The Californa stem cell agency has scored big PR-wise in the Friday edition of the Wall Street Journal.
The influential newspaper, which has more than 1 million paid subscribers on its website, is carrying a laudatory piece about CIRM, focusing on its president, Alan Trounson. The headline? "Stem Cells' New Sugar Daddy."
Science columnist Robert Lee Hotz described daily struggles with ethical and political challenges and an "air of urgency" at CIRM as well as a "second medical revolution" for Trounson. His first involved IVF.
Hotz said the California's "speculative venture" may be "the world's most ambitious experiment in public funding for science."
One might quibble with some of the details of the WSJ story, but it is a coup for CIRM. The WSJ has an influential audience with important links to business. The piece will help set the tone for future mainstream coverage of CIRM and expose it to many key industry and public opinion leaders who otherwise would never take notice.
The story is also linked to an online discussion of whether it is okay to pay women for their eggs.
Here is a link to the story, which may be on the limited public version of the WSJ web site. If not, send me an email requesting a copy, and I will forward it to you. Here is my email address: djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
CIRM Blog Ban: Reaction From The Agency and Readers
The Monday item about CIRM banning this blog from the news clippings it sends to its directors and staff triggered a modest reaction this week, including a sharply negative one from the agency itself as well as warm endorsements of this website's endeavors.
Some of the reaction was posted directly as a comment on the item itself. Other comments were sent directly to this writer, including two from Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for the $3 billion state program. He is the person who claimed responsibility for excising the California Stem Cell Report from the agency's official clips.
On Monday, Gibbons volunteered the following,
As for Gibbons' assertion that CIRM does not distribute "what is freely available on the Web," nearly all of what CIRM circulates as clippings is freely available on the Web – not just this blog – at least based on the last version of the clips we saw.
The "banned" item also attracted minor attention from other web sites, including Capitol Alert, a news tip service aimed at state Capitol denizens.
Other reaction:
Lying at the heart of CIRM is its public nature and public relationships. In many ways it is the quintessential public and political creature. It was created in that most political and public process – an election – through a mechanism (the ballot initiative) that was designed to give the great, unwashed masses the ability to wrest control away from their designated leaders. CIRM is an extraordinary and unique governmental experiment that has had a truly vast impact nationally and beyond. Some see it as a model for possible future endeavors seeking to solve some the intractable problems that plague our society.
California's stem cell research program is worthy of considerable attention, far more than the mainstream media can or will provide. And that is part of the function of this blog. We try to generate more information than can be found in the media or on the CIRM website. We also comment on CIRM and analyze it in a way not possible at most major news outlets, which are hamstrung by standards that are useful but also allow them to be easily manipulated by governmental entities from the White House on down.
Should the CIRM directors and staff be provided the California Stem Cell Report as part of their daily information diet? We think so. However, the spoon-feeding of boards of directors is not an uncommon practice in the world of business. It is also a poor practice that has backfired on more than one major enterprise.
One final note: The San Francisco Chronicle piece cited by Gibbons was written by Dan Gillmor, a former California newspaper columnist and author of the book "We The Media." An advocate of grass-roots journalism, Gillmor wrote in his book,
Some of the reaction was posted directly as a comment on the item itself. Other comments were sent directly to this writer, including two from Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for the $3 billion state program. He is the person who claimed responsibility for excising the California Stem Cell Report from the agency's official clips.
On Monday, Gibbons volunteered the following,
"Using the term 'officially banned' is utter b----s---. We just chose to not use state money to distribute what is freely available on the Web. You should read the Chronicle’s Op/Ed piece this morning on the responsibilities of advocacy 'almost-journalists.'"On Tuesday, as part of a response to a query on a different subject, Gibbons said,
"I want to reiterate that I think using 'officially banned' is incorrect, and scandalously misleading. It suggests folks here are instructed not to read your blog."Obviously, CIRM can do whatever it wants regarding the clippings it sends around, but its decisions are officially government action. And the blog is indisputably banned from the clips.
As for Gibbons' assertion that CIRM does not distribute "what is freely available on the Web," nearly all of what CIRM circulates as clippings is freely available on the Web – not just this blog – at least based on the last version of the clips we saw.
The "banned" item also attracted minor attention from other web sites, including Capitol Alert, a news tip service aimed at state Capitol denizens.
Other reaction:
"You must be doing something right"(email from writer who cannot be named).
"If I had to guess, the 'ban' likely has increased your readership dramatically. When will those bureaucrats ever learn?" (From another person who cannot be identified).
"Your website is vitally important to California taxpayers; I find it to be a balanced and compelling commentary and timely examination of CIRM's operations and the underlying business of the science CIRM was created to pursue." (From an anonymous comment directly on the item.)Only one negative comment about the blog was received. That was posted directly to the item and agreed with the CIRM ban because the blog is not about "science." As we responded, the blog has never been about primarily about "science," but primarily about public policy. We rarely deal directly with the science of an issue, but rather about the interplay between science and government, not to mention business, academia, politics and public opinion.
Lying at the heart of CIRM is its public nature and public relationships. In many ways it is the quintessential public and political creature. It was created in that most political and public process – an election – through a mechanism (the ballot initiative) that was designed to give the great, unwashed masses the ability to wrest control away from their designated leaders. CIRM is an extraordinary and unique governmental experiment that has had a truly vast impact nationally and beyond. Some see it as a model for possible future endeavors seeking to solve some the intractable problems that plague our society.
California's stem cell research program is worthy of considerable attention, far more than the mainstream media can or will provide. And that is part of the function of this blog. We try to generate more information than can be found in the media or on the CIRM website. We also comment on CIRM and analyze it in a way not possible at most major news outlets, which are hamstrung by standards that are useful but also allow them to be easily manipulated by governmental entities from the White House on down.
