Fresh Comment

"Anonymous" has left a new comment on the item below.

CIRM Legislation Hearing Scheduled for Early April

The latest legislation to target the California stem cell agency is set for its first hearing April 2 in Sacramento before the Senate Health Committee.

The bill is aimed at ensuring affordable access to stem cell therapies financed by public funds in California. It would also require a study of the agency with an eye to correcting some of the difficulties it has had with such problems as conflicts of interest.

The lead author on the measure, SB1565, is Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, who is chair of the Health Committee. She is not expected to have difficulty in winning approval of her bill and sending it to the Judiciary Committee.

CIRM has not taken a position on the measure, but has opposed similar efforts in the past. Last month, one stem cell activist, Don Reed, opposed the measure, calling it "another distraction, another delay." Reed also said that CIRM is "squeaky clean" although one of its directors. John Reed (no relation to Don Reed), is under investigation by the state for violating CIRM's conflict-of-interest rules. Five other directors also violated conflict policies last year by writing letters on behalf of grant applicants.

Don Reed is vice president for public policy for Americans for Cures Foundation, which is the private, nonprofit stem cell lobbying group run by CIRM Chairman Robert Klein. It was Klein, an attorney, who advised John Reed to lobby CIRM staff on behalf of a grant to his institution.

Fresh Comment

"Anonymous" has posted a new comment on the "egg shortage" item below.

Fresh Comment

Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society has posted a comment on the "eggs" item below. It says in part, "Some believe that stem cell lines could be derived from embryos that are specifically created for research through cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer. This process requires fresh human eggs. Only perhaps a dozen labs worldwide are trying, and only three or four CIRM grants have been awarded for this purpose (to my knowledge). This line of work raises concerns beyond the moral status of the embryo." To read his entire remarks, click on the word "comments" at the end of the item.

An Egg Shortage: Is More Cash the Answer?

The California stem cell agency has embarked on a sweeping review of the human egg market and the needs of researchers, some of whom are complaining that they do not have enough raw material.

The study was set in motion after Harvard scientist Kevin Eggan (see photo on left) told the CIRM Standards Working Group last month that he and his colleagues had spent $100,000 recently advertising for donors and "pursued every option" for collecting eggs with little success.

CIRM President Alan Trounson, a renown Australian stem cell scientist, said "accessing those eggs is no trivial matter." He said scientists are seeking grants from CIRM for research that may not be feasible because of the lack of human eggs.

One answer to the question of scarcity posed during last month's session is increasing the money for women who provide eggs. However, that could be considered the politically fatal "third rail" for hESC cell research. Prop. 71, which created the California stem cell agency in 2004, was approved by voters in a campaign that appeared to promise that women would not be paid for eggs. But the language of the measure is artfully ambiguous. The initiative says that it is up to CIRM directors to set

"standards prohibiting compensation to research donors or participants, while permitting reimbursement of expenses."

Currently CIRM regulations do not allow for compensation other than reimbursement of direct expenses. One suggestion that arose during the meeting of the CIRM Standards Working Group on Feb. 28 was some sort of reimbursement of expenses for women involved in IVF treatments. However, paying for IVF treatments could be construed as cash for eggs.

Not all members of the group were comfortable with the concept of paying women for eggs.

Here is an exchange from the transcript of the Feb. 28 meeting between CIRM Oversight Committee member Jeff Sheehy and CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, who led the campaign for Prop. 71 and claims responsibility for writing it:

Sheehy:

"(Prop. 71) was approved by the voters because the voters thought there wasn't going to be compensation for egg donors when they voted for it, and they didn't know we were going to go back and change it. And so in that context I think this is an issue that would be appropriate for us to study."

Klein:

"Well, I'm in a reasonably good position, Jeff, to discuss the issue of what was presented to the voters. and --

Sheehy:

"I was your average voter, Bob. I was not one of these people that was waving the stem cell flag. I can tell you that if we were going to go out and spend $3 billion buying eggs from women, I wouldn't have voted for it."

