Sunshine and $66 Million in Stem Cell Training Grants

The California stem cell agency is proposing a new, $66 million round of training grants that will reach into the undergraduate level as well as honing the skills of more advanced students and scientists.

The proposals also offer an fine opportunity for CIRM to break out of its usual, closed-door grant review procedures and open the process to overdue public scrutiny.

The training plans will come up next week for conceptual approval at CIRM's Oversight Committee meeting. The proposals include a three-year, $48 million offering aimed at pre-doctoral, postdoctoral and clinical fellow levels. The second, $18 million training plan targets lower academic levels and could involve as many as 100 students over a possible three-year period.

The latest proposals are a continuation of an effort begun in September 2005, when CIRM approved its first-ever grants, $39 million for training 170 scientists over three years. Those grants were reviewed behind closed doors by scientists whose financial interests are not publicly disclosed, an arrangement that has persisted to this day.

Closed door reviews are a long-standing custom in the scientific community. Changing that process is uncomfortable for many. CIRM has argued that the private process is necessary to encourage candid comments from reviewers and to avoid embarrassing rejected applicants. Unspoken is the possibility that disappointed applicants might later vent their displeasure on the CIRM grant reviewers, perhaps by acting negatively on the reviewers' own grant applications before the NIH or other institutions or taking some other professional retaliatory action.

Applications for the CIRM training grants, however, will come from institutions – not individuals. It is very difficult – although probably not impossible – to embarrass, for example, UC Berkeley, especially during a review of an application for a training program.

Some have argued that CIRM should not diverge from NIH closed-door review practices. However, CIRM and the NIH are much different animals. The NIH is subject to control by the president and Congress. CIRM is all but immune from fiddling by the governor and the legislature because it is enshrined in the state Constitution and given special protection under the terms of Prop. 71.

CIRM officials have said that the agency's review process does not need to be changed because no problems have come up. However, an ounce of prevention can help to avoid unexpected scandal. No one last year would have predicted the mess that resulted when one CIRM director intervened with CIRM staff in an attempt to secure a grant to his institution. No one would have predicted that the director's action would come as the result of advice from the chairman of CIRM, who is an attorney intimately familiar with CIRM law and rules.

While its scientific reviews are closed, the stem cell agency has conducted public hearings on the construction phase of applications for $262 million to build stem cell labs. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog, participated in those open sessions.

In response to a query, he said they worked out well. He added,

"The Facilities Working Group review of applications for funding laboratories was public and everyone benefited. The scientific review was secret, implying that it's perfectly OK to embarrass an institution because it can't build a building, but that it's wrong to suggest publicly it can't do decent science.

"It's time to open the closed scientific brotherhood to scrutiny and conduct the scientific reviews of the training programs in public. What do scientists have to hide?"

Earlier this week, Nature magazine warned of "cronyism" at CIRM and called for "strong governance" of the stem cell agency. However, the political realities in California are such that the built-in conflicts of interest on the Oversight Committee are not going to disappear any time soon.

Letting a little sunshine in on this round of training grants would be salutary for CIRM and well serve both its own interests and the interests of the people of California.

More Details Being Posted for CIRM Meeting Next Week

Background material is popping up on the web site for the meeting next week of the directors of the California stem cell agency.

Fresh documents involving the following areas are now up: New scientific reviewers, concept plans for training grants and the grants administration policy for businesses. Also posted were links to recommendations on the applications for $262 million in lab grants. Those were available previously under a different agenda.

Still to come for the meeting, which begins late Tuesday afternoon (roughly three business days from the time of this posting), is background information on the administration policy for the lab grants, the proposal for fast-tracking "urgent" research opportunities, the definition of "California supplier" for CIRM purposes, documents pertaining to equipment funding for the lab grants and recommendations regarding the definition of "principal investigator" and his/her responsibilities.

To find documents and watch for additional postings, just click on the agenda here.

In a related matter, the Pleasanton teleconference location for the Biotech Loan Task Force meeting on Tuesday has been scrubbed.