Should the CIRM directors and staff be provided the California Stem Cell Report as part of their daily information diet? We think so. However, the spoon-feeding of boards of directors is not an uncommon practice in the world of business. It is also a poor practice that has backfired on more than one major enterprise.
One final note: The San Francisco Chronicle piece cited by Gibbons was written by Dan Gillmor, a former California newspaper columnist and author of the book "We The Media." An advocate of grass-roots journalism, Gillmor wrote in his book,
"We can’t afford, as a society, to limit our choices. We can’t even afford it financially, because Wall Street’s demands on Big Media are dumbing down the product itself."We asked Gillmor if he had any comment on the CIRM ban. "Fascinating" was his one word response.
New Issues Added to CIRM Directors Meeting Next Week
The California stem cell agency has altered its agenda for next Tuesday's meeting at Stanford, adding an element to its proposed human egg policy rules and an item dealing with eligibility on a new "translational" grant round.
The agency also posted its latest version of how it would like to define California supplier, which is the key to giving preferences worth hundreds of million dollars to state businesses seeking to sell to CIRM grantees.
The definition can be found here and seems to include almost any conceivable potential vendor in the state, but we could be wrong. At the same time, the California legislature is considering its own definition of California supplier in AB2381 by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-San Mateo.
That measure is now on the floor of the state Senate.
(In another CIRM legislative matter, the Assembly floor analysis of SB1565, the bill designed to ensure affordable access to CIRM-funded therapies is now available.)
The item with eggs now says that directors will be asked to authorize "a procedure for petitioning the ICOC to designate stem cell lines derived before November 2006 as acceptably derived for use in CIRM-funded research, and to govern use of embryos created for reproductive purposes before August 13, 2008." Added was the language having to do with the Aug. 13 date.
Also added to the next week's agenda is an item which states only: "Consideration of eligibility criteria in concept plan for Translational 1 RFA."
Twenty-one items are scheduled to be considered at the CIRM directors meeting that begins in only three business days. Background information is now available on only six of those items.
The agency also posted its latest version of how it would like to define California supplier, which is the key to giving preferences worth hundreds of million dollars to state businesses seeking to sell to CIRM grantees.
The definition can be found here and seems to include almost any conceivable potential vendor in the state, but we could be wrong. At the same time, the California legislature is considering its own definition of California supplier in AB2381 by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-San Mateo.
That measure is now on the floor of the state Senate.
(In another CIRM legislative matter, the Assembly floor analysis of SB1565, the bill designed to ensure affordable access to CIRM-funded therapies is now available.)
The item with eggs now says that directors will be asked to authorize "a procedure for petitioning the ICOC to designate stem cell lines derived before November 2006 as acceptably derived for use in CIRM-funded research, and to govern use of embryos created for reproductive purposes before August 13, 2008." Added was the language having to do with the Aug. 13 date.
Also added to the next week's agenda is an item which states only: "Consideration of eligibility criteria in concept plan for Translational 1 RFA."
Twenty-one items are scheduled to be considered at the CIRM directors meeting that begins in only three business days. Background information is now available on only six of those items.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
CIRM Contracts with Fleishman PR Firm
The Fleishman-Hillard public relations firm has won a $115,000 contract from the California stem cell agency, according to odwyerpr.com.
The website said Fleishman bested five other firms: Burson-Marsteller, Weber Shandwick, Feinstein Kean, GCI Group and Wundermarx.
Odwyer reported that Ruby Barcklay, a senior vice president in Fleishman's San Francisco office, will be in charge of the account.
The contract includes "media monitoring, leadership media training, opinion leader research in the biotech and business communities, and high-level targeted media placement around the organization's leadership position in the field of stem-cell research funding," according to the report.
The odwyer site specializes in "inside PR news" and is partly free and partly paid.
The website said Fleishman bested five other firms: Burson-Marsteller, Weber Shandwick, Feinstein Kean, GCI Group and Wundermarx.
Odwyer reported that Ruby Barcklay, a senior vice president in Fleishman's San Francisco office, will be in charge of the account.
The contract includes "media monitoring, leadership media training, opinion leader research in the biotech and business communities, and high-level targeted media placement around the organization's leadership position in the field of stem-cell research funding," according to the report.
The odwyer site specializes in "inside PR news" and is partly free and partly paid.
Fresh Comment
"Anonymous" has posted a comment on the "CIRM Bans" item, stating that this blog is "a balanced and compelling commentary and timely examination of CIRM's operations," among other things. I have no idea who posted it, but, no, I did not pay the person. Re the Larry Ebert comment on the Remcho item, Ebert's comment is now available. I failed to moderate it in a timely fashion.
More Info on CIRM Meeting
The California stem cell agency Tuesday posted background information on one item on its agenda for next week's meeting of its board of directors at Stanford.
The material included: the names of two persons to be appointed as medical ethicists to the Standards Working Group. They are Radhika Rao, a law professor at Hastings College of Law and Dorothy E. Roberts, a law professor at Northwestern University.
The material included: the names of two persons to be appointed as medical ethicists to the Standards Working Group. They are Radhika Rao, a law professor at Hastings College of Law and Dorothy E. Roberts, a law professor at Northwestern University.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Fresh Comments
"Anonymous" has filed a comment agreeing with CIRM's ban on this blog. We have filed a response. Larry Ebert has filed a comment on the "$2 Million Remcho" item.
Monday, August 04, 2008
CIRM Providing Some Early Background Info on Directors Meeting
The California stem cell agency today posted the agenda for its Aug. 12-13 meeting at Stanford, along with some background material.
The background material is a good start on helping the public understand what is to be discussed and acted on by the directors of the $3 billion public enterprise. We are looking forward to more in the next few days.
