Thursday, July 03, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Video Overview of CIRM: From Bob Klein to Stem Cell Beneficiaries
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Consumer Watchdog group, and yours truly participated in a video teleconference interview earlier today with Marc Strassman of the Etopia News Channel concerning the California stem cell agency.
The nearly 44-minute session includes a discussion of CIRM's accomplishments, some of its problems, intellectual property issues, Prop. 71 campaign promises, the possible salary for CIRM Chairman Robert Klein and much more.
You can see it all right here.
The nearly 44-minute session includes a discussion of CIRM's accomplishments, some of its problems, intellectual property issues, Prop. 71 campaign promises, the possible salary for CIRM Chairman Robert Klein and much more.
You can see it all right here.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
CIRM Salary Freeze: Sharing the Pain
The California stem cell agency's budget contained a little surprise last week – one that was not contained in the proposed spending plan presented to its Finance Subcommittee.
The proposal for the fiscal year that began today imposes a salary freeze through December. It is not a move that is financially necessary at the $3 billion agency, but one designed to show CIRM's fiscal responsiveness.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Consumer Watchdog group, commented on the freeze, which CIRM executives said the staff had agreed to. Simpson wrote on his group's blog:
Simpson said that CIRM could go a little farther, demonstrating true fiscal leadership and cut by 10 percent the salary of any CIRM staffer making more than $190,000 a year.
Our take? With 10 years experience as business editor of a large daily newspaper and roughly that many years also as labor union representative, I am skeptical of salary freezes. They disproportionately affect employees at the lower pay scales, who have more difficult economic times, particularly with today's rising energy and food costs.
In the case of CIRM, the staff really has no choice concerning the freeze. Management wants it. Drag your feet, and you are not a team player or worse.
CIRM staffers are relatively well-paid by state standards so a case can be made that a freeze is reasonable. Symbols are powerful. An even more powerful symbol – a 10 percent pay cut for CIRM execs -- is suggested by Simpson, but we suspect that will remain a suggestion – not a reality.
The proposal for the fiscal year that began today imposes a salary freeze through December. It is not a move that is financially necessary at the $3 billion agency, but one designed to show CIRM's fiscal responsiveness.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Consumer Watchdog group, commented on the freeze, which CIRM executives said the staff had agreed to. Simpson wrote on his group's blog:
"This is a sensible PR gesture by an agency who's leadership too frequently in the past has not seemed to understand that it is part of state government. Kudos for the step."Simpson continued:
"It's difficult to know the exact financial impact. The proposed fiscal 2008-09 budget includes $250,000 for merit and cost-of-living increases. How much of that falls in this calendar year and how much comes in 2009 is not clear.The reason for freeze? To show "solidarity" with the rest of the state and share the pain of the fiscal extremis in which California finds itself.
"Nonetheless -- as with many things in life -- it's the thought that counts . And this was a good one."
Simpson said that CIRM could go a little farther, demonstrating true fiscal leadership and cut by 10 percent the salary of any CIRM staffer making more than $190,000 a year.
Our take? With 10 years experience as business editor of a large daily newspaper and roughly that many years also as labor union representative, I am skeptical of salary freezes. They disproportionately affect employees at the lower pay scales, who have more difficult economic times, particularly with today's rising energy and food costs.
In the case of CIRM, the staff really has no choice concerning the freeze. Management wants it. Drag your feet, and you are not a team player or worse.
CIRM staffers are relatively well-paid by state standards so a case can be made that a freeze is reasonable. Symbols are powerful. An even more powerful symbol – a 10 percent pay cut for CIRM execs -- is suggested by Simpson, but we suspect that will remain a suggestion – not a reality.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Cascade LifeSciences Critiques CIRM Grant Review Process; Questions Raised about Fairness and Facts
Cascade LifeSciences of San Diego is one of the few companies to appear at a meeting of the board of directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency in connection with rejection of its grant application.
Kenneth Woolcott, chief business officer of the firm, expressed dismay last Thursday night concerning CIRM's scientific grant review process. Among other things, he said that reviewers appeared not to have read the application very carefully.
Following the meeting, we emailed him and asked if he would like to comment further with an eye to making constructive suggestions for changes in the review process. We are asking CIRM if it has any comment on Woolcott's remarks, the text of which follows:
Kenneth Woolcott, chief business officer of the firm, expressed dismay last Thursday night concerning CIRM's scientific grant review process. Among other things, he said that reviewers appeared not to have read the application very carefully.
Following the meeting, we emailed him and asked if he would like to comment further with an eye to making constructive suggestions for changes in the review process. We are asking CIRM if it has any comment on Woolcott's remarks, the text of which follows:
"We were disappointed by the CIRM review and discouraged by the process. I trust that the agency and the applicants will evolve favorably with experience. As our distinguished Gov would say..............'We'll be Back.'
"Our real hope is that through expressing our concerns we will be able to make industry (For Profit) a viable partner in the mission of Prop. 71.
"The mission statement of Prop. 71 makes very clear that although science is a laudable goal it is not the end game. Products that treat, cure, or enhance our lives are the end game. Fast forward 10 to 15 years and I would like to be so bold as to suggest that the ultimate arbiter of the success of CIRM or Prop 71 will be PRODUCTS. Not research achievements, not publications, not patents, not even Nobel Prizes. All of these will advance our efforts and are important metrics and may even contribute to the economy of California. But John Q. Public will only benefit directly by the development of innovative stem cell related PRODUCTS that I believe will change medical approaches to disease in fundamental ways.
"I am a lawyer and the CBO of Cascade LifeSciences, but I am also a taxpayer. I also have an industry bias cultivated over 20 years with two of the San Diego biotech pioneers, Hybritech and IDEC. What I know about stem cells I have learned, what I know about product development I have lived.
"I believe industry and CIRM share the goal of product development. Although cutting edge science and academic excellence are part of the goal, we believe that industry must be the conduit through which PRODUCT run the clinical, regulatory and marketplace gauntlet.
--------
(Editor's note: Here is a brief sketch of the firm provided by Woolcott.)
"Cascade LifeSciences
"Founded 2007
"San Diego, CA
"Howard Birndorf, Chairman
"Kenneth Woolcott, Chief Business Officer
"Sophia Khaldoyanidi, Ph.D, MD , Chief Scientific Officer
"Larry Respess, General Counsel
"Exclusive Licensee of Novel SCNT technology developed at Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) and published in Nature, Nov 2007. (First successfully SCNT in Primates)
"Dr. S. Mitalipov , inventor of SCNT patents and consultant on human SCNT effort.