Klein:

"Certainly I wouldn't have voted for it either, so we agree. But the key here is medical reimbursement was clearly contemplated. I have gone to James Harrison (outside counsel to CIRM and who wrote portions of Prop. 71) and discussed this issue with him...."

Alta Charo(see photo on right), professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin and a member of the CIRM standards group, noted the political sensitivity of the issue of cash for eggs. She said changing the CIRM standards worked out in 2005 could be "inviting really quite draconian responses" from unspecified parties, but presumably hostile lawmakers and regulators.

What went unsaid during the Feb. 28 meeting was the fact that some have long regarded the supply of human eggs as insufficient for human embryonic stem cell research. But now that hESC research is enjoying a resurgence, the scarcity is becoming more acutely felt.

The session also did not include a direct discussion of another reality: If eggs are scarce and demand is high, somebody is going to make a business of it. It will be an unregulated business somewhere else in the world. It goes almost without saying that embryonic stem cell research is a global endeavor, a point that Klein made on Feb. 28.

The CIRM Standards meeting ended with a move to investigate the entire subject further. Bernie Lo of the University of California, San Francisco and chairman of the group, indicated the review would include availability of eggs and their numbers, researchers' perceptions of the problem, possible reimbursement of IVF treatment, use of eggs by CIRM researchers from other areas where compensation restrictions are not so tight and the grandfathering of cell lines that were derived before CIRM regulations were adopted.

The standards group will consider the staff review of the matter at some later date. We have asked CIRM when that is likely to occur.

Needless to say, this subject is complex. We have only briefly touched on a handful of issues discussed during the Feb. 28 meeting. We recommend a close read of the transcript. Most of the pertinent discussion begins on page 91.

Below are some excerpts from the transcript.

Snippets From the CIRM Egg Debate

Here are some excerpts from the transcript of the Feb. 28 meeting of the CIRM Standards Working Group concerning human egg availability.

CIRM President Alan Trounson:

"Accessing those number of eggs is no trivial matter, no matter what the opportunities are. In that circumstance the demand for the oocytes may be way beyond what we can possibly deliver in an outcome. And it may take us five years to do that. If we gave a three-year grant, that would be nonsense because the chance of deriving a cell line might be extremely low.

"That's why we've come because we have these applications sitting in our portfolio which we're questioning about how do we move forward on this, or do we sort of take them off the table and let the other ones proceed. I think it's important for you to understand that it's real-time now. We have to actually know exactly what is appropriate to do."

CIRM Chairman Robert Klein:

"From a legal point of view, I'm very concerned with the use of words here. I don't know anyone that's suggesting you make a $10,000 payment to somebody. If somebody has real cost, and they can document those costs, and they can get reimbursed for part of those costs. What's being addressed here is reimbursement for part of the cost, not a $20,000 payment to someone."

CIRM Oversight committee member Jeff Sheehy:

"If they did not think that they could get the eggs, they should not have submitted the applications. They have submitted applications, so they must believe that they can get the eggs."

Alta Charo, a member of the Standards Working Group and University of Wisconsin professor:

"Prop 71, which itself had this written in to some extent as a political matter, drove the National Academy guidelines which felt like they were already basically having to follow the California lead on the altruistic model here."

Trounson:

"I don't think it drives it forward. That's the problem."

Charo:

"Now we're in a situation, I think, where it's particularly touchy to try and revisit the compromise, putting aside whether or not it's even legally possible given the language of Prop. 71."

Kevin Eggan, Harvard stem cell researcher and member of the CIRM Standards Working Group:

"I have spent countless hours stomping around to different disease advocacy groups, tea circles, knitting circles, trying to find anyone and everyone who would donate their oocytes for our experiments, even out of the goodness of their heart because they had someone that they cared about who was affected by these diseases that we might in the very long term provide hope for.

