Salk CEO Brody Named to CIRM Board

The latest addition to the board that controls California's $3 billion stem cell agency is an electrical engineer and a physician. He was once ranked as the highest paid university president in the United States (Johns Hopkins, 2007, $1.49 million). And in pinch he could fly you – as a pilot – to the headquarters of Novartis in Basel, Switzerland, where he sits on the board of directors of that $53 billion pharmaceutical enterprise.

William R. Brody (see photo) is the man who is coming aboard at CIRM. Last fall he took over as head of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Ca. And last week, California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi named him to replace Martha Chandler, the executive vice president at Salk, on the CIRM board. Chandler presumably resigned in favor of her boss.

In a news release on Friday, CIRM quoted Garamendi as saying that Brody is one of the nation's leading thinkers in biomedical engineering and healthcare policy. CIRM said he has authored more than 100 medical journal articles and co-founded three medical device companies.

Brody's pedigree also includes stints on the board of directors of a number of companies. In addition to Novartis, he currently sits on the IBM board, including its executive compensation committee, and the board of the Commonweath Fund, a foundation working toward a “high performance health system.”

Brody has spoken out and written on subjects of wider interest than those in scientific journals. In 2005, he deplored “the hodgepodge of local legislation, control and restriction (that) does not recognize the fundamentally porous nature of modern research science.” And he raised the specter of a human embryonic stem cell scientist being arrested in an unfriendly state during a layover there.

Also in 2005, he made a comment which seems to have application to CIRM, which refuses to disclose the financial interests of scientists who make the de facto decisions on hundred of millions of dollars in grants. Brody wrote,

“...(C)onflict-of-interest situations should always require disclosure. Disclosure is a necessary—but not sufficient—condition for supervising conflicts of interest. Additional checks, balances or prohibitions may be required to reach an appropriate risk profile for the behavior, but full disclosure is always the vital first step.”

He had this to say on another occasion.

“In my mind, conflict of interest begins the day a scientist has an idea. Even receiving NIH grant support drives a certain mode of behavior that could conflict the objectivity of that scientist. And licensing the idea to outside interests adds additional conflicts. A surgeon who develops a new clinical procedure will want to pursue the development of that procedure—which means conflict, hopefully positive—even without the involvement of an outside company. If she invents a surgical device that enables the operation and licenses that technology to an outside company, the conflict becomes more apparent, even though the conflict was no less real before any agreement was signed. But it is probably impossible to erect a firewall between the scientist and the supposed source of conflict. I know of few surgeons who would use a device invented by someone else if that colleague, even for reasons of conflict of interest, did not use that device herself. As a venture capitalist once told me, 'No conflict, no interest.'”

The July issue of the Salk Institute's house organ carried a profile on its new CEO in which he said, “The best institutions have to have a ruthless commitment to excellence."

That effort includes, he said, “assembling the money for hefty research start-up packages for new faculty.” That could mean a vote – depending on his view of conflicts of interest – for the $40 million research recruitment plan being offered up later this week at the CIRM board meeting.

The Salk profile also has other interesting tidbits, but does not mention that Brody holds ratings as an airline transport pilot and flight instructor, which in theory could make it possible for him to wing his own way to Basel.

Brody's career is indeed impressive. However, he seems careful to soft-pedal it. As he told then San Diego Union-Tribune reporter Terri Somers in an article last fall,

“I grew up in Stockton. Someone from Stockton can't put on airs.”

Montana Lad Speaks Out on Scientists, Stem Cells and Obama

Nature Reports Stem Cells this week carried an interview with the son of some fur traders and junk dealers on the subject of stem cells.

Among other things, he said most scientists don't know what medicine is and then took on President Obama concerning the new NIH rules on stem cell research.

The comments came from Irv Weissman of Stanford in a Q&A with Monya Baker, editor of Nature Reports Stem Cells. The interview keyed on his role as the new president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Here is the section on scientists and medicine.