----------
"Our Expectation
(Editor's note: Woolcott's detailed comments follow.)
"CIRM RFA 07-05: New Cell Line Awards
"Page 1, Program Objectives --'Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), a method for reprogramming that is well-established in several mammalian species, has not yet been achieved with human cells, but recent success has been reported in non-human primates.' [This is Dr. Mitalipov's work published in Nature and exclusively licensed by Cascade]
"Page 2. 'The needs may in the future be met by derivation of hESC following SCNT...'
"Page 2. 'CIRM proposes a new program to address the need for new types and sources of human pluripotent stem cell lines and for the optimization of existing methods for their derivation"
"Cascades Reasoned Expectation:
"Translation of our SCNT primate work into the SCNT generation of hESC is right in the 'strike zone' of the RFA. We were very pleased the CIRM had seen the wisdom of opening up the grant process to industry to help fund this critically important translational research that can neither be funded by the NIH nor is of interest to all but a very few private investors.
"Cascades Competitive Appreciation.
"iPS is a very important scientific avenue of research but SCNT is a very competitive alternative especially for PRODUCTS that are intended for human use.
"Cascades Experience with the Grant Review
"Grant review comments were factually incorrect. Not a matter of subjective scientific debate. Hence, the conclusions were fundamentally flawed. For example, reviewer #1 comment was 'lack of novelty, pure translation of the non-human primate work into humans.' This seems to defy logic and the mission of human therapeutics. Moreover, this does not seem to be consistent with the objectives published by CIRM in its RFA, which specifically calls out the 'hurdle' of human SCNT as a fundable goal.
"A second example of a reviewer's factual error is the comment 'The ability to generate individualized human embryonic stem cell lines using somatic cell nuclear transfer from either healthy individuals or patients with specific disease states is an exciting and yet technically demanding prospect. To date, no one has successfully cloned human embryonic stem cells, although recently, a group at University of Oregon Heath Sciences Center has successfully derived primate embryonic stem cells, with an efficiency of approximately 0.3[s1] %.' This is factually incorrect at two levels and we are unsure of where the reviewer got the 0.3% efficiency rate. Our November 2007 Nature paper calls out 0.66% efficiency at page 497. Our grant application (filed Jan 2008) describes in detail at page 8, Confidential, non-published information, 'These results represent a significant reduction in the number of oocytes required to produce a single ESC line over previously reported efficiency (from 152 to 30) providing the important foundation to conduct the proposed studies in humans.' One ESC out of 30 oocytes is actually 3.3%.
"As we all know development of therapeutics for the monkey population is a very low margin business. [Sorry could not resist]
"Moreover, at the CIRM IROC meeting Dr. Uta Grieshammer, specifically presented the review committees grant criteria and noted specifically that the review team was advise that 'novelty' was NOT a priority for these types of grants. Also at the meeting, Dr. Trounson announced that no SCNT grants had been made due to some sort of vague policy concern about access to human oocytes and the challenges this had created in other countries. First, this was 'moving the goal posts' after we had submitted our grant application. Second, we appreciate the challenge of securing oocytes but we at Cascade had been fortunate enough to secure commitment from LJ IVF clinic to supply all the oocytes we need to proceed with our effort. Moreover, if this was truly the reason for flagging our grant application as non fundable, CIRM should have just told us that in writing and explain how they were going to proceed, if at all, in the area of SCNT.
"We filed a formal request to rebut the conclusions and comments of the reviews but were told there was no such process. We now understand that after our departure on Thursday, Rusty Gage, one of our esteemed colleagues here in San Diego was allowed to rebut reviewer comments and did receive funding. We are unclear on how this rebuttal process works and why we were denied any opportunity to dialogue on the merits.
"We are now told that my discussion at CIRM was flawed because I did not address the mistake regarding efficiency of our SCNT. This is unfortunate, as we were told our request for rebuttal was rejected and that we were not allowed to discuss the merit or lack of merit of the specific review of our application but our 3 minutes was limited to expressing our concerns about the process and our suggestions for improvement from an industry perspective.
"How did this happen? Mistake? Miscommunication? Misunderstanding? Bias?
"Suggestions and Action Items for Consideration
"Industry representation on CIRM grant review teams
"Formal appeal process or ability to respond in writing to reviewer comments. See, SBIR, STTR, NIH funding for models of review cycles.
"Holding the review team to the published review criteria--e.g., in this RFA, novelty is not a priority criteria.
"One of the review criteria should always be the impact of the research on the advancement of human product development.
"If the Rusty Gage review reconsideration is as I understand it, it seems that there is one set of rules for a deservingly prominent scientist and a different set of rules for Cascade LifeSciences. We also filed a letter with CIRM asking for the opportunity to comment on our grant review and were denied. This seems, without more complete information, to be unfair.
"Perhaps separate academic/not-for-profit grant application review from for profit review. Comparing not-for-profit grants (institutions that are grant writing machines) with the grant applications of fledgling biotech companies is fundamentally unfair. Anyone who knows me will tell you I am a basketball fan. Using that sport as an analogy, this is like the USA basketball team of young college players competing against the Soviet National Team of grown men that had played together for four years. We all know how that worked out.
"Although I believe that industry is a key element of product development, and we desire to work with CIRM to advance the cause, if their funding criteria or standards are inconsistent with industry participation or pragmatic product development, we need to know that earlier rather than later.
"I am personally and professionally committed to assist CIRM in making industry an equal partner in achieving the mission of Prop. 71. I would look for guidance from the ICOC (CIRM's board of directors) on how we can work through some of these administrative and structural challenges.
"Hope this helps. It is a complex issue for industry as well as for CIRM."
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Novocell First Business to Score CIRM Cash
The California stem cell agency chalked up a couple of firsts this past week.
The agency approved its first grant to a California business and its first grants for research into the area of reprogramming adult stem cells.
Novocell of San Diego, Ca., won the business grant. The amount was small -- $48,950. It went for a disease team planning effort.
Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote:
Several directors have noted in the past that it is companies that most directly bring therapies to the marketplace – not academic institutions.
Coming up, however, are other rounds of grants where businesses can compete against nonprofit and academic institutions for California cash. They include the $20 million tools and technology round. CIRM received 140 letters of intent to apply for those grants, including 50 from businesses.
Earlier this year, news of successful research involving reprogramming adult stem cells triggered questions about whether CIRM could or would fund grants in that area. Prop. 71 tilts CIRM's priorities heavily towards hESC research, but it has always had the capability of funding stem cell research in whatever area it desires.