The background information on one item has clarified what is actually to be discussed when directors take up "consideration of annual report on CIRM contracts and interagency agreements." On Sunday, we speculated that the item could be a proposal to change from quarterly to annual the reporting requirements to directors on outside contracts. In fact, the item appears to be simply the 2007-08 annual report on outside contracting expenditures.
Other background material now available includes:
Draft language for a "grandfathering" provision on stem cell lines. Directors will be asked to authorize a procedure for petitioning them to designate stem cell lines derived before November 2006 as acceptably derived for use in CIRM-funded research.
The names and brief bios of proposed alternate members for the Grant Review Group: Sangeeta N. Bhatia of MIT, Paula Marie Bokesch of Hospira, Inc., Mark Furth of the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Marcie Glicksman of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Kurt Gunter of Hospira, Inc., Paul Kulesa of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Hai-Quan Mao of John Hopkins, Todd McDevitt of Georgia Institute of Technoloogy/Emory University, Alan Russell of the University of Pittsburgh and Shuichi Takayama of the University of Michigan.
The background material is a good start on helping the public understand what is to be discussed and acted on by the directors of the $3 billion public enterprise. We are looking forward to more in the next few days.
The background information on one item has clarified what is actually to be discussed when directors take up "consideration of annual report on CIRM contracts and interagency agreements." On Sunday, we speculated that the item could be a proposal to change from quarterly to annual the reporting requirements to directors on outside contracts. In fact, the item appears to be simply the 2007-08 annual report on outside contracting expenditures.
Other background material now available includes:
Draft language for a "grandfathering" provision on stem cell lines. Directors will be asked to authorize a procedure for petitioning them to designate stem cell lines derived before November 2006 as acceptably derived for use in CIRM-funded research.
The names and brief bios of proposed alternate members for the Grant Review Group: Sangeeta N. Bhatia of MIT, Paula Marie Bokesch of Hospira, Inc., Mark Furth of the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Marcie Glicksman of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Kurt Gunter of Hospira, Inc., Paul Kulesa of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Hai-Quan Mao of John Hopkins, Todd McDevitt of Georgia Institute of Technoloogy/Emory University, Alan Russell of the University of Pittsburgh and Shuichi Takayama of the University of Michigan.
CIRM Bans California Stem Cell Report
California's $3 billion stem cell agency has had enough!
It has officially banned the California Stem Cell Report from information it circulates to its board of directors and staff. Some employees say staff morale has improved as a result, the agency declares.
Like many other state agencies, CIRM collects news clippings and other information pertinent to its operations and circulates them to a selected audience. For some time (a couple of years, as we understand it), items from this blog were included in the electronic clippings sent to directors. They were also included in clippings sent to grant recipients.
Last year, CIRM unceremoniously dumped the California Stem Cell Report from the clippings to the grant recipients. A while back, we heard scuttlebutt that CIRM's 29 directors no longer had the great pleasure of reading our items, at least courtesy of CIRM. No matter, a mere piffle, we thought. Last week, we heard the report again. So we asked Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, whether this "shocking" rumor was correct. Yes, he replied. Gibbons said,
Musing about all this, we sent off a query to Consumer Watchdog's John M. Simpson, a skilled practitioner of flackery, as well as a former newspaper editor and longtime observer of California stem cell affairs. He replied,
His reponse:
It has officially banned the California Stem Cell Report from information it circulates to its board of directors and staff. Some employees say staff morale has improved as a result, the agency declares.
Like many other state agencies, CIRM collects news clippings and other information pertinent to its operations and circulates them to a selected audience. For some time (a couple of years, as we understand it), items from this blog were included in the electronic clippings sent to directors. They were also included in clippings sent to grant recipients.
Last year, CIRM unceremoniously dumped the California Stem Cell Report from the clippings to the grant recipients. A while back, we heard scuttlebutt that CIRM's 29 directors no longer had the great pleasure of reading our items, at least courtesy of CIRM. No matter, a mere piffle, we thought. Last week, we heard the report again. So we asked Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, whether this "shocking" rumor was correct. Yes, he replied. Gibbons said,
"Before I arrived, all citizen blogs, yours and (patient advocate) Don Reed’s, were dropped from the clips that went to the grantees because it was viewed as too much information they did not care about. They wanted the research news in the rest of the clips. But this required paying extra to create two sets of clips, sending the full clips with the blogs to the board and internal staff. I decided it was not worth the extra cost, and started sending the shorter version to everyone. The service has slipped up and let a couple of Reed’s columns get in, but I have asked them to make sure that does not happen. Eliminating both eliminates bias in the package, and frankly, several in-house staff have said morale has improved since your posts have been removed."But then we wondered about unordained flackery from various enterprises that has been distributed by CIRM as part of its official "news." Yes, Gibbons said in response to our question; PR releases are picked up from the Ascribe PR network, which specializes in pumping nonprofit-oriented publicity into mainstream newsrooms at as much as $300 a pop. Ascribe's clients include Scripps, Burnham, the University of California, AARP and the National Association of Social Workers.
Musing about all this, we sent off a query to Consumer Watchdog's John M. Simpson, a skilled practitioner of flackery, as well as a former newspaper editor and longtime observer of California stem cell affairs. He replied,
"After reading the California Stem Cell Report daily for more-than-two-and-a-half years, I know how dangerous and subversive it is.Aghast we were. Do you really mean that, John, we promptly emailed him back.
"I only let my wife read it under my direct supervision and would never contemplate allowing my adult children to see it."