Baker: "Why is it so hard to move science into medicine?"

Weissman: "First, most scientists don't know what medicine is. They don't know what whole-body physiology or pathology [is]. So they tend to be, at least at the beginning, unrealistic in their expectations. Second, there are not many people trained to do clinical trials.

"And you have to realize that things don't make it into clinical, commercial therapies without a lot of money."

He spoke about overcoming nontechnical barriers in the stem cell field.

“(G)going from labs to commercial and clinical products, we need to understand how it could be a commercially viable business. Stem cells, unlike drugs or proteins, self-renew and differentiate in a fashion regulated by the body; they regenerate systems for life from a single therapy. If you're going to deliver stem cells for lifetime therapy, the cost of goods and reasonable profit has to be priced with the knowledge it replaces daily therapies like insulin or blood transfusions.

“One of the greatest experiments I know of is being done in California. The California Institute of Regenerative Medicine [CIRM] sent out last year an RFA [request for applications] for disease teams to take stem cells and/or therapies derived from them through preclinical right up to the filing of the first IND [investigational new drug application] with the FDA. That's an area that was formerly funded only by companies. Now universities and other nonprofit institutions need to learn what companies do, including rigorous manufacturing practices [GMP] and FDA-compliant regulatory documents.”

Weissman also answered a question about how he came to be a scientist:

“I was born and brought up in Great Falls, Montana. My father and grandfather were fur traders and junk dealers. I was about to be the first in those generations to get an education. When I was ten years old I read a book called Microbe Hunters, which was about the lives of people like Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur. It was incredibly exciting to me.

“I really looked for a way to do research after that. I should say I was never a straight A student. When I was about 16, I met Ernst Eichwald at the local hospital. Ernst was German, his father was Jewish.

“During the beginnings of WWII Ernst belonged to a student group against the Nazis; somebody in his group was arrested, and without going home he crossed the border. He came to Harvard, he was on faculty there; he came to Utah, was on faculty there for awhile. He got sick of academic politics and decided to run the pathology service at the Montana Deaconess Hospital. Very early he handed me a paper [George Snell's paper on histocompatibility genes] as if I could read it, and I told him that I didn't understand the first word! He spent a whole Saturday with me, and we covered just that one paper.

“I realized that the language of science substitutes Greek and Latin terms for plain English, that it was a way to keep people out of the field. He didn't need to say histocompatibility. He could say "tissue-transplantation compatibility", but I also realized I could understand it. Thanks to the freedom Dr. Eichwald gave me, I began designing my own experiments at 16.”

CIRM Presents 'Groaning Board' of Info for Next Week's Meeting

The California stem cell agency has done a fine job this past week in posting background material for its two-day meeting that begins on Wednesday in San Francisco.

We have been critical of the agency for its past dilatory practices in providing material in time for interested parties to read it and formulate thoughtful responses or suggestions in advance of the board meeting.

However, the agenda for the upcoming meeting is chock-a-block with information for all to chew on. Indeed, nearly all the major items have some sort of information linked to them.

Matters with fresh material include reviewer decisions on applications for $30 million in basic biology grants, a report on outside contracts, proposals for increases in the pay of scientific reviewers and $70 million in new grant programs, a status report on CIRM's massive lab construction round and interim IP rules for its new, $500 million biotech lending program. Other items have older material linked to the agenda items, but at least it's a start.

Still missing is fresh material on the ambitious lending effort and recommendations on which firms should run the program.

Kudos to CIRM staffers for pushing out the information. It serves the agency and the public well.

Research Standards Meeting Scheduled for Mid-September

Speaking of timely information from CIRM, the agency this week posted its agenda for a major meeting Sept. 17-18 dealing with research standards and rules.

CIRM's Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards Working Group will gather in San Francisco to review matters involving both the federal government (NIH and FDA) along with New York state's plan to pay for human eggs for stem cell research.