Proof that came on Thursday when CIRM's board of directors ratified decisions to fund a number applications involving reprograming.
The agency approved its first grant to a California business and its first grants for research into the area of reprogramming adult stem cells.
Novocell of San Diego, Ca., won the business grant. The amount was small -- $48,950. It went for a disease team planning effort.
Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote:
"Novocell's Chief Science Officer Edward Baetge will lead a team that will receive a $48,950 planning grant to chart a course for tackling diabetes. The company has shown it can coax stem cells to develop into insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. The team will seek a larger grant to purify the cells and scale up production of them so they can be moved into clinical trials."Some of the folks at CIRM and on its board of directors had to be disappointed that more companies did not receive positive funding decisions from the Grants Working Group. Twelve companies had applied for the new cell grants and nine for the disease team grants.
Several directors have noted in the past that it is companies that most directly bring therapies to the marketplace – not academic institutions.
Coming up, however, are other rounds of grants where businesses can compete against nonprofit and academic institutions for California cash. They include the $20 million tools and technology round. CIRM received 140 letters of intent to apply for those grants, including 50 from businesses.
Earlier this year, news of successful research involving reprogramming adult stem cells triggered questions about whether CIRM could or would fund grants in that area. Prop. 71 tilts CIRM's priorities heavily towards hESC research, but it has always had the capability of funding stem cell research in whatever area it desires.
Proof that came on Thursday when CIRM's board of directors ratified decisions to fund a number applications involving reprograming.
Meager Coverage of CIRM Meeting
News coverage appeared light this morning of the two-day meeting of the California stem cell agency and its approval of $24 million in research grants.
We detected only four stories, two in daily newspapers and two in business journals. All were written by reporters who did not attend the meeting Thursday and Friday in Burlingame, Ca., which is located souith of San Francisco.
Given the largely routine nature of meeting, the scope of the coverage was not surprising. Mainstream media are also facing an economic squeeze that has resulted in coverage cutbacks.
Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune had the lengthiest piece, which focused on the $5 million in grants to enterprises in her area in Southern California. She wrote that Novocell of San Diego was the first company to receive research funds from CIRM.
Steve Johnson had a brief piece in the San Jose Mercury News that said that slightly more than half the grants went to San Francisco Bay area institutions.
The other stories appeared in the East Bay Business Times (San Francisco Bay area publication) and the San Diego Business Journal.
We detected only four stories, two in daily newspapers and two in business journals. All were written by reporters who did not attend the meeting Thursday and Friday in Burlingame, Ca., which is located souith of San Francisco.
Given the largely routine nature of meeting, the scope of the coverage was not surprising. Mainstream media are also facing an economic squeeze that has resulted in coverage cutbacks.
Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune had the lengthiest piece, which focused on the $5 million in grants to enterprises in her area in Southern California. She wrote that Novocell of San Diego was the first company to receive research funds from CIRM.
Steve Johnson had a brief piece in the San Jose Mercury News that said that slightly more than half the grants went to San Francisco Bay area institutions.
The other stories appeared in the East Bay Business Times (San Francisco Bay area publication) and the San Diego Business Journal.
Correction
The "CIRM News Release" item below incorrectly stated that no companies were announced as being funded in the news release from CIRM on its awards for new cell lines and disease team planning grants. The item should have said no companies were awarded new cell line grants.
Friday, June 27, 2008
CIRM Hires John Robson from McGill as Vice President
BURLINGAME, Ca. -- The California stem cell agency has hired John A. Robson, associate dean of faculty affairs at McGill University in Montreal, as vice president for operations at the $3 billion state enterprise.
CIRM President Alan Trounson said Robson will be his top aide. Robson will be responsible for all administrative and operational aspects of the institute and support the work of the Facilities Working Group.
The appointment will free Trounson to get out more often into the stem cell community, confer with scientific and biotech researchers, track research and build collaborative efforts.
The appointment required approval of salary and other employment terms by CIRM's board of directors. The panel approved annual compensation of $310,000 with relocation expenses of $60,000 paid out over five years. It also provided for a payment of $150,000 if Robson is terminated without cause within five years. CIRM also agreed to pay for moving 23,000 pounds of household goods from Montreal to California.
At McGill, Robson's responsibilities included strategic planning, capital campaign planning and recruiting and administrative policy development. Prior to joining McGill, Robson was a faculty member and neuroscientist at the State University of New York, Upstate Medical University in Syracuse.
More details are available in CIRM's press release.
CIRM President Alan Trounson said Robson will be his top aide. Robson will be responsible for all administrative and operational aspects of the institute and support the work of the Facilities Working Group.
The appointment will free Trounson to get out more often into the stem cell community, confer with scientific and biotech researchers, track research and build collaborative efforts.
The appointment required approval of salary and other employment terms by CIRM's board of directors. The panel approved annual compensation of $310,000 with relocation expenses of $60,000 paid out over five years. It also provided for a payment of $150,000 if Robson is terminated without cause within five years. CIRM also agreed to pay for moving 23,000 pounds of household goods from Montreal to California.
At McGill, Robson's responsibilities included strategic planning, capital campaign planning and recruiting and administrative policy development. Prior to joining McGill, Robson was a faculty member and neuroscientist at the State University of New York, Upstate Medical University in Syracuse.
More details are available in CIRM's press release.
CIRM News Release on Grants.
BURLINGAME, Ca. -- Here is a quick link to the news release by CIRM on approval of $24 million in grants Thursday night. It contains the identities of the winners. One company received a disease team planning grant, but no company received a new cell line grant.
(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item stated incorrectly that the news release did not report any company as receiving a grant.)
(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item stated incorrectly that the news release did not report any company as receiving a grant.)
More California Dough -- $23 Million -- Rolls Out the Door for Stem Cell Research
BURLINGAME, Ca. -- Directors of the California stem cell agency Thursday night approved $23 million for research grants to develop new cell lines, including reprogramming efforts.
However, they put off until today approval of about $1 million in disease planning grants.
The agency did not announce the names of the 16 winners out of the 50 applicants for new cell line grants. But all of those recommended for funding by scientific reviewers were routinely ratified. Another two grants that reviewers did not think warranted approval for scientific reasons were also approved.
The directors of the $3 billion agency decided to give cash to the two on the basis of "programmatic" and other reasons.
All of the recipients and their grant reviews can be found here, minus their names. The approved applications are color-coded with either white or grey.
The new stem cell round of grants was the first opportunity for businesses to receive research cash from CIRM. Twelve firms applied. But scuttlebutt at the meeting was that none of the businesses won grants. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein declined even to say whether any businesses were in the "recommended for funding" category, when asked by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Consumer Watchdog group.