Correction

In the "Nature Assesses" item below, we incorrectly reported that the CIRM Oversight Committee has never turned down a recommendation for funding by its scientific reviewers. In fact, committee rejected, on a 4-20 vote, a recommended training grant proposal (T3-00005) in its first round of grants Sept. 9, 2005. The grant was given a 70 score out of 100 by reviewers. However, some CIRM Oversight members said they were concerned about the lack of appropriate faculty at the unidentified institution and "under developed" lab space. The actual vote tally on the grant was not announced during the meeting nor in the minutes from the session. Our 4-20 vote count was arrived at by going through the 323-page transcript.

Advisory

In the "Nature Assesses" item we reported that the Oversight Committee has never overturned a positive funding decision by its scientific reviewers. A reader (not a CIRM official) recalls that, in fact, one was overturned in the first round of grants in September 2005. We are attempting to verify that.

Niche Comments on CIRM Conflicts

The Niche stem cell blog today picked up on the the Nature coverage of the California stem cell agency and briefly discussed the conflict of issues that are built -- by law -- into the $3 billion government program.

Monya Baker, whose blog is part of Nature Reports Stem Cells, wrote:

"What does seem unique to CIRM are the multiple sources of 'two-masters' tension: it must support basic science and clinical applications ( see my interview with Marie Csete) ; it must succor biotech companies but make sure that patients and other scientists can access their technology (see my article on CIRM grants to businesses ). Even its organizational structure is split. (See my article on CIRM’s search for a president .)

"I’ve asked CIRM officials about this before. I’m told that such strains are indeed difficult to balance, but done right they are a source of strength. I’ve asked non-CIRM experts about it too. They tell me it’s easy to make bad investments in hot new fields, but good ideas often wither early because they can’t prove their worth. And I've asked everyone whether CIRM’s funds are a good use of money, and they say what journalists hate to hear: time will tell."

CIRM's Biotech Loan Terms and Policy To Be Aired

The California stem cell agency is edging closer to creation of a roughly $500 million biotech loan program that promises to help stem cell firms survive the financial "valley of death" and prolong CIRM's life.

The Biotech Loan Task Force will meet next Tuesday in Los Angeles to hammer out loan terms and policy, aided by a $50,000 study from PricewaterhouseCoopers(here and here). The task force is scheduled to report to CIRM directors at their meeting, also next week.

The biotech loan proposal is aimed at helping enterprises bridge a funding gap known as the "valley of death" -- so called because it is a time in a company's life when conventional funding is extremely difficult to find because of the financial risk involved.

Results from the PricewaterhouseCoopers sketch out more details of the possible scope of the program, which is the brainchild of CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, a multimillionaire real estate investment banker who understands the power of leveraging cash.

The document seems to indicate that the size of the program has been scaled down to $500 million from the $750 million figure that Klein gave us months ago. It also appears to project a "profit" of about $162 million, although it is not clear whether that figure is before or after expenses for running the loan program are accounted for.

The additional funds could provide for a longer life for CIRM, which was sold to voters in 2004 as a 10-year program. However, following the election, it became clear that the program has no sunset date. It is only limited by its 10-year bond authorization.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report projects default rates in the loan program ranging from 20 percent on certain types of loans to as high as 50 percent on loans involving preclinical programs. A footnote says that based on comments by venture capitalists and venture capitalist lenders, those default rates seem "reasonable."

The size of loans would range from $1 to $5 million and have an interest rate based on the prime interest rate plus two to four percent. Twenty to 25 loans would be funded annually for a total each year of about $70 million. Awards would be based on the project's "contribution to medicine" as determined by the closed-door CIRM grant review process. Both businesses and nonprofits would eligible, according to previous task force discussions.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers study also mentioned objections from some of the businesses surveyed. They include proposed loan sizes (too small) and problems with aggressive repayment triggers("highly contested").

Not discussed in the study was just exactly how CIRM would run the program. The agency has no expertise in such an endeavor, aside from possibly Klein, whose professional resume includes real estate investment but not much in biotech venture capital endeavors. He has suggested much of the program could be outsourced.

A March draft policy for the program says that the loan applications would evaluated by CIRM staff (presumably new hires under Klein's direction), "supported by appropriate outside consultants."