His reponse:
"In this day of Google searches and alerts, I'm hard pressed to understand why anyone would pay anything to have any clips circulated. As for the California Stem Cell Report, I certainly don't agree with all the views expressed there, but I don't understand how anyone interested in CIRM and stem cell research would notoi check it daily. It has become the publication of record on all stem cell related issues in California. If I were CIRM's president I'd make it required daily reading for all employees and would encourage ICOC members to check it frequently."(Editor's note: We have updated the masthead information at the top of this page to reflect our current status with the world's largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research.)
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Loans, Eggs, Contracts, Suppliers and $41 Million Top CIRM Agenda Next Week
Directors of the California stem cell agency will meet next week to hand out $41 million to 14 lucky scientists and wrestle with a host of other matters, ranging from the $2.7 million in outside contracts to a proposed $500 million biotech loan program.
Here is a quick look at the topics on the Aug. 12 agenda, which will probably be posted soon on the CIRM website.
Researcher Bonanza -- This a bit of a "do-over" of last year's $85 million faculty award program. That effort was tarnished when five CIRM directors violated the agency's conflict-of-interest policies by writing letters on behalf of applicants from their institutions. CIRM said the letters resulted from an "innocent misunderstanding," but disqualified the 10 applicants involved. No CIRM action was taken against the five directors. The full board decided to provide another grant opportunity, which was also open to applicants other than those disqualified. The latest effort, modified from the first offering, is scheduled for $41 million for 14 winners, with awards up to $2 million a year. CIRM received 55 letters of intent to apply for the grants but has not released the actual number of applications as far as we can determine.
Outside Contracting – Perhaps the most important item in the $13 million operational budget of the stem cell agency is the $2.7 million it spends for outside contracting. That figure is up 50 percent from last year. It is the second largest item in the budget, behind only salaries and benefits. CIRM will have spent more than $2 million for outside legal help by the end of this year and has spent hundreds of thousands for executive searches. In 2005, directors imposed restrictions on outside contracts and required quarterly reporting after they were surprised by published reports about the size and impact of those dealings. On Aug. 12, it appears that directors will be asked to reduce the reporting from quarterly to annual. That would be a mistake. CIRM's board should keep a close eye on the process because of importance of contracting to CIRM and the ticklish issues of overseeing those contractors. Earlier this year, directors had to retroactively approve additional funding for its main outside counsel, Remcho, Johansen, & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., after work had already been performed. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein also told CIRM directors that Remcho is unique in its abilities, that basically no other firm in the state can perform the work. Thus, Klein reported, the attorney general's office has said the contract does not need to go out for bid. See the Remcho item below for more on Klein's explanation of the relationship between him, Remcho and CIRM and the opinion of the state attorney general. Here is the latest list of outside contracts. Here is the budget for 2007-08.
The $500 Million or So Biotech Loan Program -- The formal agenda topic is "CIRM loan policy." CIRM Chairman Klein earlier this year said he hoped to have the biotech loan program approved this month. But this cryptic agenda item may mean that the board will not be presented this month with the whole package for this ground-breaking and novel effort. See the item below for links to various CIRM documents on the loan proposal. Search this blog on the term "biotech loans" for even more.
Definition of California Supplier – Perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake in this item. It involves the Prop. 71 requirement that California suppliers be given preference on purchases by CIRM grantees. Legislation is being considered in Sacramento along with separate regulatory language being worked out at CIRM. Here is a link to the latest version of the legislation involved and the transcript of the June CIRM directors meeting at which the topic was discussed briefly. This is an area that has changed swiftly and may well again even before next week's meeting.
Grant Appeals – CIRM is wrestling with the issue of how to handle requests for reconsideration of negative recommendations from the Grant Review Committee. Basically CIRM directors follow the recommendations from reviewers and have been uncomfortable with the few public attempts to override the Grants Committee. Two items could be related to this subject: One deals with RFA applicant policies and the other with creation of a policy for dealing with "extraordinary petitions" to directors for grants. Search this blog on the term "grant appeals" for some background stories, including a proposal by CIRM director Jeff Sheehy.
Egg Matters – Directors will be asked to authorize a procedure for using stem cell lines derived before November 2006 in CIRM-financed research. A subtext of this involves the looming question of egg shortages and cash, although it is not formally on the agenda. CIRM President Alan Trounson has said researchers are "floundering" because they do not have enough eggs. If this subject is important to you, you should be at the meeting.
CIRM is likely to post the agenda for the Aug. 12 meeting at Stanford on Monday, which is six business days ahead of the session. We hope to see additional background material posted early as well. That information would help shed light on exactly what the board will be asked to do next week, beyond the brief listings in the initial version of the agenda.
Here is a quick look at the topics on the Aug. 12 agenda, which will probably be posted soon on the CIRM website.
Researcher Bonanza -- This a bit of a "do-over" of last year's $85 million faculty award program. That effort was tarnished when five CIRM directors violated the agency's conflict-of-interest policies by writing letters on behalf of applicants from their institutions. CIRM said the letters resulted from an "innocent misunderstanding," but disqualified the 10 applicants involved. No CIRM action was taken against the five directors. The full board decided to provide another grant opportunity, which was also open to applicants other than those disqualified. The latest effort, modified from the first offering, is scheduled for $41 million for 14 winners, with awards up to $2 million a year. CIRM received 55 letters of intent to apply for the grants but has not released the actual number of applications as far as we can determine.