Ken Woolcott, chief business officer of Cascade Life Sciences of San Diego, Ca., appeared before CIRM directors to express dismay about the grant process. His firm was not recommended for funding. While he did not ask for reconsideration, he said "reviewers simply did not read our application (No. 656) very carefully." He said that with NIH grants, applicants get a chance to respond to reviewers' comments prior to final action – something that CIRM does not formally provide. Woolcott said the firm's "experience was very different from our expectations."
The public review of the Cascade application said the research was "based on a collaboration between the applicant and the only group known to have successfully cloned primate cells." Reviewers expressed concerns that the firm could not get enough human eggs for its work, among other comments.
The two "programmatic" grants won approval after two unusual pitches were made on their behalf. One emotional appeal came from Judy Robertson of Sacramento, Ca., a Huntington's Disease advocate. She has lost four members of her family, including her husband to the disease. The family has donated $500,000 to UC Davis for a Huntington's clinic.
She complained that the review was "factually incorrect." The board discussed the assertion at some length, including comments from audience and staff, without reaching a conclusion on the accuracy of the information. Ultimately, the board approved the grant because it appeared to want to include Huntington's in CIRM's "program."
CIRM Director Jeff Sheehy made an appeal for funding the other of the two "programmatic" proposals. He read a letter from Fred Gage of the Salk Institute, stoutly defending the application. Directors had the letter before them but it was not available to the public, which Klein said was a mistake. Sheehy carried the day, and the Gage grant was approved on a 9-7 vote with one abstention. (The committee officially has 29 members, but only 17 were present and qualified to vote Thursday night.)
Sheehy's reading triggered a discussion not only of the merits of the application but of the sanctity of the review process, which was reminiscent of the flap in January when Childrens Hospital of Oakland Research Institute was the first applicant to publicly appeal a negative decision by scientific reviewers. Childrens was ultimately unsuccessful in that effort
By law, directors have the right to make the final decision on grants. However, they have approved 168 grants since 2004 and rejected only one recommended by scientific reviewers. Any applicant may appear before directors or write an appeal, a fact not well known to applicants. Few have appealed. Presumably they have not done so either out of ignorance or because they do not want to offend an agency which holds the key to their professional lives.
Some CIRM directors were uncomfortable with the Childrens Hospital appeal, and some were still uncomfortable Thursday night.
Oswald Steward, a CIRM director and chairman of the Reeve, Irvine, Resarch Center, UC Irvine, raised the issue of fairness in connection with Sheehy's reading of the Gage letter. Steward said other rejected applicants may not have understood that they could also seek to overturn a negative decision by scientific reviewers.
Marcy Feit, a CIRM director, president of ValleyCare Health Systems of Livermore, Ca.,and a member of the Grants Working Group, said she would "hate to see us redo those reviews." She said was against an "extensive rebuttal process" because it would "undermine" reviewers.
CIRM President Alan Trounson told directors they should accept that reviewers do a "reasonable job" and that disappointed applicants will naturally find fault with the system, which may sometimes include incorrect information. He warned that overturning scientific reviewers decisions could mean the loss of the reviewers, who are already being worked hard.
In January, directors seemed to be looking to CIRM staff for a proposal on how to deal with appeals from applicants. However, other chores, including a $1.1 billion lab building effort, have consumed a great deal of time. We suspect the appeal process may gain more attention in the very near future.
As for the names of the grant recipients and CIRM's take on Thursday night's soirée(It was a thrill a minute!), look for a press release on the CIRM website later today.
However, they put off until today approval of about $1 million in disease planning grants.
The agency did not announce the names of the 16 winners out of the 50 applicants for new cell line grants. But all of those recommended for funding by scientific reviewers were routinely ratified. Another two grants that reviewers did not think warranted approval for scientific reasons were also approved.
The directors of the $3 billion agency decided to give cash to the two on the basis of "programmatic" and other reasons.
All of the recipients and their grant reviews can be found here, minus their names. The approved applications are color-coded with either white or grey.
The new stem cell round of grants was the first opportunity for businesses to receive research cash from CIRM. Twelve firms applied. But scuttlebutt at the meeting was that none of the businesses won grants. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein declined even to say whether any businesses were in the "recommended for funding" category, when asked by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Consumer Watchdog group.
Ken Woolcott, chief business officer of Cascade Life Sciences of San Diego, Ca., appeared before CIRM directors to express dismay about the grant process. His firm was not recommended for funding. While he did not ask for reconsideration, he said "reviewers simply did not read our application (No. 656) very carefully." He said that with NIH grants, applicants get a chance to respond to reviewers' comments prior to final action – something that CIRM does not formally provide. Woolcott said the firm's "experience was very different from our expectations."
The public review of the Cascade application said the research was "based on a collaboration between the applicant and the only group known to have successfully cloned primate cells." Reviewers expressed concerns that the firm could not get enough human eggs for its work, among other comments.
The two "programmatic" grants won approval after two unusual pitches were made on their behalf. One emotional appeal came from Judy Robertson of Sacramento, Ca., a Huntington's Disease advocate. She has lost four members of her family, including her husband to the disease. The family has donated $500,000 to UC Davis for a Huntington's clinic.
She complained that the review was "factually incorrect." The board discussed the assertion at some length, including comments from audience and staff, without reaching a conclusion on the accuracy of the information. Ultimately, the board approved the grant because it appeared to want to include Huntington's in CIRM's "program."
CIRM Director Jeff Sheehy made an appeal for funding the other of the two "programmatic" proposals. He read a letter from Fred Gage of the Salk Institute, stoutly defending the application. Directors had the letter before them but it was not available to the public, which Klein said was a mistake. Sheehy carried the day, and the Gage grant was approved on a 9-7 vote with one abstention. (The committee officially has 29 members, but only 17 were present and qualified to vote Thursday night.)
Sheehy's reading triggered a discussion not only of the merits of the application but of the sanctity of the review process, which was reminiscent of the flap in January when Childrens Hospital of Oakland Research Institute was the first applicant to publicly appeal a negative decision by scientific reviewers. Childrens was ultimately unsuccessful in that effort
By law, directors have the right to make the final decision on grants. However, they have approved 168 grants since 2004 and rejected only one recommended by scientific reviewers. Any applicant may appear before directors or write an appeal, a fact not well known to applicants. Few have appealed. Presumably they have not done so either out of ignorance or because they do not want to offend an agency which holds the key to their professional lives.