"We spent more than $100,000 in advertising in the Boston Globe, in the Boston Herald, in the Boston area papers, in the suburbs of Boston. We have literally pursued every option. We've pursued trying to recruit donors from other parts of the United States to come to Boston to donate their oocytes for research. This will not work. In a country where women know that they can be compensated for doing the exact same thing, they simply will not, and in the face of the difficulties, I should add, it's not like they're not doing it solely because of the money, they're doing it because of the money and because it's a very difficult thing to do oocyte donation. And those two things collaborate together to create an environment in which women will not do this in a meaningful way which will allow the research to go forward.

"It was a very reasonable compromise to say we need to give up compensation because we can't afford to be assailed both from the right and the left on this position, but now we know that that compromise position is a failure. So what do we do about that? I think the fact of the matter is that it might as well be against the law if we can't do it. That's one sort of null hypothesis for years. So how to proceed in the face of that? I agree it's risky; but if we don't take the risk, then the outcome will be the same as if we take the risk ..."

CIRM Cerberus Has New 'Kennel'

John M. Simpson, the ubiquitous critic, observer and participant in California stem cell controversies, has a new employer – sort of. The nonprofit outfit he works for has changed its name. No longer will it be called the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. Instead it is Consumer Watchdog. You can find more about the change here.

Fresh Comments

Larry Ebert has posted a comment on the "corrections" item from March 17. We have posted a response to that item. "Anonymous" raises some interesting questions regarding the "back story" on why CIRM failed to issue a press release on the letters of intent on round two of the faculty awards(see the "$41 million" item on March 18). We have responded to that as well. You can read all of this by clicking on the word "comments" at the end of each item in question. You can also post comments yourself by clicking on that word.

Pricewaterhouse Report on Biotech Loans Available Online

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights has posted the $50,000 PricewaterhouseCoopers report made to the CIRM Biotech Loan Task Force last week(see item below). The numbering of the pages seems to indicate that there is more to come from Pricewaterhouse. The report is not yet available on the CIRM website.

Biotech Loan Program Eyes Matching Funds

The California stem cell agency last Wednesday considered a proposal to create a biotech loan program of up to $750 million and is expected to possibly enact it by June. Here is a report from John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumers Rights, who attended the meeting of the CIRM Biotech Loan Task Force in Sacramento.

"CIRM Biotech Loan Task Force members didn't learn much last week from a $50,000 consultant's report about other states' loan programs, except that nobody really seems to be doing what the stem cell agency envisions.

"Loan programs in other states aren't really comparable to California's plan members of CIRM's Biotech Loan Task force were told by Christopher Wasden of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"The consulting firm checked out about 30 loan programs and then narrowed the list to consider 12 of them in detail. The criteria for the short-list were that the program be state funded, focused on life sciences or technology companies, primarily offered loans and had a meaningful size. The final criterion was that the program was responsive, Wasden said.

"Noting that most of the loans offered by the other states were in the $200,000 to $400,000 range, Wasden described the proposed California program as 'more ambitious by a factor of at least two.'

"In fact, ICOC Chairman Robert Klein raised the possibility of making loans as large as $50 million. Task Force Chairman Duane Roth mentioned loans aimed at pre-clinical trials of $3 million to $5 million.

"Wasden reported that the 'amount of experience with the programs is low. There have been no liquidity events and no write-offs -- yet.'

"After Wasden's report task force members discussed more details of how California's program may emerge. Roth suggested that a four-part business evaluation would be the first step. That would include:

"-- A background evaluation of the company's principals.
"-- A credit evaluation, a Dun and Bradstreet or similar report.
"-- A litigation assessment. This would not include an assessment of the company's intellectual property (IP) portfolio, but rather a check for any suits pending against the firm or its principals.
"-- An assessment of the business plan and financial feasibility.

"Klein suggested, as he has at all task force meetings, that this check could be performed by 'delegated underwriters.'

"Task force member Michael Goldberg suggested that 'higher standards of verification would be required for larger loans.'

"If the applicant met the business criteria in the first step, then the plans would be peer-reviewed by the scientific panel for scientific merit as the second step.

"During his report Wasden said that a number of the state loan programs required matching funds as a way to 'have a third party validate the management team.'