Outside Contracting – Perhaps the most important item in the $13 million operational budget of the stem cell agency is the $2.7 million it spends for outside contracting. That figure is up 50 percent from last year. It is the second largest item in the budget, behind only salaries and benefits. CIRM will have spent more than $2 million for outside legal help by the end of this year and has spent hundreds of thousands for executive searches. In 2005, directors imposed restrictions on outside contracts and required quarterly reporting after they were surprised by published reports about the size and impact of those dealings. On Aug. 12, it appears that directors will be asked to reduce the reporting from quarterly to annual. That would be a mistake. CIRM's board should keep a close eye on the process because of importance of contracting to CIRM and the ticklish issues of overseeing those contractors. Earlier this year, directors had to retroactively approve additional funding for its main outside counsel, Remcho, Johansen, & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., after work had already been performed. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein also told CIRM directors that Remcho is unique in its abilities, that basically no other firm in the state can perform the work. Thus, Klein reported, the attorney general's office has said the contract does not need to go out for bid. See the Remcho item below for more on Klein's explanation of the relationship between him, Remcho and CIRM and the opinion of the state attorney general. Here is the latest list of outside contracts. Here is the budget for 2007-08.
The $500 Million or So Biotech Loan Program -- The formal agenda topic is "CIRM loan policy." CIRM Chairman Klein earlier this year said he hoped to have the biotech loan program approved this month. But this cryptic agenda item may mean that the board will not be presented this month with the whole package for this ground-breaking and novel effort. See the item below for links to various CIRM documents on the loan proposal. Search this blog on the term "biotech loans" for even more.
Definition of California Supplier – Perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake in this item. It involves the Prop. 71 requirement that California suppliers be given preference on purchases by CIRM grantees. Legislation is being considered in Sacramento along with separate regulatory language being worked out at CIRM. Here is a link to the latest version of the legislation involved and the transcript of the June CIRM directors meeting at which the topic was discussed briefly. This is an area that has changed swiftly and may well again even before next week's meeting.
Grant Appeals – CIRM is wrestling with the issue of how to handle requests for reconsideration of negative recommendations from the Grant Review Committee. Basically CIRM directors follow the recommendations from reviewers and have been uncomfortable with the few public attempts to override the Grants Committee. Two items could be related to this subject: One deals with RFA applicant policies and the other with creation of a policy for dealing with "extraordinary petitions" to directors for grants. Search this blog on the term "grant appeals" for some background stories, including a proposal by CIRM director Jeff Sheehy.
Egg Matters – Directors will be asked to authorize a procedure for using stem cell lines derived before November 2006 in CIRM-financed research. A subtext of this involves the looming question of egg shortages and cash, although it is not formally on the agenda. CIRM President Alan Trounson has said researchers are "floundering" because they do not have enough eggs. If this subject is important to you, you should be at the meeting.
CIRM is likely to post the agenda for the Aug. 12 meeting at Stanford on Monday, which is six business days ahead of the session. We hope to see additional background material posted early as well. That information would help shed light on exactly what the board will be asked to do next week, beyond the brief listings in the initial version of the agenda.
The $2 Million Remcho-CIRM Connection
The California stem cell agency has a no-bid, $2 million, special relationship with the law firm of Remcho, Johansen, & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca.
The firm has had a contract with CIRM since the agency's earliest days. On May 28, the Governance Subcommittee of CIRM directors was asked to act in a retroactive fashion to increase Remcho's contract for 2007-08 from $250,000 to $415,000 to pay for bills for April, May and June. That amounted to a $165,000 or 66 percent increase in the contract.
Based on the transcript of the meeting, it is not entirely clear who authorized the Remcho work without having the subcommittee first actually approve an increase in the contract. CIRM policies require approval by the governance panel if contracts exceed $250,000.
CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, however, offered the explanation for why the work was needed, which included reviewing requests for applications for grants and work on state bond offerings linked to CIRM.
CIRM contracts with Remcho totalled $1.1 million from January 2005 to July 2007 and are slated for $450,000 this year.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., asked Klein at the meeting whether the Remcho contract would be put out to bid in the future.
Here is the exchange, based on the transcript of the session.
Simpson:
The firm has had a contract with CIRM since the agency's earliest days. On May 28, the Governance Subcommittee of CIRM directors was asked to act in a retroactive fashion to increase Remcho's contract for 2007-08 from $250,000 to $415,000 to pay for bills for April, May and June. That amounted to a $165,000 or 66 percent increase in the contract.
Based on the transcript of the meeting, it is not entirely clear who authorized the Remcho work without having the subcommittee first actually approve an increase in the contract. CIRM policies require approval by the governance panel if contracts exceed $250,000.
CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, however, offered the explanation for why the work was needed, which included reviewing requests for applications for grants and work on state bond offerings linked to CIRM.
CIRM contracts with Remcho totalled $1.1 million from January 2005 to July 2007 and are slated for $450,000 this year.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., asked Klein at the meeting whether the Remcho contract would be put out to bid in the future.
Here is the exchange, based on the transcript of the session.
Simpson:
"...(T)his is a substantial legal contract, and it's down as probably going on into the future. Is there an expectation that this would be put out formally for bid?"Klein:
"This is a contract that is obviously where the expertise is built upon a number of years of research and development on this initiative specifically. And at the time we originally entered into this contract with Remcho back in 2004, I personally went to the (California) attorney general's office and asked, given the specialized knowledge of the Remcho firm had in spending two years on the research and drafting of this with me and four other attorneys that I had in specialized areas, whether we needed to put this to bid.We have asked CIRM for a copy of the statement from the attorney general's office that supports the ongoing, no-bid arrangement.
"The attorney general's position at that time was we did not because of the specialized nature and depth of knowledge of the firm. It would be a huge bill to get any other firm to get up to the level of knowledge about this initiative and the tremendous amount of research that went into all of its development as well as all the public policies that have subsequently been developed."
Links to CIRM Biotech Loan Info
Here are some links to information related to the CIRM biotech loan proposal.
Biotech terms and policy May 6, 2008, version
PriceWaterhouseCoopers report-(three parts)
Benchmarking analysis
Loan financial model
Loan model scenarios
Transcripts of the Biotech Loan Task Force
Transcript of Finance Subcommittee June 19, 2008, which dealt with size of loans and possible conflicts of interest
Agendas of the Biotech Loan Task Force
The agendas have links to additional documents dealing with the plan.