However in January, former interim CIRM President Richard Murphy told the task force,

"I think the notion that all of this would be evaluated by CIRM staff is really overshooting. As you know, we're limited to 50 people in the organization. We would need to have real partnerships somewhere to be able to do this in a way that these guys would buy into as partners. I suspect that cannot be done in-house, at least with our present structure."

Hiring outside consultants also raises questions involving their compensation, selection and conflicts of interests. Currently CIRM rules do not necessarily require public disclosure of the financial interests of consultants.

A caveat to our readers: The PricewaterhouseCoopers study is fairly technical and opaque to readers not versed in business finance. It would have served the agency well to have provided an analysis or more context to provide greater accessibility.

In addition to the Los Angeles meeting location, you can participate in the meeting at teleconference locations in Menlo Park and Pleasanton. The addresses are on the agenda.

Trounson Speaks Tonight in San Francisco

Alan Trounson, the president of the California stem cell agency, will speak tonight in San Francisco as part of a panel on the "Chances and Challenges" of stem cell research sponsored by the German-American Business Association. The program begins at 7 p.m. at Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market Street, 34th floor, San Francisco. It includes a question and answer session. Admission is $50.00 and includes refreshments.

'Nature' Assesses CIRM, Warns of Conflicts of Interest

Nature magazine took a run at the California stem cell agency today, producing a fine overview and an editorial that warned of "cronyism" on its board of directors.

The occasion for the coverage is the upcoming approval next week of $262 million in funding for stem cell lab construction, an event that is likely to trigger a number of articles about CIRM in the California media and perhaps nationally.

The article by Erika Check Hayden recapped the history of tiny organization (staff about 26) and said,

"If $3 billion seemed like a dream four years ago, it is now a reality that is changing not only the way science is done in California, but is resonating across the US biomedical landscape."

Nature highlighted some of the conflict of interest problems on the Oversight Committee, as CIRM's board of directors is known. Its editorial said,

"Several episodes over the past year have highlighted an inherent problem with the CIRM's structure: the board that distributes its funding is stacked with representatives from the universities that benefit most from those disbursements. The CIRM has enacted rules to try to limit the conflicts of interest posed by this arrangement. They don't go far enough. At one meeting in January, for instance, CIRM board members from institutions that had applied for a facilities grant voted to deny one of these grants to an institution that has no representatives on the CIRM board."

The editorial continued,

"For the agency to succeed, patient advocates and other public representatives must fight the tendency of the academic institutions on the board to hoard dollars. As the patient advocates grow into their roles as full partners, and with help from well-intentioned lawmakers such as (State Sen. Sheila)Kuehl, the CIRM must be coaxed into serving its most important constituency — the taxpayers of California. The roles themselves are not unusual in the world of governance, but here the stakes are exceptionally high."

Hayden's overview said,

"...(E)ven as the agency is changing California's scientific outlook, it is also facing pressure to prove its worth to voters — and to show that it can deliver the medical and economic benefits it promised in order to convince taxpayers to fund it in the first place. Which raises the biggest question about the CIRM: will scientists be able to deliver the results it promised? This is an urgent concern for the leaders of the CIRM, because it won the hearts of California voters by saying it would produce cures for a number of debilitating diseases."

Hayden discussed legislation by Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, as one of the responses to the questions about delivering on Prop. 71 campaign promises.

Hayden also wrote about the recent complaints that CIRM overstated its funding role in UCSD research that has led to clinical trials and about the conflict-of-interest flap involving CIRM director John Reed. Both cases were first reported by the California Stem Cell Report, a fact that Nature did not mention, but media coverage of CIRM was incidental to the article.

Hayden continued:

"...CIRM's structure has, at times, seemed to hamper its own mission. That was painfully evident at a meeting in January, when one doctor found himself begging for funding from 13 board members who were competing directly against him for money."

As we reported in January, Bert Lubin(see photo), head of the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, unsuccessfully appealed a negative recommendation by scientific reviewers to the full Oversight Committee, which has final say on grants. (The committee has reversed a positive recommendation for funding once (Sept. 9,2005) and never reversed, as far as we can recall, a do-not-fund decision by scientific reviewers.)