Some CIRM directors were uncomfortable with the Childrens Hospital appeal, and some were still uncomfortable Thursday night.
Oswald Steward, a CIRM director and chairman of the Reeve, Irvine, Resarch Center, UC Irvine, raised the issue of fairness in connection with Sheehy's reading of the Gage letter. Steward said other rejected applicants may not have understood that they could also seek to overturn a negative decision by scientific reviewers.
Marcy Feit, a CIRM director, president of ValleyCare Health Systems of Livermore, Ca.,and a member of the Grants Working Group, said she would "hate to see us redo those reviews." She said was against an "extensive rebuttal process" because it would "undermine" reviewers.
CIRM President Alan Trounson told directors they should accept that reviewers do a "reasonable job" and that disappointed applicants will naturally find fault with the system, which may sometimes include incorrect information. He warned that overturning scientific reviewers decisions could mean the loss of the reviewers, who are already being worked hard.
In January, directors seemed to be looking to CIRM staff for a proposal on how to deal with appeals from applicants. However, other chores, including a $1.1 billion lab building effort, have consumed a great deal of time. We suspect the appeal process may gain more attention in the very near future.
As for the names of the grant recipients and CIRM's take on Thursday night's soirée(It was a thrill a minute!), look for a press release on the CIRM website later today.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Multi-Million Supplier Debate: CIRM's Current Definition
The California stem cell agency today posted its latest crack at defining which California businesses receive a preference in terms of purchases by recipients of the agency's roughly $3 billion in grants.
Discussion of the definition will come up at tomorrow's meeting of the CIRM board of directors but do not expect any final resolution. California lawmakers have their own thoughts about the matter. Their decision will take precedent over the wishes of CIRM if the legislators have enough votes.
Here is the key portion of the latest CIRM definition of California supplier, which says that it means
Discussion of the definition will come up at tomorrow's meeting of the CIRM board of directors but do not expect any final resolution. California lawmakers have their own thoughts about the matter. Their decision will take precedent over the wishes of CIRM if the legislators have enough votes.
Here is the key portion of the latest CIRM definition of California supplier, which says that it means
"...any sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, corporation, or other business entity::The material on the CIRM site also shows what language has been changed.
(1) whose permanent, principal office or place of business from which the supplier’s trade is directed or managed is located in California; or
(2) that includes a business unit, division or subsidiary whose permanent principal office or place of business from which the unit, division or subsidiary’s trade is directed or managed is located in California, for the specific product or products that are sold by the unit, division or subsidiary to CIRM grantees; or (3) that employs at least one-third of its total employees in California; or
(4) that produces, builds, or manufactures a product or products in California for the specific product or products that are sold to CIRM grantees; or
(5)that sells a product or products in California, for the specific product or products that are sold to CIRM grantees, so long as the supplier certifies that at least 50% of the cost of the product is attributable to activity undertaken in California."
Consumer Watchdog: CIRM Budget Needs More Explanation
Consumer Watchdog's John M. Simpson says a deeper explanation is needed of the proposed operational budget for California's $3 billion stem cell research agency.
The organization is set to routinely approve this week a 46 percent increase in spending to a total of $13 million, all of which is probably justified. But Simpson says CIRM has failed to provide sufficient details, and a clearer explanation is needed.
He cited the "other travel" budget item, which is up 287 percent from the current fiscal year – from $144,000 to $558,000. Simpson said on his organization's blog,
Simpson pointed to the state controller's office as example to emulate. Controller John Chiang is chairman of a committee that has financial oversight responsibilities for CIRM. Simpson wrote,
The organization is set to routinely approve this week a 46 percent increase in spending to a total of $13 million, all of which is probably justified. But Simpson says CIRM has failed to provide sufficient details, and a clearer explanation is needed.
He cited the "other travel" budget item, which is up 287 percent from the current fiscal year – from $144,000 to $558,000. Simpson said on his organization's blog,
"If the average trip costs $3,000 they've got a budget budget for 185 trips or 4 trips per employee for the year. CIRM would average more than three people on the road every week of the year and that doesn't include travel to ICOC meetings."Simpson wrote,
"I'm not saying the increases are unjustified; I just don't know."Simpson also noted CIRM's recurring failure to post background information in a timely fashion in advance of its meetings. Regarding tomorrow's meeting of CIRM's board of directors, he noted that as of 4 p.m. Tuesday, "at least ten agenda items that reasonably would require a written explanation lacked documents."
Simpson pointed to the state controller's office as example to emulate. Controller John Chiang is chairman of a committee that has financial oversight responsibilities for CIRM. Simpson wrote,
"The board's next meeting is at 1 p.m., July 7, in San Diego. Since last week the agenda, with all relevant documents, has been available on the controller's website.
"That's how good, open government works."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
More Info Disclosed For CIRM Meeting Thursday, Friday
The California stem cell agency has begun posting background information for its meeting at the end of this week, including scores and review summaries of applications for $26 million in grants.
As usual, the names of the applicants are hidden by CIRM until after the board of directors formally ratifies the decisions of the review panel. Only once has the board rejected a positive recommendation by its reviewers.
The agency is also posting other information for its meeting in two days. Topics with support material include: the proposed 2008-09 budget, changes in the grants administration policy, small gifts to CIRM and changes in the bylaws of the Grants Working Group.
Here are links to the new cell line scores and the disease planning team scores.
As usual, the names of the applicants are hidden by CIRM until after the board of directors formally ratifies the decisions of the review panel. Only once has the board rejected a positive recommendation by its reviewers.
The agency is also posting other information for its meeting in two days. Topics with support material include: the proposed 2008-09 budget, changes in the grants administration policy, small gifts to CIRM and changes in the bylaws of the Grants Working Group.
Here are links to the new cell line scores and the disease planning team scores.
Klein's Lobbying Group Opposes Affordable Access Bill
The private stem cell lobbying group run by Robert Klein, who also serves as chairman of the $3 billion state stem cell agency, is formally opposing legislation aimed at ensuring that state-financed therapies are affordable and accessible to Californians.
The opposition of Americans for Cures was noted today in the legislative staff analysis of SB1565 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley.
The legislation cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee today on a unanimous vote. No lawmaker has voted against the proposal in either house. It now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and from there to the Assembly floor. It has already passed the state Senate.
The staff analysis said that Klein's group, Americans for Cures,
Klein told the Legislative Subcommittee of CIRM's board of directors last week that patient advocacy groups nationwide would be lobbying California legislators on SB1565. It is our recollection that he did not mention the role of his own group, which has nationwide ties with advocacy groups.