Also on tap are California matters, including CIRM's MES regulations.

No background material is yet available via the agenda. But the timely posting of the agenda allows interested parties to make travel plans, gather their own material and cogitate.

Participation in CIRM Board Meeting Available in Southern California

Members of the public can rarely participate in meetings of the board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency unless they are physically present at the session, but next week is one of those occasions.

If you are in the Los Angeles area, you will be able to sit in and make comments from the City of Hope in Duarte. There will be a telephonic connection at that complex where CIRM director Michael Friedman will be located. He is CEO of the City of Hope.

The meeting agenda does not have the specific room for the telephonic connection, which you should ascertain in advance. You can do that by phoning Friedman's office, 626-256-4673, or emailing CIRM at info@cirm.ca.gov.

A $100 Million Agenda Next Week for California Stem Cell Directors

The board of the California stem cell agency meets one week from today to give away $30 million for research into basic biology and to authorize a new, $30 million immunology grant round, not to mention the creation of a $40 million effort to lure top scientists to the Golden State.

The 29-member board is also likely to implement the first stage of its ambitious and risky $500 million lending program for the biotech industry and approve delegated underwriters to run the effort.

CIRM directors additionally are scheduled to discuss the latest revision of the strategic plan, which is now available along with a related report on CIRM operations. The draft plan was posted earlier this week in plenty of time to be read and digested by all interested parties. (We will have more later on the update on the strategic plan.)

Several other matters to be considered also now have background material posted on the agenda, a substantial improvement from the days when such information was very late in coming.

The news out of this meeting – if any mainstream news outlets choose to cover it – is likely to be the $30 million given away for basic biology research. That program calls for about 20 grants over a three-year period. Some of the grants are likely to involve Japanese partners, although California funds are to be spent only in this state.

Scientists and others who want to help shape upcoming grant rounds should take special note of the proposed programs for research leadership awards and for stem cell transplantation immunology grants.

The usual procedure is for the board to approve the “concept” for the awards. Then the staff prepares the RFA and posts it. So next week will be the last chance to present to the CIRM board comments on the proposals and any suggestions for changes.

The research leadership award program is aimed at helping to recruit top scientists to California. The proposal says recipients will be researchers “judged to be highly likely to become world leaders in their fields.”

No exact dollar amount was placed on the effort but CIRM presented an example in which eight scientists could possibly see $40 million or so. That would include up to $1 million for lab renovations and equipment, to be matched by the recruiting institution. The six-year program would also provide up to $186,000 per scientist for annual salaries plus benefits and $300,000 a year for lab operations.

Nominations must come from a California university, research institution or medical center.

The program is certain to find strong support from the 12 heads of research institutions, medical school deans, etc., on the CIRM board.

The other proposed grant round provides $30 million for up to 20, three-year grants for research into stem cell transplantation immunology. Japan and the state of Victoria in Australia are funding partners, meaning that teams of researchers from those countries will be competing.

Given the discussion of the two new grant rounds and the strategic plan, persons interested in the future direction of CIRM and future funding initiatives should be on the scene or at least check in on the online audiocast. The audiocast, however, only allows you to hear the proceedings – not take part.

Directions for listening are already available on the agenda. The meeting itself will last two days and take place at the Mission Bay campus of UC San Francisco.

Comment on Verfaillie Post

A thoughtful and informed comment has been posted on the Verfaillie item from Aug. 11. The anonymous poster raises a question about whether she should be allowed to serve as a CIRM grant reviewer and as well as another question about whether CIRM should increase its vigilance on who sees confidential grant information at CIRM. You can read the comment at the end of original item or by finding it in the “recent comments” column just to the left of this post.

CIRM Grant Reviewer Verfaillie Linked to Investigations in Minnesota

A internationally known stem cell researcher who serves as a grant reviewer for the $3 billion California stem cell agency is at the heart of an inquiry at the University of Minnesota concerning the integrity of some of its stem cell research.