"Klein emphasized the need for matching funds if CIRM makes large loans. 'There would be a lot of other people's money at stake in the big ones,' he said.

"Goldberg asked if the length of the loans should be tied to the life span of the stem cell agency. Klein responded that at some point he expects the Legislature will 'look at CIRM and see if it performed and whether more money should be put in.'

"David J. Earp, Geron Corp.'s chief patent counsel and senior vice president, told the task force that a requirement for co-funding would serve as 'a sanity check.' Asked what he thought a Phase 2 clinical trial would cost for a stem cell therapy, he said, 'Many tens of millions, certainly larger than $5 to $10 million' that had been cited earlier in the meeting.

"Roth told the task force that he and Klein had been meeting with state legislators in an attempt to keep them apprised of the plan. He said he hoped to have a loan program policy ready to discuss at the stem cell Oversight Committee's June meeting."

Our comment: Keeping California lawmakers well-informed on this program is well-advised, particularly if Klein plans to ask them for continued funding for CIRM in a few years.

Strong Interest in $41 Million CIRM Faculty Award Program

The California stem cell agency's effort to boost "young" researchers with grants of up to $2 million has attracted 55 letters of intent, nearly as many as the first round of program last year.

The faculty awards are designed to develop relatively young and promising researchers and particularly physician-scientists at a critical stage in their careers – providing them with salary and research funding for three to five years.

The $41 million grant program comes on top of a similar program last year that drew 59 letters of intent. Ultimately, the agency gave away only $54 million to 22 researchers out of the $85 million allotted in 2007. The grants were curtailed because five CIRM directors violated the agency's conflict-of-interest policies by writing letters on behalf of applicants from their institutions.

CIRM said the letters resulted from an "innocent misunderstanding." CIRM disqualified the 10 applications involved. The directors involved suffered no CIRM penalty, although some reportedly took steps to ease the economic or professional pain of applicants who were affected.

In December, CIRM directors ordered up a second round of faculty awards in order to give another chance to applicants disqualified last year because of their deans' conflict violations.

The names of the institutions and researchers submitting letters of intent this month were not disclosed by CIRM, which keeps them secret. Only the winning applicants names are released and then only after they are approved for funding.

In response to a query, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, released the number of intent letters and said 31 institutions were represented. He did not provide a breakdown for numbers from academic institutions and nonprofit research organizations.

CIRM has directed applicants in the second round not to disclose whether they competed in the first. Disclosing such information in this round could mean disqualification of the applicant.

Grant reviewers, however, are not likely to have too much trouble identifying applicants who are making their second run – unless their latest applications are totally different than the first or the reviewers' memories are faulty.

Fourteen grants are expected to be approved this summer following a closed-door review of the applications by the same CIRM panel that reviewed the first round of the grants. Scientists on that panel do not have to publicly disclose their financial or professional interests. Instead their disclosures are made privately to CIRM.

The application deadline is April 3, although no one can apply unless a letter of intent has already been sent.

California's Huge Lab Construction Program Set for Public Airing

The schedule for the next step in California's $758 million(including matching funds) stem cell lab grant construction program went up today on the CIRM web site and offers a rare opportunity for the public to comment on grant applications prior to final action.

Applying for the state cash are virtually all the major players in stem cell research in California. The names of the 12 were disclosed in December in an unusual move by the agency that was aimed at helping them to raise the matching funds needed to win the CIRM cash. Over the past three years, nearly all applicants for California stem cell research funds have been shrouded in secrecy until after the grants are approved, preventing the public from making any sort of meaningful comment.

The construction grant programs are exceptions, offering public sessions during review by the facilities group.

However, CIRM meetings are in fact rarely attended by more than a handful of persons, especially those from the general public. Applicants will be out in force, however, if only to be available to answer questions and possibly plan strategy in case questions arise that might hobble final action.

The agenda for the Facilities Working Group covers two days – April 4 and 5 – at the Westin San Francisco Airport Hotel in Millbrae. The Friday session is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. and run to 9 p.m. The Saturday session runs 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Final approval by CIRM directors is slated for early May.