The staff analysis also added more information about an independent state body, the Little Hoover Commission, that would be requested under the bill to examine CIRM with an eye to coming up with recommendations, particularly in relationship to the built-in conflicts of interest on its board. The analysis said,
The opposition of Americans for Cures was noted today in the legislative staff analysis of SB1565 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley.
The legislation cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee today on a unanimous vote. No lawmaker has voted against the proposal in either house. It now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and from there to the Assembly floor. It has already passed the state Senate.
The staff analysis said that Klein's group, Americans for Cures,
"...believe that access and affordability are best addressed by creating larger pools of affordable healthcare insurance, and that policies should accelerate cures, rather than discourage them. It is important to note that the intellectual property provisions in this bill that the opposition contend will create disincentives to commercialize drugs and therapies are very similar to the current and proposed regulations promulgated by the ICOC."Klein is president of Americans for Cures, which shares the same address as his real estate investment banking firm in Palo Alto, Ca. It is extremely unusual for the head of a state government agency to also lead an advocacy group whose interests are in the same arena as the agency's. Americans for Cures has denied that it is a lobbying group, although it attempts to influence legislation and government decision-makers.
Klein told the Legislative Subcommittee of CIRM's board of directors last week that patient advocacy groups nationwide would be lobbying California legislators on SB1565. It is our recollection that he did not mention the role of his own group, which has nationwide ties with advocacy groups.
The staff analysis also added more information about an independent state body, the Little Hoover Commission, that would be requested under the bill to examine CIRM with an eye to coming up with recommendations, particularly in relationship to the built-in conflicts of interest on its board. The analysis said,
"The Little Hoover Commission is uniquely positioned to review conflicts and make recommendations for improved governance.At its meeting Thursday and Friday, the board of directors of CIRM is expected to formally oppose SB1565.
"An independent state oversight agency established in 1962, the Little Hoover Commission's role differs in three distinct ways from other state and private-sector bodies that analyze state programs. Unlike fiscal or performance audits, the Little Hoover Commission's studies look beyond whether programs comply with existing requirements, instead exploring how programs could and should function in today's world. The Little Hoover Commission produces reports that serve as a factual basis for crafting effective reform legislation and follows through with legislation or administrative changes to implement its recommendations.
"In addition to the public hearings the Little Hoover Commission holds to develop findings and recommendations, hearings are held and progress reports are issued in the years following the initial report until the Little Hoover Commission's recommendations have been enacted or its concerns have been addressed. These processes uniquely position the Little Hoover Commission to review possible conflicts and make recommendations for improved governance of CIRM and the ICOC, thus helping ensure better accountability to Californians for their $6 billion investment."
Defining Which Businesses Get an Edge in CIRM Research Purchases
The "five-year threshold" language in the California supplier bill dealing with CIRM-funded research is now available online.
For those of you who don't want to click through, here is the text in question:
For those of you who don't want to click through, here is the text in question:
"'California supplier' means any sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, corporation, or other business entity that meets any of the following criteria:For more on this see this item.
"(A) The owners or policymaking officers are domiciled in California and the permanent, principal office or place of business from which the supplier's trade is directed or managed is located in California.
"(B) A business or corporation, including those owned by, or under common control of, a corporation, that meets all of the following criteria:
"(i) Has owned and operated a manufacturing facility or research facility located in California that researches, develops, builds, or manufactures products for life sciences research, continuously during the five years prior to submitting a bid or proposal to provide supplies to a California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) grantee.
"(ii) Has been licensed by the state on a continuous basis to conduct business within the state during the five years prior to submitting a bid or proposal to provide supplies to a CIRM grantee.
"(iii) Has continuously employed California residents for work within the state during the five years prior to submitting a bid or proposal to provide supplies to a CIRM grantee.
"(C) The entity produces, builds, or manufactures a product or products in California and for the specific product or products that are used by CIRM grantees.
"(2) For purposes of qualifying as a California supplier, a distribution or sales management office or facility does not qualify as a manufacturing or research facility."
CIRM Directors to Give Away Millions, No Details Available
With only two days left before the board of directors meeting of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, its public agenda is nearly bereft of any significant information for the public, other than cryptic references.
It is not a trivial matter. CIRM directors plan to give away $26 million at the end of the week and authorize another $60 million in grant programs. Neither of those figures can be detected, however, by examining the "topline" of the directors' agenda.
Indeed, the fact that CIRM's board of directors is meeting is not even of enough significance to be posted on CIRM's home page – although the directors will also be dealing with FDA concerns about hESC clinical trials, how California businesses could benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollar from CIRM research as well as the agency's 46 percent increase in its operating budget.
For those of you not totally familiar with CIRM, it is an arm of the state of California – not a "quasi-public" agency as it has sometimes been described. It is enshrined in the state Constitution. It is subject to the public records and open meetings laws of the state, which declare that the public has a "broadly construed" right to access to information about state governmental matters.
However, CIRM is denying the public and interested parties any timely, specific knowledge of the matters to be decided this Thursday and Friday in Burlingame, Ca., a longstanding CIRM practice for directors meetings, with a few exceptions. Nor will the public have a chance to listen in or participate in the actual meeting via the Internet or teleconferencing, technologies easily accessible to CIRM.
Meetings of the full board of directors of the agency have never been broadcast via the Internet or via teleconferencing. However, directors subcommittees are widely available via teleconferencing in many specific locations in California and even a couple of times in Australia. But those have been a matter of convenience for directors – not the public.
Twenty-eight items are on the agenda this week. As of Tuesday, only one item has an Internet link to background information. Bob Klein, chairman of CIRM, has repeatedly pledged to comply with the highest standards of openness and transparency. Nonetheless, the agency has been generally plagued with a failure to post background material sufficiently in advance of meetings to give the public or interested parties a chance to decide whether to attend the directors' meeting or even formulate a cogent response. At several points, even CIRM directors complained about the not getting material in time.
Our understanding is that the responsibility for the board of directors' agenda lies with Chairman Klein. We are asking Klein for comment on this state of affairs.
(If you want information about the $26 million grant programs mentioned in the second paragraph of this item, you can find it on the California Stem Cell Report – not on CIRM's agenda. The $60 million proposed grant program is the only item that is linked via the agenda. You can find information on that program here.)
It is not a trivial matter. CIRM directors plan to give away $26 million at the end of the week and authorize another $60 million in grant programs. Neither of those figures can be detected, however, by examining the "topline" of the directors' agenda.