The matter involves Catherine Verfaillie (pictured) and New Scientist magazine, which raised concerns about the research. Verfaille is currently listed on the CIRM Web site as one of the scientists who make de facto decisions on research grant applications for hundreds of millions of dollars from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine.

We queried CIRM two days ago about Verfaillie but the agency has not responded.

The research inquiries at the University of Minnesota involve scientists who worked in Verfaillie's lab or who were affiliated with her. She is now working at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium but is still associated with the University of Minnesota. New Scientist once described her as running “one of highest-profile teams in stem-cell biology.”

Here is how Chris Williams of The Associated Press began his story last week on the research investigation,

“The University of Minnesota has launched its third internal investigation in two years into allegations of research misconduct....”

Jeremy Olson of the St. Paul Pioner Press wrote,

“In a familiar pattern, reporters from New Scientist magazine found images in a published study that appeared questionable and alerted U officials.

“The university already has retracted one stem cell study and corrected two others because of concerns raised by New Scientist. Having to launch yet another inquiry is an embarrassment for a university that has been viewed as a global expert in stem cell research....”

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said that the Minnesota case has implications that go beyond one researcher or institution.

According to reporter Williams,

"'What's unusual here is that you're starting to get other people involved," (Caplan) said. 'It's become a problem of a group, not an individual.'"

Williams continued,

“The Minnesota situation is also unusual, Caplan said, in that its researchers have been getting special scrutiny from New Scientist. He suspects there would be more questions of sloppiness or fraud at other universities if more outsiders were watching.

“There is particular pressure on scientists working in the stem cell field, with its mix of politics, the prestige of breakthroughs and the potential profits from patents.

"'I really can't think of too many areas that are more set up for somebody to cut corners than stem cell work,' he said.”

Peter Aldous and Eugenie Samuel Reich have been investigating the work at the University of Minnesota over several years. Their most recent piece on Aug. 5 said,

“Other stem cell biologists are disturbed that so many problems have been found in papers from a single institution. 'It's pretty discouraging," says Arnold Kriegstein of the University of California, San Francisco. Given the pressure on scientists in such competitive fields, he wonders what might emerge at other research centres if their publications were subjected to similarly close scrutiny.

"'It raises serious issues about how widespread this could be,' he says."

Aldous and Reich's Aug. 5 article has a full rundown on the cases they have investigated.

More Coverage on the New Research VP Position at CIRM

For more on creation of the new VP of research and development at CIRM, see a posting by Monya Baker on The Niche, Nature magazine's stem cell blog.

Among other things, Baker wrote,

“In the last organizational plan, (former chief scientific officer Marie) Csete had reported to (CIRM President Alan) Trounson, and Patricia Olson, director of scientific activities, had reported to Csete. Science officers, who decide what kinds of grant programs will be offered, reported to Olson. Under the new organizational chart, Olson will report directly to President Trounson, as will the vice president of R&D. (The general counsel and the vice president of operations already report to Trounson).”

In a related development, seven executive search firms have responded to CIRM's RFP to help in finding a Csete replacement.

In response to a question from the California Stem Cell Report, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer, said the firms are: Korn/Ferry International, McCormack & Farrow, Levin and Company, Caliber Associates, Russell Reynolds Associates, Spencer Stuart and The A-list.

CIRM paid Spencer Stuart about $500,000 previously for two presidential searches. In neither case did Spencer Stuart produce a candidate who would accept the job.

Also at yesterday's meeting, Trounson left open the possibility that CIRM might have to pay more than $332,000 to fill the position. That is the top of the current salary range at CIRM for the post. Csete earned $310,000. Trounson, however, said yesterday he hopes to fill the position without boosting the salary range.

Support for Public Health Care Option, but "Nyet" to Hoover

SACRAMENTO – The California stem cell agency appears to be on track to reject nearly all of the recommendations for improvements in its operations made by the state's good government agency, the Little Hoover Commission.