Corrections

Based on incorrect information from the Chico Enterprise Record, we reported incorrectly on March 4 that Janet Wright was leaving California last month to take a new job and would no longer be serving on the Oversight Committee of the California stem cell agency. CIRM reports that Wright is leaving to take a new job, but cannot say when. Wright did not respond to emails requesting the correct information.

We also reported incorrectly on Feb. 29 that the bond anticipation notes purchased by the Gordon Moore Foundation and Taylor Crandall were not repaid by CIRM. That information, provided by the state treasurer's office, is incorrect. The notes have been repaid.

Our policy is to correct mistakes as promptly as possible, both separately in a correction and in the original item, including a note that the item was corrected. If you see information that you believe is factually incorrect, please send an email to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.

The ICOC Plays The Crest

The board of directors of the California stem cell agency met earlier this week in a restored movie house (see photo) in downtown Sacramento. The location was a bit unusual for a CIRM meeting, but the affair triggered the imaginations of some board members. Here is a report from John M. Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpaper and Consumer Rights, who attended the meeting.

ICOC members took note of their unusual surroundings as they took to the stage of the Crest Theater in Sacramento this week, a venue that has seen performances ranging from Cab Calloway to Kurt Cobain.

These days the Crest often shows classic movies like "Gone With The Wind." Calling the meeting to order, Chairman Robert Klein noted the entertainment industry backgrounds of board members Sherry Lansing and Leeza Gibbons and declared the Crest "an adequate stage for our tremendous talent."

Lansing objected that she was only a "bit player."

Introducing new President Alan Trounson, Klein suggested that the Crest's marquee should have billed the meeting as "Starring Dr. Alan Trounson, straight from Australia."

Trounson began his president's report by confessing to snapping a few photos of the Crest "because they won't believe me at home."

In fact, to the bemusement of several passersby who didn't seem to know what to make of it, the huge letters on the marquee spelled out:

Wed March 12
CA Institute For Regenerative Medicine
8:15 AM Spotlight on Deafness
9:00 AM ICOC Meeting
Open to The Public

For the most part the unusual message didn't draw a larger or different crowd than usual when the meeting is held in a hotel or academic setting.

Not usual for an ICOC meeting, however, Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, and Sen. Mark Weyland, R-Escondido, showed up to speak for adoption of a regulation that would define a "California supplier" that was presented by John Valencia, attorney for Invitrogen. You can be sure that had nothing to do with the marquee.

The ICOC ended up at the Crest this way: The date and general location of the meeting were set before a venue was booked. It turned out when Klein's aide Jena Pryne tried to nail down a site, virtually everything in Sacramento was booked for conventions and activities relating to the legislative session. She sought advice from Scott Tocher, interim associate legal counsel to the vice chair, who grew up in Sacramento.

Tocher, who remembered the Crest hosting graduations and citizenship ceremonies, thought it could work. Pryne booked it and the ICOC's name was, if not up in lights, on the marquee.

Appropriately during the board's closed executive session when members decided to hire Dr. Marie Csete as Chief Scientific Officer at a salary of $310,000, Melissa King, CIRM executive director, passed out free popcorn to those waiting for the board to return and make the action official in public.

The seats were the most comfortable I've been in at any ICOC meeting. Let's play the Crest again next year.

Fresh Comment

"Anonymous" has a fairly detailed comment on the "warf" item below about the "true overcome" of the latest action in the stem cell patent dispute.

WARF Scores in Patent Struggle

WARF has chalked up a victory in the latest round in the stem cell patent wars, but challengers are vowing to continue the legal battle.

Here is a link to the story on Science Now. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, also sent along this response to the anonymous comment on the role of his organization.

"Anonymous is wrong. So far the challenge has narrowed the patent claims,
but more importantly prompted a substantial change in WARF's behavior. In January 2007 facing the patent re-examinations and surrounding publicity WARF substantially eased licensing requirements and became much more cooperative with the stem research community. They also 'clarified' that they would not seek a license from CIRM although the then general counsel, Elizabeth Donnelly, told The Stem Cell meeting sponsored by Steve Burrill & Co the previous spring that was the intention."