Biotech terms and policy May 6, 2008, version
PriceWaterhouseCoopers report-(three parts)
Benchmarking analysis
Loan financial model
Loan model scenarios
Transcripts of the Biotech Loan Task Force
Transcript of Finance Subcommittee June 19, 2008, which dealt with size of loans and possible conflicts of interest
Agendas of the Biotech Loan Task Force
The agendas have links to additional documents dealing with the plan.
Patient Advocate Reed's Relentless Effort Against SB1565
Patient advocate Don Reed sent along the following concerning legislation aimed at ensuring affordable access to taxpayer-financed stem cell therapies in California.
He focuses on another element of the bill, which changes voting requirements on research that is not directly related to human embryonic stem cell inquiries.
Reed, vice president of Americans for Cures, has been campaigning vigorously against the bill, SB1565 by Sens. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and George Runner, R-Antelope Valley. Many of Reed's efforts surface on the Internet at his blog, stemcellbattles.com. Among other things, Reed is drumming up a letter-writing campaign (better than emails, he says) against the bill.
We checked into his blog recently and saw his account of the hearing last month on SB1565 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. He noted that CIRM Chairman Robert Klein testified against the measure. It was Klein's first public appearance as chairman of CIRM before a legislative committee. Klein refused to appear before a committee in 2005 and instead launched a national effort among patient advocate groups against those proceedings, triggering a certain amount of unhappiness among some state lawmakers.
The Americans for Cures lobbying group was created by Klein and operates out of the same Palo Alto, Ca., address as his real estate investment banking firm. SB1565 is now on the Assembly floor. If it passes as expected, it will go to the Senate for concurrence in Assembly amendments and then to the governor.
Here is Reed's letter:
He focuses on another element of the bill, which changes voting requirements on research that is not directly related to human embryonic stem cell inquiries.
Reed, vice president of Americans for Cures, has been campaigning vigorously against the bill, SB1565 by Sens. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and George Runner, R-Antelope Valley. Many of Reed's efforts surface on the Internet at his blog, stemcellbattles.com. Among other things, Reed is drumming up a letter-writing campaign (better than emails, he says) against the bill.
We checked into his blog recently and saw his account of the hearing last month on SB1565 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. He noted that CIRM Chairman Robert Klein testified against the measure. It was Klein's first public appearance as chairman of CIRM before a legislative committee. Klein refused to appear before a committee in 2005 and instead launched a national effort among patient advocate groups against those proceedings, triggering a certain amount of unhappiness among some state lawmakers.
The Americans for Cures lobbying group was created by Klein and operates out of the same Palo Alto, Ca., address as his real estate investment banking firm. SB1565 is now on the Assembly floor. If it passes as expected, it will go to the Senate for concurrence in Assembly amendments and then to the governor.
Here is Reed's letter:
"SB 1565 UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Open Letter to the California Assembly and Senate
"Dear Senators and Assembly members:
"As the father of a paralyzed young man, (Roman Reed, who inspired the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act, source of America's first state-funded embryonic stem cell research) I strongly oppose Senate Bill 1565 (Kuehl,Runner).
"Please be aware that the bill has changed since you first saw it. The bill now contains a poison pill amendment, offered by Senator George Runner, a known opponent of the California stem cell research program. The Runner amendment not only defies the will of the voters, but may violate the California Constitution.
"First, here is our stem cell program’s current law, which was enacted by the electorate, and written into the California State Constitution:
"'(C) … a high priority shall be placed on funding pluripotent stem cell and progenitor cell research that cannot, or is unlikely to, receive timely or sufficient federal funding…Other research categories…shall not be funded by the institute.'
--Article XXXV of the California Constitution: Section 5, Chapter 3. California Stem Cell Research and Cures Bond Act, Article 1. 125290.60.
"As you know, our stem cell program may only be amended to '…enhance the ability of the institute to further the purposes of…the measure…'—Section 8, Amendments.
"And Senator Runner’s amendment, recently added to SB 1565?
"'(D) “Notwithstanding paragraph (C), any other scientific and medical research and technologies and/or any stem cell research proposal not actually funded by the institute under subparagraph (C) may be funded by the institute...'
"This turns our program upside down! Proposition 71 was enacted by the voters to give priority to forms of stem cell research not likely to be funded by the federal government. The Runner amendment removes that priority, and would instead allow precious research dollars to be spent on 'any other scientific and medical technologies'. That could be almost anything; a bedpan is a piece of medical technology.
"How can such a complete reversal be said to “further the purposes” of our stem cell program? Such seeming violations of the Constitution are almost certain to invite legal actions; have we not had enough lawsuits, enough delays?
"The original intention of SB 1565, to guarantee access of stem cell therapies to the uninsured, has already been achieved, and without the need for this bill. Bill author Senator Sheila Kuehl, a highly respected legislator, has publicly stated that she and CIRM (California Institute for Regenerative Medicine) are 'on the same page' regarding how low-income residents could receive benefits from CIRM-developed products.
"But the Runner amendment could gut the California stem cell program.
"Those who know, oppose. SB 1565 is opposed by the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, which is a board of more than 80 medical, educational, and disease advocacy groups: as well as every other stem cell research support group which has taken a position on the issue.
"On behalf of every California family with a loved one suffering from chronic disease or disability, I urge your 'NO' vote on Senate Bill 1565, when it comes before you for concurrence.
"Thank you.
"Don C. Reed
Co-chair, Californians for Cures
Sponsor, Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act
Vice President, Public Policy, Americans for Cures"
Friday, August 01, 2008
Giving Credit at CIRM
CIRM Communications Chief Don Gibbons pointed out today that Amy Adams did all the hard work to bring together the useful grant information mentioned in the "CIRM Website Improves" item. A good job indeed.