Meeting yesterday in a teleconference session, the directors' Legislative Subcommittee concluded its discussion of the Hoover report with a consensus “nyet” to the commission.

The panel earlier last month rejected the most sweeping recommendations, including reducing the size of the board of directors from 29 to 15 and trimming the powers of its chairman. The action was taken based on an opinion from the CIRM's outside counsel that the legislature could not make those changes.

Yesterday, the subcommittee went along (no vote was taken) with the CIRM staff response, which can be found here and here. The panel did agree to poll its scientific grant reviewers on whether they would resign if their statements of economic interests were made public. It also agreed to post vote tallies in the future by the board of directors on grant applications.

Art Torres, chairman of the subcommittee and a former state legislator, will prepare a report on the group's discussion and present it to the full board at its meeting Aug. 19-20 for ratification.

The Legislative Subcommittee, on a 6-3 vote, also expressed support for a public option in the national health care reform legislation. Director Jeff Sheehy, a UC San Francisco communications manager and AIDs activist, and Torres backed the effort.

Sheehy said access to health care and future stem cell therapies is critical to CIRM's mission. Duane Roth, co-vice chairman of the board of directors, opposed the endorsement, citing problems elsewhere in the world with government-run health care plans.

The endorsement will come before the full board at its meeting later this month.

Also meeting yesterday was the full CIRM board, again in a teleconference session, to discuss a proposal by President Alan Trounson connected to finding a replacement for Chief Scientific Officer Marie Csete, who has resigned.

Trounson plans to create a new vice president for research and development to enhance CIRM's engagement with industry. The title and additional responsibilities could also make it more appealing to possible job candidates.

Trounson's proposal does not require board approval but he is obviously taking care to ensure support from the CIRM board.

The plan hit a bump when Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, raised questions about reporting ambiguities in Trounson's organizational chart, which seemed to conflict with the reporting lines in the job description dealing with basic science research.

Sherry Lansing, chairperson of the Governance Subcommittee and former head of a Hollywood film studio, indicated that the plan seemed to justify the creation of a third VP. In that case, the executive director of scientific activities would be designated as a vice president.

In other action, the board added Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine, and Ted Love, a Bay Area biomedical businessman, to the newly created Evaluation Subcommittee. Levey was then elected chairman of the committee and Francisco Prieto, a Sacramento physician, vice chairman.

The full list of committee members can be found here, minus the Levey and Love additions.

For the record, we should note that some of the material for yesterday's two meetings was posted extremely late on the CIRM web site. One memo dealing with the Hoover report was not available at teleconference location in Sacramento, although it may have been posted on the Web at the time of the meeting. The staff's discussion draft of the Hoover report did not appear until the day before the meeting. Likewise for the organizational chart.

CIRM Dwarfed in Biotech Patent Fight

The battle to protect the biotech industry from generic drug makers, a war in which CIRM is a dogface, is going swimmingly, according to an article this week by The Associated Press.

In a piece headlined “The influence game: Biotech drug lobbying war,” Alan Fram wrote that the weapons include “millions of dollars in lobbying, thousands in campaign contributions and uncounted visits to members of Congress. And one noteworthy letter.”

His conclusion?

“The lobbying battle has so far been one-sided. The Senate health committee voted 16-7 for a 12-year (patent) protection period last month, while (Rep. Henry) Waxman's House energy panel voted 47-11 for 12 years of protection last Friday on an amendment by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., who has numerous biotech firms in or near her Silicon Valley district.”

CIRM is a decidedly bit player on this stage, given the vast stakes and expenditures involved. The agency has written a letter – NOT the one cited by Fram – after directors, over the last few months, debated whether a state-funded agency should lobby to protect the biotech industry. That letter in turn generated another letter from U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. (Both can be found here.)

