directors to lobby the agency on behalf of a grant to his institution. That story led to an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission and a new audit of CIRM. The story also apparently played something of a role in the formulation of the latest legislation targeting CIRM.
We take no particular pleasure in CIRM's missteps. We support human embryonic stem cell research and CIRM's programs generally. Our main effort is simply to present information about CIRM, which has slipped well below the radar of the mainstream media. We do have a point of view, however. Our starting point is that CIRM is a public agency first. Everything else is a poor second. Without public trust and credibility, without conduct that matches the standard for Caesar's wife, CIRM's efforts could easily become a poster child for what can go wrong. Instead of being an exemplar, CIRM could become a nightmare of conflicts and concealment because it is uniquely free from normal state oversight and is riddled with built-in conflicts of interest that are not going to disappear. As we have reported, the conflicts are so deep that more than once the vast majority of CIRM directors have been disqualified at meetings from taking part in public discussions, not to mention being barred from voting. The result is that sometimes decisions can be made by as few as four out of the 29 members on the board.
We are interested in hearing from readers, both on individual items and on the general direction of the blog. If you have suggestions for changes, improvements or whatever, please send them along to me (djensen@californiastemreport.com) or you can post them via the comment function (created by Google), which does not allow myself or others to know your identity.
As for others involved regularly in CIRM affairs and regularly trying to influence the organization, we urge them to disclose their financial interests as well(via the comment function or other means). That includes newspaper reporters, but that is not anymore likely to happen than CIRM opening the scientific grant review sessions to the public.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
CIRM Conflict Problems Behind Latest Stem Cell Bill
A state lawmaker says her new legislation aimed at the California stem cell agency was triggered in large part by breaches of the agency's own conflict-of-interest policy by the agency's directors.
Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune today reported that Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said that the bill's requirement for a review of CIRM by the state's Little Hoover Commission was aimed at finding possible solutions to some of the problems that have generated a separate state investigation and audit.
The Little Hoover Commission is a nonpartisan state agency aimed at improving efficiency and performance of state government. In addition to studies, it can conduct public hearings and offer up legislative solutions.
Somers wrote:
Kuehl told Somers that a Los Angeles Times editorial urged reconfiguration of the CIRM board, but that following discussions with CIRM, she agreed that directors with expertise brought "the best understanding." Kuehl said,
Here is a link to the text of the bill, which is not yet available online through the legislature. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights put up the copy.
Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune today reported that Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said that the bill's requirement for a review of CIRM by the state's Little Hoover Commission was aimed at finding possible solutions to some of the problems that have generated a separate state investigation and audit.
The Little Hoover Commission is a nonpartisan state agency aimed at improving efficiency and performance of state government. In addition to studies, it can conduct public hearings and offer up legislative solutions.
Somers wrote:
"'Those (reviews) are directed at things that have happened,' Kuehl said yesterday. 'What I want to do is look ahead to see if there are necessary fixes.'"Somers continued:
"Kuehl said her decision to look at the potential for conflicts of interest arose after learning that several grant applications to the institute had to be disqualified because members of the institute's board had written letters in support of the applicants."The conflict cases involve John Reed, president of the Burnham Institute, and the deans of five medical who intervened on behalf of potential grants to their organizations, which is a violation of CIRM ethics policy.
Kuehl told Somers that a Los Angeles Times editorial urged reconfiguration of the CIRM board, but that following discussions with CIRM, she agreed that directors with expertise brought "the best understanding." Kuehl said,
"I'm really looking for solutions that will protect the public interest but not throw the baby out with bathwater in terms of expertise."Late yesterday, CIRM released a statement from CIRM Chairman Robert Klein concerning the Kuehl bill, SB1565. It said,
"Last week we had highly productive discussions with Sen. Kuehl and similar discussions with Sen. (George) Runner and we believe we should be able to arrive at satisfactory language that advances the mission of Prop. 71."CIRM directors have adamantly opposed legislation similar to SB1565 in the past. Klein's statement was carefully crafted to avoid saying anything directly about the latest bill and leave open the possibility of defusing it with some sort of action by CIRM itself.
Here is a link to the text of the bill, which is not yet available online through the legislature. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights put up the copy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)