Adams is communications manager at CIRM and works for Gibbons. We should also mention Alan Trounson, CIRM's president, who last January identified web site improvement as one of his priorities.
While we are on this subject, today we were foraging a bit and checked into the CIRM regulations page. We can't say for sure whether it has changed much, but it is a useful compilation of all CIRM's regulations and their justifications, including links. This is the page where the public can also see the timelines on proposed regulations and learn how to make comments during the official process.
Adams is communications manager at CIRM and works for Gibbons. We should also mention Alan Trounson, CIRM's president, who last January identified web site improvement as one of his priorities.
While we are on this subject, today we were foraging a bit and checked into the CIRM regulations page. We can't say for sure whether it has changed much, but it is a useful compilation of all CIRM's regulations and their justifications, including links. This is the page where the public can also see the timelines on proposed regulations and learn how to make comments during the official process.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
CIRM Website Improves; More Info on Where The Money Goes
The California stem cell agency is slowly beefing up and improving its web site, posting additional information that is helpful to folks seeking to know more about how $3 billion in taxpayer funds are being spent.
One of the features added to the site recently is a list of all 206 grants (worth $554 million), their subject areas, institutions and the names of the principal investigators with links to the summary of the proposal by reviewers.
CIRM has also posted a ranking of institutions by the dollar value of CIRM grants that they have received. That list includes the type of grants awarded to each institution and the total dollars in each grant round.
Much, if not all, of this information was previously available on the CIRM website. But it took a lot of digging to ferret it out. The material is basic information, but it takes considerable work and care to compile it in a readily accessible format, not to mention updating it as warranted. And as we mentioned earlier, CIRM has also begun an "alert" service that provides automatic email notification to interested persons about a variety of events and information.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., recently singled out the list of all 206 grants for praise, calling the summary "user friendly and handy."
Don Gibbons is the chief communications officer for CIRM and oversees the content on the website. He is to be commended for pulling all this together. It is a valuable resource for the public and interested parties. We look forward to other features that he may add to the web site.
You can sign up for the CIRM alerts by going to its home page and clicking on the sign-up button.
One of the features added to the site recently is a list of all 206 grants (worth $554 million), their subject areas, institutions and the names of the principal investigators with links to the summary of the proposal by reviewers.
CIRM has also posted a ranking of institutions by the dollar value of CIRM grants that they have received. That list includes the type of grants awarded to each institution and the total dollars in each grant round.
Much, if not all, of this information was previously available on the CIRM website. But it took a lot of digging to ferret it out. The material is basic information, but it takes considerable work and care to compile it in a readily accessible format, not to mention updating it as warranted. And as we mentioned earlier, CIRM has also begun an "alert" service that provides automatic email notification to interested persons about a variety of events and information.
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., recently singled out the list of all 206 grants for praise, calling the summary "user friendly and handy."
Don Gibbons is the chief communications officer for CIRM and oversees the content on the website. He is to be commended for pulling all this together. It is a valuable resource for the public and interested parties. We look forward to other features that he may add to the web site.
You can sign up for the CIRM alerts by going to its home page and clicking on the sign-up button.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Associated Press Digs Into Eggs, Money and Stem Cell Research
The Human Egg Debate just racheted up a notch. Generally confined to scientific journals and websites like the California Stem Cell Report, the issue of scientists paying for eggs for human embryonic stem cell research today clattered onto a broader stage in a thorough-going piece by The Associated Press. The international news service distributes its stories to virtually every newspaper, radio and television station in the country.
Marcus Wohlsen wrote the article out of San Francisco. It began,
"Facing a human egg shortage they say is preventing medical breakthroughs, scientists and biotech entrepreneurs are pushing the country's top funders of stem cell research to rethink rules that prohibit paying women for eggs."The California stem cell agency was mentioned in the second paragraph. Stemagen, a San Diego stem cell firm, was mentioned in the sixth. Alan Trounson, CIRM's president, Harvard's Kevin Eggan, Cascade LifeSciences, also of San Diego, and the Center for Genetics and Society of Oakland, Ca., were all included.
Sam Wood(pictured), chief executive of Stemagen, said that bans on payments for eggs have kept researchers from making advances that could save lives.
He was quoted as saying,
"You need to have enough eggs to make this thing work, and when you have enough eggs it does work."The AP story continued:
"If these guidelines weren't in place, we'd already have many (stem cell) lines and be much closer to a treatment for devastating illnesses for which these are so well suited."
"As the country's largest funder of stem cell research by far, California's policy sets the pace for biotech firms and academic researchers nationwide. National guidelines advising against egg payments were developed to ensure any innovations would remain eligible for California funds; any changes to the state's policy would likely have an immediate ripple effect.But Wohlsen quoted Marcy Darnvosky of the Center for Genetics and Society as saying,
"California could also face increasing competition for business and scientific talent as New York prepares guidelines for its own $600 million stem cell research program. A draft report released by the New York program's planning committee said the state may allow payment for eggs."
"Do we really want to put women at risk to provide raw materials for research a lot of scientists say really isn't the way to go?"The references to Cascade, Trounson and Eggan all were to events chronicled earlier on the California Stem Cell Report, including the June meeting of CIRM's directors and the February meeting of the CIRM Standards Working Group.
The AP story pulled all of it together for general readers across the nation and perhaps abroad. Wohlsen's article will also attract the attention of editors around the country who may well commission locally written pieces and possibly editorials. It might even trigger a television news story or two.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Correction
The "Klein Confirms Resignation" item incorrectly identified John M. Simpson as Robert Simpson.