Lubin told Nature,

"We're not in the 'in' crowd. So a project that was really going to go into patients was essentially triaged."

The Nature article said,

"The episode is only one in a series of incidents that have raised questions about the wisdom of putting the institutions that benefit from the CIRM in charge of governing it."

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly said the Oversight Committee has never reversed a positive recommendation for funding. In fact, committee rejected, on a 4-20 vote, a recommended training grant proposal (T3-00005) in its first round of grants Sept. 9, 2005. The grant was given a 70 score out of 100 by reviewers. However, some CIRM Oversight members said they were concerned about the lack of appropriate faculty at the unidentified institution and "under developed" lab space. The actual vote tally on the grant was not announced during the meeting nor in the minutes from the session. Our 4-20 vote count was arrived at by going through the 323-page transcript).

Coming Up

Our promised look at the latest details of CIRM's biotech bank proposal has been delayed because of technical problems, but will be forthcoming later today. Also upcoming is a look at Nature magazine pieces about CIRM, including an editorial warning about "cronyism."

CIRM Unveils More Details on Biotech Loan Program

For those of you interested in the ambitious and unusual biotech loan program being proposed by the California stem cell agency, the topic comes up again on next Tuesday.

The agency has done a good job of posting in timely fashion background material -- a $50,000 study performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

We will have some of the highlights tomorrow, but if you can't wait, you can find the material and the agenda for the CIRM Biotech Loan Task Force here.

If you are considering borrowing from the agency or just have concerns, now is the time to weigh in, either at the meeting or in writing to CIRM.

More Than $262 Million On CIRM Table Next Week

In eight days, the California stem cell agency will give away $262 million for stem cell lab construction at 12 institutions from Sacramento to La Jolla.

But the CIRM Oversight Committee will have other important matters to deal with as well on May 6 and 7. According to its recently posted agenda, they include:

-- Fast-tracking urgent or opportune research opportunities

-- Appointment of new scientific grant reviewers

-- Proposals for grant programs for scientific and technical training

-- The biotech loan program

-- Rules for grants to businesses

-- Changes to rules for the lab grants

-- Equipment funding for the labs (this is separate from the building grants)

-- And defining "principal investigator" and his/her responsibilities re CIRM grants.

Also on the agenda is the definition of "California supplier." This came up at the March ICOC meeting and is the subject of a proposed law -- AB2381 by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-San Mateo (see photo) -- in the California legislature.

The bill would define California supplier for CIRM purposes as "any sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, corporation, or other business entity, the owners or policymaking officers of which are domiciled in California and whose permanent, principal office or place of business from which the supplier's trade is directed or managed is located in California."

The measure is sponsored by Invitrogen and backed by the California biotech industry group, BIOCOM. A legislative staff analysis said no groups had announced their opposition. The measure is now on the Assembly floor. If it passes, it will go to the Senate.

But back to the Oversight Committee meeting. The agency has not yet posted any background documents for the session, which is par for the course. We will probably see some of them on the CIRM web site late this week or early next. But as we have remarked in the past, without adequate information well ahead of the meeting, it is impossible for the public or interested parties to comment properly or even decide whether to attend the meeting.

This week, the agency does have some justification for failing to post the documents in a timely fashion. Preparation for consideration of the lab grant awards is undoubtedly consuming virtually all the efforts of CIRM's tiny staff.

The Oversight Committee will meet at the posh Luxe Hotel near Bel-Air in Los Angeles. The hotel is five minutes away from UCLA, where the committee has held sessions as well. The panel has met previously several times at the Luxe, whose web site declares, "There's Luxury, Then There's the Luxe."

Fresh Comment

Larry Ebert of the IPBiz blog has posted a comment on the item below. We have posted a response.

Were Some Scientists' Concerns about CIRM's Claims Worthy of Note?

If the California stem cell agency had its druthers, no one would know that there is a dissenting view about its role in the San Diego research that led to clinical trials on a treatment for a blood disorder.