Indeed, the fact that CIRM's board of directors is meeting is not even of enough significance to be posted on CIRM's home page – although the directors will also be dealing with FDA concerns about hESC clinical trials, how California businesses could benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollar from CIRM research as well as the agency's 46 percent increase in its operating budget.
For those of you not totally familiar with CIRM, it is an arm of the state of California – not a "quasi-public" agency as it has sometimes been described. It is enshrined in the state Constitution. It is subject to the public records and open meetings laws of the state, which declare that the public has a "broadly construed" right to access to information about state governmental matters.
However, CIRM is denying the public and interested parties any timely, specific knowledge of the matters to be decided this Thursday and Friday in Burlingame, Ca., a longstanding CIRM practice for directors meetings, with a few exceptions. Nor will the public have a chance to listen in or participate in the actual meeting via the Internet or teleconferencing, technologies easily accessible to CIRM.
Meetings of the full board of directors of the agency have never been broadcast via the Internet or via teleconferencing. However, directors subcommittees are widely available via teleconferencing in many specific locations in California and even a couple of times in Australia. But those have been a matter of convenience for directors – not the public.
Twenty-eight items are on the agenda this week. As of Tuesday, only one item has an Internet link to background information. Bob Klein, chairman of CIRM, has repeatedly pledged to comply with the highest standards of openness and transparency. Nonetheless, the agency has been generally plagued with a failure to post background material sufficiently in advance of meetings to give the public or interested parties a chance to decide whether to attend the directors' meeting or even formulate a cogent response. At several points, even CIRM directors complained about the not getting material in time.
Our understanding is that the responsibility for the board of directors' agenda lies with Chairman Klein. We are asking Klein for comment on this state of affairs.
(If you want information about the $26 million grant programs mentioned in the second paragraph of this item, you can find it on the California Stem Cell Report – not on CIRM's agenda. The $60 million proposed grant program is the only item that is linked via the agenda. You can find information on that program here.)
Monday, June 23, 2008
Will CIRM Directors Fulfill Prop. 71 Promises?
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California stem cell agency is maintaining a "watch" position on legislation aimed at pushing it into compliance with a state law that could mean hundreds of millions of dollars for California businesses.
At issue is a requirement in Prop. 71 – ballyhooed during the 2004 campaign – that CIRM set standards to ensure that the recipients of nearly $3 billion in grants purchase goods and services from California suppliers "to the extent reasonably possible."
Those standards still have not been set, nearly four years after creation of the stem cell agency. Because of the delay, some biotech companies and lawmakers pressured the agency earlier this year to move more rapidly. To make it clear that they were serious, legislation was introduced setting the standards in state law in the absence of CIRM setting its own standards through regulation.
That bill, AB 2381 by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-San Mateo, has easily passed the Assembly and is now before the Senate Health Committee on Wednesday, where it is virtually certain to pass.
On Friday, the Legislative Subcommittee of the CIRM board of directors discussed Mullin's bill, ultimately deciding to continue to watch its progress. The discussion was a bit muddled because Mullin proposed changes in the legislation only a few days before the Friday meeting. They involve a "five-year threshold" for suppliers, but no text of the proposed changes was available at the San Francisco CIRM headquarters. One Sacramento-area teleconference location, however, seemed to have a copy of the latest proposal. No members of the public had access to the Mullin changes.
CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said a five-year threshold for suppliers would discourage companies from moving to California as well as putting new companies at a disadvantage.
CIRM director Susan Bryant, from a teleconference location at UC Irvine, read other suggested "supplier" language from the University of California system. Again, no text was available at the meeting site at CIRM headquarters.
Meanwhile, it was disclosed during the meeting that James Harrison, outside attorney for CIRM, has begun work on separate standards for suppliers and grant recipients involved in the agency's $1.1 billion lab construction effort. Speed is critical in that effort because recipients are required to complete their lab buildings in two years or face penalties.
Later this week, CIRM directors will address the supplier questions during their meeting in Burlingame, Ca. No background information or text of what they are to consider is yet available to the public on the agenda for the meeting, which begins in two days.
At issue is a requirement in Prop. 71 – ballyhooed during the 2004 campaign – that CIRM set standards to ensure that the recipients of nearly $3 billion in grants purchase goods and services from California suppliers "to the extent reasonably possible."
Those standards still have not been set, nearly four years after creation of the stem cell agency. Because of the delay, some biotech companies and lawmakers pressured the agency earlier this year to move more rapidly. To make it clear that they were serious, legislation was introduced setting the standards in state law in the absence of CIRM setting its own standards through regulation.
That bill, AB 2381 by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-San Mateo, has easily passed the Assembly and is now before the Senate Health Committee on Wednesday, where it is virtually certain to pass.
On Friday, the Legislative Subcommittee of the CIRM board of directors discussed Mullin's bill, ultimately deciding to continue to watch its progress. The discussion was a bit muddled because Mullin proposed changes in the legislation only a few days before the Friday meeting. They involve a "five-year threshold" for suppliers, but no text of the proposed changes was available at the San Francisco CIRM headquarters. One Sacramento-area teleconference location, however, seemed to have a copy of the latest proposal. No members of the public had access to the Mullin changes.
CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said a five-year threshold for suppliers would discourage companies from moving to California as well as putting new companies at a disadvantage.
CIRM director Susan Bryant, from a teleconference location at UC Irvine, read other suggested "supplier" language from the University of California system. Again, no text was available at the meeting site at CIRM headquarters.
Meanwhile, it was disclosed during the meeting that James Harrison, outside attorney for CIRM, has begun work on separate standards for suppliers and grant recipients involved in the agency's $1.1 billion lab construction effort. Speed is critical in that effort because recipients are required to complete their lab buildings in two years or face penalties.
Later this week, CIRM directors will address the supplier questions during their meeting in Burlingame, Ca. No background information or text of what they are to consider is yet available to the public on the agenda for the meeting, which begins in two days.
California's Big Biotech Loan Program Headed for Approval in August?
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California stem cell agency's proposed $500 million biotech loan program seems to be headed for August action by the agency's board of directors, but not before size of the program, conflict of interest questions and underwriting issues are resolved.
The Finance Subcommittee of CIRM's board of directors discussed the proposal briefly on Friday, identifying policy questions that remain to addressed by the subcommittee. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, who originated the plan, said the size of the program was critical. Without sufficient bulk, the size of individual loans would be limited. Klein said that clinical trials involve "very large loans."
CIRM Director Duane Roth said that directors also have to address potential conflict of interest questions that might arise during the loan-making process, a concern echoed by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Consumer Watchdog group.