Legal Action in Multimillion Dollar CIRM HQ Promises

The California stem cell agency is embroiled in a $425,000 flap with its landlord as part of the City of San Francisco's deal to pick up millions of dollars in agency's expenses as part of the city's successful bid to land the CIRM headquarters.

Reporter Sabin Russell of the San Francisco Chronicle today wrote that the agency's directors have authorized legal action against Stockbridge Capital Partners, owner of the building housing CIRM.

Russell wrote:

"At issue is approximately $425,000 in annual operating costs for items as diverse as electricity, janitors, parking privileges and fees similar to those paid by condominium owners.

"Part of the deal, according to stem cell board Chairman Robert Klein, was that the state-funded institute would not have to pay those costs. 'A couple of months ago, we had a meeting with Stockbridge, and at that time they assured us they would pay all expenses. They have not lived up to the representations made to the mayor or ourselves,' he said.

"Adam Alberti, spokesman for Stockbridge, said Wednesday that the company remains committed to keeping the institute headquarters in San Francisco. 'We are in year two of a 10-year rent-free deal,' he said. 'We will continue to meet that obligation.'

"Alberti said that so far the firm also has covered about $1 million of operating expenses - costs that were to be covered by 'private fundraisers and other parties' who have yet to come through with the money. 'We are working with the city and other folks involved to find ways to cover this,' he said. 'Ultimately, the guarantor of the deal is Stockbridge.'"

The dispute raises questions about whether other promises made in San Francisco's multimilllion dollar bid are being fulfilled. As far as we know, no public accounting has ever been made.

CIRM Salary Ranges Top Those at NIH

The Sacramento Bee today reported that the salary pay ranges approved by directors of the California stem cell agency amount to a 23 percent hike for top executive positions and easily surpass those at the much larger National Institutes of Health.

Reporter Jim Downing wrote that the new pay ranges provide for a possible $508,750 top salary for the positions of chairman and president, up from $412,500. A top range of $332,000 was approved for executives at the next level, up from $270,000, with CIRM's top two attorneys at $277,500, up from $225,000.

The action, taken with little debate by the Oversight Committee does not immediately increase the salary of any employee, however, just the ranges of possible pay.

Downing also reported,

"Directors of federal medical research agencies such as the National Institutes of Health make considerably lower base salaries, according to NIH spokesman Don Ralbovsky, who said he could not immediately provide exact salary information."

Fresh Comment

"Anonymous" has posted a comment on "salaries" item below concerning Wednesday's WARF patent decision. We will have an item on the patent matter later today.

CIRM Salaries Approved Along with Action on 'California Suppliers'

Here some of the highlights from today's meeting of the directors of the California stem cell agency, in addition to the appointment of Marie Csete as chief scientific officer.

They were provided by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, at our request. Simpson attended the session. Here is what he wrote.

"Despite (CIRM General Counsel) Tamar Pachter's recommendation, the board approved the proposed definition of a California supplier after John Valencia, an attorney for Invitrogen, made it clear that this would merely start a 45-day public comment process and the proposed regulation would be subject to change after that period taking comment into account. I was among those speaking in favor of passage.

"After lengthy discussion they adopted the Proposed Tools and Technical RFA with one substantial modification: Companies will be allowed to submit four applications like universities and research institutes. The staff recommendation would have limited companies to two applications.

"The Board also approved revised salary ranges as submitted. Top ranges were trimmed from what had been proposed at governance meeting.

"During public comment I noted that neither (CIRM Chairman Robert) Klein nor (Vice Chairman Ed) Penhoet take a salary and asked if approval of ranges for those positions indicates they intend to take a salary. He responded that after five years not doing so he may have to assess the situation and that it would be up to the board but that he 'knows of no such plans at this time.'"

We are querying Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, specifically what salary ranges were approved.

Simpson also reported that there was little discussion of the biotech loan program and that a policy may be presented in June.