The $3 billion agency has stoutly defended its claim and bolstered its statement with additional evidence, following questions by the California Stem Cell Report.

However, the agency would have preferred that no complaints were publicly raised and nothing written about them if they were.

We first reported the matter on April 15. We are writing today not to rehash the substance of the complaints, but to share with our readers some of the reasoning behind our decision to report the story and to discuss a few of the nuances of how the media work.

CIRM's position is that our item concerning CIRM's original statement relied on a single, anonymous source and would not have been carried by most newspapers. They are partially correct on that point. We did use one anonymous source – "at least one well-regarded, California stem cell researcher" was the phrasing. We had two, but the other one did not go into the details of the issue. We did not want to characterize both as having identical positions. The item also referred to "concerns among some stem cell scientists." But because of the use of a single, anonymous source, many newspapers would not have carried the story as matter of policy.

Anonymous sources usually have an agenda, sometimes one that is hard to detect. Anonymity protects the source from having to take public responsibility for his or her words. We weighed the possibility of not writing about the concerns of these scientists, but decided to proceed.

The scientists' position was supported by evidence; it was not just one person's opinion. If these two were concerned, undoubtedly many others were as well. There is an axiom in business that for every one complaining customer, nine more exist who are unhappy but who are silent. That axiom seems to apply in this case. Finally, California researchers are loath to publicly criticize CIRM. Who wants to offend the three-billion-pound gorilla and risk losing its financial support?

The question appeared significant as a part of the culture of science. It dealt with the credibility of the agency. CIRM's role was regarded as so important that it merited enthusiastic comment from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- a move presumably promoted by CIRM. The issue also went to the more general question of hype involving embryonic stem cell research. The agency itself, stem cell research advocates and opponents all have warned repeatedly about dangers of exaggeration and promising too much in this highly charged field.

Since the story has appeared, we have learned of more scientists who agree with the essential points made by our sources.

One said,

"The problem with the original CIRM (statement) is that it referred to the SEED grant, which was funded only weeks before the paper was submitted and dealt with an entirely different disease and... was specified by the RFA to be specifically for human embryonic stem cells which are not at all involved in the UCSD experiments....

"They (CIRM) did overstate it and ... it is embarrassing that the Governor's office picked this up as a first example of CIRM's success. It would have been much better to say that CIRM is proud to be associated with such an outstanding success and to feature something about the trainee."

Another said,

"It does all of us a disservice to pretend that CIRM was responsible for the initiation of a clinical trial when every scientist and biotech manager knows that it is simply untrue."

As mentioned earlier, many newspapers would not have carried the story because of policies regarding the use of anonymous sources. Over decades of experience as a newspaper editor and reporter, we have seen those policies, along with others, paralyze newspapers. They know a story is factually accurate, but because people are afraid to speak up and the subjects of stories stonewall and delay, the stories never run. As a result, the public debate suffers. In the case of the CIRM statement, however, the story would not have reached that level. The subject would not have been pursued by mainstream newspapers because it would have have been deemed too arcane and picayune for the general public. However, the issues raised by our sources are important to our tiny, but deeply involved band of readers, who range from Korea to the United Kingdom.

The California Stem Cell Report is a blog and fundamentally a matter of the opinion of yours truly. Many blogs are nothing more than opinion. Over the years, however, we have taken to reporting stem cell news in a more traditional fashion because of the lack of hard information in the media about CIRM affairs. We have also engaged in analysis and commented negatively and positively about how CIRM is spending $3 billion of public money, virtually free from normal governmental oversight. It is a unique endeavor that has had a far-reaching and positive impact on the national and international stem cell scene.

We think California's unprecedented program is worthy of considerable attention. We will continue to offer a home to those who are willing to make thoughtful comments on its performance – even anonymously.

(We provided an advance copy of this commentary to CIRM and told the agency that we would carry its comments verbatim, if it chooses to offer any. Providing advance copies of articles and offering opportunities for verbatim responses are virtually unheard in the mainstream media.)

Fresh Links

We have added The Niche and Nature Reports Stem Cells to the links on this Web site, a long overdue addition. They are very much worth reading. We have also updated the link to Consumer Watchdog(formerly known as the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights).