This is not the first time I have had made that mistake. The reasons go back to the early 1970s when I covered the California State Capitol for United Press International. Ronald Reagan was then governor. But he was not the only fixture under the dome. An elderly gentleman by the name of Robert Simpson also prowled the hallowed halls of state government. He was upset about some quite legitimate issue involving him personally, and the state system that did it to him. Unfortunately, the details are lost to memory. Even Google can't turn them up.
Robert Simpson meandered about the Capitol with his walker on nearly a daily basis, carrying hand-lettered signs with red characters proclaiming his grievances. His most memorable slogan was: "Reagan is a bastard!" It came at a time when such a public denunciation was still shocking. From time to time, Simpson was arrested by state police or Reagan's security forces and carted off to the local hoosegow. Undeterred he would pop up the next day invigorated by the experience.
I interviewed Robert Simpson on several occasions. His dentures did not fit well, and his enunciation was poor. Sometimes, spittle would fly and land on those nearby. The stories I wrote about him did little to solve his problems with the state of California. He was banging futilely against the state's bureaucracy. However, he relished the fight and the attention.
A couple of years later, a new reporter arrived in the Sacramento UPI bureau. (I taught him everything he knows.) Appropriately, he re-discovered Simpson and wrote about him again, pushing those stories into national prominence. Mr. Simpson, as we called him, delighted once more in the attention but his disputes were never settled to his satisfaction.
My recollection is that Mr. Simpson's health, never the best, declined. Members of his family came from out of town to assist. His obituaries were fulsome and replete with fond references to Mr. Simpson's good humor, despite his belief that he was never treated fairly by the state of California and the governor who portrayed so many amiable characters on the silver screen.
And that is why my fingers – to this day -- sometimes type in Robert Simpson's name instead that of John M. Simpson.
This is not the first time I have had made that mistake. The reasons go back to the early 1970s when I covered the California State Capitol for United Press International. Ronald Reagan was then governor. But he was not the only fixture under the dome. An elderly gentleman by the name of Robert Simpson also prowled the hallowed halls of state government. He was upset about some quite legitimate issue involving him personally, and the state system that did it to him. Unfortunately, the details are lost to memory. Even Google can't turn them up.
Robert Simpson meandered about the Capitol with his walker on nearly a daily basis, carrying hand-lettered signs with red characters proclaiming his grievances. His most memorable slogan was: "Reagan is a bastard!" It came at a time when such a public denunciation was still shocking. From time to time, Simpson was arrested by state police or Reagan's security forces and carted off to the local hoosegow. Undeterred he would pop up the next day invigorated by the experience.
I interviewed Robert Simpson on several occasions. His dentures did not fit well, and his enunciation was poor. Sometimes, spittle would fly and land on those nearby. The stories I wrote about him did little to solve his problems with the state of California. He was banging futilely against the state's bureaucracy. However, he relished the fight and the attention.
A couple of years later, a new reporter arrived in the Sacramento UPI bureau. (I taught him everything he knows.) Appropriately, he re-discovered Simpson and wrote about him again, pushing those stories into national prominence. Mr. Simpson, as we called him, delighted once more in the attention but his disputes were never settled to his satisfaction.
My recollection is that Mr. Simpson's health, never the best, declined. Members of his family came from out of town to assist. His obituaries were fulsome and replete with fond references to Mr. Simpson's good humor, despite his belief that he was never treated fairly by the state of California and the governor who portrayed so many amiable characters on the silver screen.
And that is why my fingers – to this day -- sometimes type in Robert Simpson's name instead that of John M. Simpson.
CIRM Revising Rules on Pre-2006 Cell Lines
The CIRM Standards Working Group had a plateful last week, dealing with the question of whether it can finance human embryonic stem cell research involving cell lines that were derived prior to CIRM regulations.
The short answer is provided by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Consumer Watchdog group, who attended the meeting. He wrote on his group's blog:
"A stem cell line may be deemed acceptably derived before November 2006 if the following criteria are met:
"Informed consent from woman or couple in IVF (and no indication that original donor would not consent for research).
"Approval of the donation protocol by an Institutional Review Board.
"Compliance with prevailing ethical and legal standards in place at the time of derivation in the jurisdiction where the derivation was carried out.
"The process to determine if the criteria had been met would begin with a request to CIRM. The staff would review the request and make a recommendation to the oversight board, the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee. The review would have to include consideration of the scientific significance of the stem cell line. The ICOC would consider the request in a public meeting after publicly posting it."
The Standards Working Group did not have a quorum so its "plan" will go to directors, presumably at their August meeting, as representing the "sense of the group" but without a formal recommendation. Such a practice is commonplace with CIRM since it has perennial problems with securing quorums at meetings.
If you see problems with the CIRM proposal or support it, now is the time to send something along to the agency.
The short answer is provided by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Consumer Watchdog group, who attended the meeting. He wrote on his group's blog:
"A stem cell line may be deemed acceptably derived before November 2006 if the following criteria are met:
"Informed consent from woman or couple in IVF (and no indication that original donor would not consent for research).
"Approval of the donation protocol by an Institutional Review Board.
"Compliance with prevailing ethical and legal standards in place at the time of derivation in the jurisdiction where the derivation was carried out.
"The process to determine if the criteria had been met would begin with a request to CIRM. The staff would review the request and make a recommendation to the oversight board, the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee. The review would have to include consideration of the scientific significance of the stem cell line. The ICOC would consider the request in a public meeting after publicly posting it."
The Standards Working Group did not have a quorum so its "plan" will go to directors, presumably at their August meeting, as representing the "sense of the group" but without a formal recommendation. Such a practice is commonplace with CIRM since it has perennial problems with securing quorums at meetings.
If you see problems with the CIRM proposal or support it, now is the time to send something along to the agency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)