CIRM also has hired a Washington lobbying firm, the Podesta Group, an unusual step for a state agency, paying it $240,000 for 10 months work. But Podesta's assignments from CIRM seem to involve more than patent protection.

All of CIRM's efforts are hardly a dribble on the health care reform playing field, where all the action is taking place. The Associated Press article, distributed nationally, spells out how money talks when it comes to locking up intellectual property. Fram described a “huge disparity” in cash. He wrote,

“Representing biotech companies, the Biotechnology Industry Organization has spent $3.7 million lobbying so far this year. Their ally, (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), has spent $13.1 million — the second most of any group that lobbies in Washington.

“The main group opposing them, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, has spent $1.1 million lobbying this year. Another group, a coalition of generic drug companies, insurers and large employers, has spent another $180,000, though most of its members — like AARP and the General Motors Corp. — are more focused on the overall (health reform) bill and are devoting few resources to the generic fight.”

Fram continued,

“All that money has let the biotech industry launch a lobbying blitz, with targets including lawmakers from biotech-heavy states like California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and North Carolina.

“The biotech organization has brought its CEOs to Washington, and has run print and radio ads in the states of pivotal lawmakers. The pharmaceutical association has helped organize lobbying by universities that conduct biotech research and venture capitalists who invest in such firms, and paid for a Duke University study that concluded biotech firms need 12 to 16 years of protection from generic competitors to break even.”

All of which brings us to a business maxim of Jack Welch, the fabled executive who once led General Electric. He did not mess with enterprises in which GE could not be No. 1 or No. 2. Even today, his Web site says that maxim “stopped the decades-long practice of sprinkling money everywhere.”

The California stem cell agency is not even close to being No. 1 or No. 2 in the biotech patent protection game. That is something for CIRM directors to think about as they consider their priorities later this month when they deal with their strategic plan. Their grant portfolio is just about to hit $1 billion. They have only a tiny staff to oversee those expenditures and to hand out another $2 billion over the next few years. They will soon launch a new $210 million grant round, the largest research round ever for CIRM. And they will enter new, uncharted waters with a risky $500 million biotech lending program. A sharper focus on essentials may be in order.

Sizzling Month for Biotech; More on Patent Protection for Biotech

Good news is surfacing in the biotech industry. One industry watcher on Monday reported that the sector was “hot” during July, but warned that challenges remain including the fate of patent protection for biotech drugs – a matter also of concern to the California stem cell agency.

Burrill & Co., the San Francisco life sciences merchant bank, said the sector was propelled by “drug data, positive drug sales/earnings and partnering and M&A deals.”

But Steven Burrill, CEO of the company bearing his name, also said,

“We don’t yet believe biotech is fully back on track as many companies are still struggling to find the necessary funding to maintain their operations, almost half of US public biotechs have market caps below $100 million and we are seeing companies still consistently turning off their lights for the last time. It is important to remind ourselves that the biotech industry is undergoing a major transition, a process that will likely continue for many months yet.

“This is because we do not know how President Barack Obama’s proposal for health care reform will fully impact the biotechnology industry and the status of biosimiliar legislation (follow-on biologics) is also still unresolved and there are fears that these issues will drive the prices of innovative drugs lower and eat away at biotech company profits.”

CIRM, a taxpayer-funded organization, is lobbying Congress on the biosimilar patent protection legislation. Last month it sent a letter to to U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-California, backing lengthy, 12 to 14 year patent protection periods, also an industry-supported position.

Without that protection, CIRM said “patient access to this promising technology will de delayed or eliminated and California's biotechnology sector will suffer.” Feinstein sent the letter along to the key Democratic negotiators on the health care reform legislation, urging support of the CIRM position. You can a find copy of both letters here.

A Look Behind a 13-word Matter for CIRM Directors

A bureaucratic yawner – at least that seems to be the appearance of one of the matters before the directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency on Thursday.