Please let us know if you know of Web sites that you would like to see added as links.

Growing an Arm, a Leg and an Ear

Some of you may have wondered about the "Veterans for Cures" effort by Robert Klein's private advocacy group mentioned in the item below.

Here is what it is likely linked to – a $250 million military effort to grow body parts or at least the thinking behind it.

U.S. Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker (see Defense Department photo above) earlier this month told reporters about how researchers are growing a new ear for a Marine, using stem cells from his own body. Reporter Lisa Burgess of Stars and Stripes reported that the Schoomaker said,

"It's like baking a cake."

So far none of the military cash is slated to go to California, but that could change as researchers here see the potential for grant funding.

Here is another piece on the Defense Department program on a blog by a Belgium consulting firm, Pantopicon.

Fresh Comment

Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society has left a new comment on the Flamm item below. Among other things, she says there were a number of concerns with the Cha grant that were not mentioned in the item about Flamm. She is absolutely correct. We also did not mention that CIRM's scientific reviewers had no idea of the controversy surrounding Cha when they approved the grant. The scientific reviewers knew the name of the applying organization at the time of the review but it was kept secret from CIRM directors when they later ratified the reviewers' decision in public session. That secrecy is part of the official CIRM process. One CIRM official told us later that the Cha grant would not have been approved by the scientific panel if they had been informed of the controversy.

Klein's Private Group Plans Expanded National Stem Cell Push

Americans for Cures, the private stem cell activist group tied to the chairman of California's governmental stem cell agency, is embarking on a new, 50-state strategy to beef up efforts to "pass pro-cures legislation and defeat anti-cures legislation."

The advocacy group, which says that it does not perform lobbying, says it is setting up affiliates in each state and wants to hear from persons who want to help out (write inform@americansforcures.org).

Complete details for the national effort are being worked out, but Americans for Cures plans to create a Web page for each state affiliate (here is a sample) along with a rundown on the status of research and that state's laws. The affiliate would be "a single point of contact in each state, and may be one person or a group. That point will be the ‘network hub' for stem cell advocacy, to keep us informed, and to organize in the affiliate state," the co-directors of the group, Amy Daly and Constance McKee, said in an email to their supporters.

The group is also planning a "Students for Cures" group and a "Veterans for Cures" group.

The chairman of CIRM, Robert Klein, is also president of Americans for Cures, which operates out of the offices of his real estate investment banking firm. It is unusual for a top state official to lead a group that solicits possibly tax-deductible contributions and attempts to influence government policy and legislation in the same area as his agency. More than one critic has called on him to resign from one of the posts.

(On a slightly different subject, Americans for Cures' new website has some videos involving persons with a variety of ailments. We watched the Alzheimers segment. It was quite powerful.)

San Diego UT: Down with Gliders, Up with ESC

"Lamentable in the extreme" – that's how the San Diego Union-Tribune characterizes the opposition of glider airplane fans to the $115 million stem cell research facility proposed in La Jolla.

The lab is being planned by the San Diego Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, which wants $50 million from the California stem cell agency to help build it.

An editorial in the San Diego paper this week cited the "enormous potential" for development of therapies at the laboratory and said,

"It would be a tragedy of enormous proportions if glider advocates succeeded in snuffing out this promising initiative."

It should be noted that embryonic stem cell research is a hot issue in the San Diego area, which has a strong, conservative element. The newspaper's editorial on behalf of the consortium did not contain the word "embryonic," which we assume is deliberate, although the newspaper has supported embryonic stem cell research in the past.

The editorial also contained more details on the opposition. It said:

"The Associated Glider Clubs of Southern California and the Torrey Pines Soaring Council are attempting to kill the project because it would be built on North Torrey Pines Road near the Torrey Pines Gliderport(see photos from the Associated Glider Clubs). The unpaved airstrip, on land owned by UCSD, is used intermittently by glider pilots, while a larger number of hang-gliders use the nearby cliffs to launch into flight over the Pacific.