Klein also said that CIRM does not a large enough staff or expertise to handle a loan program. He said it would have to involve some sort of financial underwriting, similar to the type of underwriting practices at Fannie Mae, the housing loan organization.
No documents from CIRM about the program were available at the meeting or before it.
The Finance Subcommittee of CIRM's board of directors discussed the proposal briefly on Friday, identifying policy questions that remain to addressed by the subcommittee. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, who originated the plan, said the size of the program was critical. Without sufficient bulk, the size of individual loans would be limited. Klein said that clinical trials involve "very large loans."
CIRM Director Duane Roth said that directors also have to address potential conflict of interest questions that might arise during the loan-making process, a concern echoed by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Consumer Watchdog group.
Klein also said that CIRM does not a large enough staff or expertise to handle a loan program. He said it would have to involve some sort of financial underwriting, similar to the type of underwriting practices at Fannie Mae, the housing loan organization.
No documents from CIRM about the program were available at the meeting or before it.
Friday, June 20, 2008
CIRM Directors Nix Kuehl Legislation
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California stem cell agency is preparing to oppose legislation designed to ensure that Californians have affordable access to therapies developed with taxpayer funds.
Too restrictive and premature. That was the sentiment at today's meeting of the Legislative Subcommittee of the board of the directors.
They were talking about SB1565 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley. The measure has passed the Senate and faces a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. No lawmaker has voted against the bill.
Directors pointed out that they already have an affordable access plan in place in their regulations for CIRM-financed therapies. They argued that the legislation would require each product to go before the legislature to determine a price.
Kuehl's measure is a response in part to widespread consumer unhappiness with the high cost of health care and industry pricing of therapies. But Claire Pomeroy, a CIRM director and dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, said that CIRM's policy "cannot overcome the dysfunction" of the healthcare system. She said the legislature should give CIRM "the opportunity to do the right thing."
CIRM President Alan Trounson said that locking affordability provisions into state law would cripple CIRM's ability to negotiate prices and drive the industry away from developing therapies for diseases with small numbers of patients.
CIRM directors also reacted sharply to a provision in the Kuehl/Runner bill that would make it easier for CIRM to finance research that does not use human embryonic stem cells. The provision seems to play into the hESC vs. adult stem cell debate. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said that Runner said the change was "very important" to Republican members of the state Senate.
Presumably, recent research developments that demonstrated that adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to take on the pluripotent characteristics of hESC lie behind the proposed change. However, directors said much more work needs to be done before that method can be shown to provide cells that truly match the characteristics and usefulness of embryonic stem cells.
Kuehl's bill also would request a study of CIRM by an independent body that would report back to the legislature next year at this time with recommendations for changes, including dealing with the built-in conflicts of interest at CIRM. One CIRM director is currently under investigation for violating the state's conflict of interest laws. And the board of directors is dominated by members from institutions that are benefiting to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants.
Directors said that they understood that the state's Little Hoover Commission has already indicated it is going to perform the inquiry, regardless of the fate of the Kuehl bill.
Directors did not have a quorum at today's meeting and thus could not vote on a position on the legislation. However, their sentiments will come before the full board of directors next week, which is certain to oppose the Kuehl measure.
Here is the latest legislative staff analysis of the measure and the CIRM staff analysis, which we should note was well done.
We will have more later on other legislation discussed today by the Legislative Subcommittee.
Too restrictive and premature. That was the sentiment at today's meeting of the Legislative Subcommittee of the board of the directors.
They were talking about SB1565 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley. The measure has passed the Senate and faces a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. No lawmaker has voted against the bill.
Directors pointed out that they already have an affordable access plan in place in their regulations for CIRM-financed therapies. They argued that the legislation would require each product to go before the legislature to determine a price.
Kuehl's measure is a response in part to widespread consumer unhappiness with the high cost of health care and industry pricing of therapies. But Claire Pomeroy, a CIRM director and dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, said that CIRM's policy "cannot overcome the dysfunction" of the healthcare system. She said the legislature should give CIRM "the opportunity to do the right thing."
CIRM President Alan Trounson said that locking affordability provisions into state law would cripple CIRM's ability to negotiate prices and drive the industry away from developing therapies for diseases with small numbers of patients.
CIRM directors also reacted sharply to a provision in the Kuehl/Runner bill that would make it easier for CIRM to finance research that does not use human embryonic stem cells. The provision seems to play into the hESC vs. adult stem cell debate. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said that Runner said the change was "very important" to Republican members of the state Senate.
Presumably, recent research developments that demonstrated that adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to take on the pluripotent characteristics of hESC lie behind the proposed change. However, directors said much more work needs to be done before that method can be shown to provide cells that truly match the characteristics and usefulness of embryonic stem cells.
Kuehl's bill also would request a study of CIRM by an independent body that would report back to the legislature next year at this time with recommendations for changes, including dealing with the built-in conflicts of interest at CIRM. One CIRM director is currently under investigation for violating the state's conflict of interest laws. And the board of directors is dominated by members from institutions that are benefiting to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants.
Directors said that they understood that the state's Little Hoover Commission has already indicated it is going to perform the inquiry, regardless of the fate of the Kuehl bill.
Directors did not have a quorum at today's meeting and thus could not vote on a position on the legislation. However, their sentiments will come before the full board of directors next week, which is certain to oppose the Kuehl measure.
Here is the latest legislative staff analysis of the measure and the CIRM staff analysis, which we should note was well done.
We will have more later on other legislation discussed today by the Legislative Subcommittee.
Half-Million Salary for Klein?
SAN FRANCISCO -- Back in the early days of the California stem cell research effort, its newly elected chairman – millionaire real estate investment banker Robert Klein -- said he would not accept a salary for his work. Now that is changing. He could be drawing a salary as high as $508,750, perhaps as early as this year. But the money may not come from state coffers.
The question of salaries for both the chairman of CIRM and the vice chairman came up during Thursday's hearing on the agency's budget for 2008-09.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Consumer Watchdog group of Santa Monica, Ca., asked whether the budget included salaries for the chairman and the vice chair.
The answer was no. But Klein, who has held his post since December 2005, said, "It's true at some point this issue needs to be addressed."
He said that personally he would like to see "non-taxpayer dollars" used for salaries for the chairman and vice chairman rather than using funds that could be used for research. He indicated that he would not be averse to raising private funds for salary purposes.
The vice chairman of CIRM is Ed Penhoet, also a multimillionaire. He does not accept a salary. We are querying him on his position on salaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)