But appearances are sometimes deceptive. And in this case, the issue is freighted with baggage related to the performance of CIRM Chairman Robert Klein and President Alan Trounson. And it goes to touchy matters involving CIRM directors and their oversight of CIRM.

Agenda item No. 3 simply says “consideration of appointment of at-large members and chair and vice-chair for Evaluation Subcommittee.”

The matter comes before the board as it is about to establish – for the first time in nearly five years – a formal evaluation procedure for its chairman and president. The procedure will also include the vice chairmen of the board of directors.

One could make something of a case that formal evaluations were not necessarily called for earlier because until recently Klein had declined a salary. The former vice chairman also refused pay. Now, however, one of the co-vice chairmen and Klein both receive half-time salaries, respectively $75,000 and $150,000.

Director Ricardo Azziz, chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Hopsital in Los Angeles, put it this way last spring,

“We have been remiss and we are now backtracking to make sure that we have this.”

In late April, CIRM directors created their Evaluation Subcommittee. But they did not settle upon the at-large members or the chair or vice chair of the panel.

The subject triggered a contentious debate during which some directors expressed concerns about public appearances and conflicts of interests because the CIRM vice chairmen and chairman would be serving on the Evaluation Subcommittee, even though they would recused when their performances came up.

According to the transcript, Azziz said,

“There is a potential for the perception of conflict of interest. While I think it is crucial that we obtain feedback from the chair and vice chairs regarding the other members of that group performance, I think that having them as a member of the group raises a significant risk of conflict of interest. And I'm unaware of any other evaluation team, for example, a financial oversight committee, that would include the CFO that is composed similarly.”

Director Carmen Puliafito, dean of the USC medical school, said the committee created a “perception of self-dealing and self-interest.”

Nonetheless the directors approved the structure of the committee, which was presented by Sherry Lansing, chair of the Governance Committee and a former head of a Hollywood film studio. She said Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis medical school and co-chair of the governance panel, took the lead in coming up with the structure. Lansing indicated that other possibilities were rejected because they appeared to lack support.

Director Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager with UC San Francisco, offered a motion that would have made Lansing and Pomeroy the co-chairs of the Evaluation Subcommittee in addition to their roles on the governance panel.

He said they were most familiar with the evaluation process. But his effort failed after it was opposed by Klein. Initially Klein said the Evaluation Subcommittee should decide who should be the chair, although Klein normally names the chairs of subcommittees. Later, he indicated he would be willing to have the full board select the head of the evaluation panel, setting the stage for this week's meeting.

The session is available to the public at many locations throughout the state. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

The Podesta Watch: Public Health Care Option and Loans to College Students

Tony Podesta, the “legendary Democratic fundraiser” who is now CIRM's go-to guy in Washington, made the news during the last few days for roles in connection with the public option in the national health care legislation and aiding Sallie Mae, the nation's largest provider of student loans.

Podesta, who is under a $240,000, 10-month lobbying contract with the California state agency, was mentioned on the nationally broadcast PBS program, Bill Moyer's Journal, on Friday. The program was a scathing look at lobbying efforts by the health insurance industry against the public option in national health care reform legislation. On Thursday, CIRM directors will be asked to endorse the public option.

The guest on the Moyers' program was Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive who is now an advocate for health care reform.

Here is how the Podesta's name came up, according to the transcript:

Moyers:

"I mean, they (former Congressional staffers) left the government. They go to work for the industry. Now they're back with an insider status. They get an access, right?"

Potter:

“Oh, they do, they do. And these lobbyists' ability to raise money for these folks also is very important as well. Lobbyists, many of the big lobbyists contributed a lot of money themselves. One of the lobbyists for one of the big health insurance company is Heather Podesta, the Podesta Group, and she's married to Tony Podesta, who's a brother of John Podesta.”

Moyers:

“Who used to be the White House chief of staff."