"The new research lab, about 60 feet tall, would have no impact on the hang-gliders. But there is fierce disagreement over whether it would interfere with conventional glider operations, which are relatively few and scattered throughout the year.

"Opponents claim the new building would force closure of the gliderport, an assertion they also made unsuccessfully in their bid to prevent UCSD from building a 14-story dormitory on a nearby parcel. Supporters of the lab point out, however, that it would be no taller than the surrounding eucalyptus trees, which glider pilots have been negotiating for years. An environmental impact report compiled for UCSD concludes the lab would not prompt the end of glider operations, but that it could require pilots to alter their flight patterns. In the end, both the California Coasstal Commission and Caltrans' aeronautic division must issue permits for the lab's construction."

The newspaper also printed two letters concerning the project , including one from Rolf Schulze, president of the Associated Glider Clubs of Southern California. He commented on the meeting Monday night on the environmental impact report for the laboratory, which the newspaper did not cover. Schulze said:

"Some speakers in opposition to the location of the stem cell facility not only mentioned their vote for the stem cell initiative in 2004 but also their personal interest in the anticipated benefits of such research due to their own, or a relative's illness, which could perhaps be cured.

"UCSD owns many other nearby sections of land that would be even more suitable for the stem cell facility, while not resulting in the destruction of a world-renowned and historic aviation facility used by Charles Lindbergh and many other aviation pioneers."

Chippewa to San Francisco: The $758 Million Stem Cell Media Challenge

The Associated Press files stories every day to 1,700 newspapers and 5,000 radio and television outlets in the United States. So when it reports on California stem cell news, the stories have an impact – one that goes well beyond, shall we say, the surf-scrubbed sands of La Jolla.

The case in point is an article by reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune, the most diligent biotech reporter in the state. She writes more often on biotech and stem cell research than any other newspaper reporter in the state.

But her stories usually are only seen – at least the print versions -- in San Diego, far from the key East Coast news axis of New York and Washington, D.C.

However, she wrote Sunday about a $115 million stem cell research complex proposed in La Jolla – a structure that could be funded with as much as $50 million from the California stem cell agency.

The AP decided to pick up the story – rewrite it in a much shorter version, but without crediting Somers or the San Diego paper – a standard and legal practice for the news service. The AP then sent the story out across a good portion of the globe. It appeared on websites of more than 100 news outlets ranging from Dallas to the UK. Time magazine carried it as did ABC, CBS, Forbes, the Washington Times, an Arizona TV station, a Florida newspaper, CTV in Canada, FoxNews, not to mention the Chippewa Herald in Wisconsin.

The AP missed the much larger story – that the California stem cell agency is about to set off a $758 million, stem-cell-lab-building spree, the likes of which have never been seen before in this country. But that is not to disrespect The AP, but to explain a little bit about how news works.

It takes a lot to push a story out into the national or international market. It also takes luck and receptive reporters and editors. The California stem cell agency, however, has a chance to make major headlines come May 6 when it approves a couple hundred millions of dollars to help build those nearly three-quarter-of-a-billion dollars in labs.

But CIRM can only do it by starting to prime the news pump now, alerting key reporters and editors and providing them in advance with the background needed to make sense out of a somewhat complex process: Photos, drawings, map and chart material, good quotes (not the gobbledygook that sometimes comes out of the mouths of some top CIRM officials) and referrals to knowledgeable and friendly third party experts who can explain the significance of the effort in language that readers can understand.

In California, the mainstream media has so far successfully largely ignored the lab grant program, with the notable exception of Somers. Ironically, the San Diego project, while quite substantial, is not the largest. Stanford has proposed a $200 million stem cell research center. The San Francisco Bay area altogether could see something like $400 million in stem cell lab construction if the visions dancing in the heads of the scientists materialize. But nary a peep about the magnitude of the program has been seen in the mainstream media in Northern California.

Meanwhile, Somers, who like most reporters is undoubtedly underpaid and under-appreciated, will have to be satisfied with the psychic reward of seeing her work spread, albeit anonymously, throughout the world.

Fresh Comment

A statement from Kwang-Yul Cha's attorney has been posted as a "comment" on the Flamm item below.