Potter:

“Right. Right. And they're Democrats. And my executives wanted to meet with — and when I say my, the people I used to work for-- “

Moyers:

“At CIGNA.”

Potter:

“Yeah, wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton, when she was still in the Senate and still a candidate for president. Well, that's hard to do. That's hard to pull off, but she did. That just shows you that you can, through the relationships that are formed and that the insurance industry pays for, by hiring these lobbyists, you can your foot in the door. You can get your messages across to these people, in ways that the average American couldn't possibly.”

Danielle Knight, in a special report to the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, mentioned the Podesta Group in a piece headlined, “Lobbying Showdown Over The Future Of Student Loans." The article discussed Sallie Mae's efforts to position itself as the “clear winner” in multibillion dollar fight over the private student loan industry. Knight wrote that in March,

“(S)allie Mae retained the Podesta Group, founded by Tony Podesta, a legendary Democratic fundraiser whose brother headed the Obama transition team. In addition to Podesta himself, the firm, which was paid $110,000 for its work in the first half of the year, assigned at least four of its lobbyists to push Sallie Mae's case on Capitol Hill: Paul Brathwaite, the former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus and a former Clinton Labor Department official; Israel 'Izzy' Klein, a former aide to Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats; Lauren Maddox, a former assistant secretary for communications and outreach at the Education Department in the Bush administration; and Donni Turner, a former aide to Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, Rep. David Scott of Georgia, and former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, all of them Democrats.”

Linda Stamato of nj.com also mentioned Podesta in connection with Sallie Mae.

The Meaning of "Further" and a $3 Billion Science Program

Patient advocate Don Reed has pulled together a lengthy piece on a proposed overhaul of the California stem cell agency, concluding that that the $3 billion enterprise does not need to be fixed.

Reed said CIRM is doing “a terrific job.” Writing on his blog, stemcellbattles.com, he said,

“Why should major changes be imposed on such an outstanding program?”

Reed wrote yesterday about the recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission, the state's good government agency, and a meeting earlier this month of the CIRM directors' Legislative Subcommittee.

The heart of Reed's article deals with whether a vote of the people is required on five Hoover recommendations, including trimming the size of the board from 29 to 15 and reducing the powers of the chairman, who has responsibilities that overlap with the president. Both the size of the board and the dual executive situation have created difficulties for CIRM.

Proposition 71, which created the agency nearly five years ago, says the legislature can make changes in CIRM only if they “further” the purposes of the act. Otherwise, a vote of the people is needed to alter the ballot initiative.

That's where the issue hangs. What does further mean? CIRM's lawyers, in an opinion sought by Chairman Robert Klein, have opined that five of the Hoover recommendations require a vote of the people. The Hoover Commission says it is an open question. And as Reed points out in his piece, we told the CIRM Legislative Subcommittee that other, equally capable attorneys could find that the recommendations in question could be legally enacted by state lawmakers.

Reed, an unabashed supporter of CIRM, explores the issue in some detail and notes that it will come before the full board in August. An interim report from the Legislative Subcommittee is scheduled for Thursday of this week.

CIRM Seeks Help in Search for Csete Replacement

The California stem cell agency wants to hire an executive search firm – its third such arrangement in the last four years – to recruit a successor to Marie Csete to lead the organization's scientific research efforts.

CIRM contracted with a search firm, Spencer Stuart, on two different occasions in the past in an effort to find a president for the $3 billion enterprise. Despite spending about $500,000, the searches never turned up a candidate who would accept the job.

In both cases, the two men who ultimately accepted the presidency surfaced by other means.

CIRM's latest effort calls for a timetable of no more than six months to find a vice president for research and development, a new position at the agency. The post would cover the responsibilities of CIRM chief scientific officer, the title that Csete carried.

Alan Trounson, CIRM president, said the new position is aimed at attracting candidates with more commercial research backgrounds.

The RFP said the salary is likely to be $180,000 to $332,000, although it left the door open to going higher. CIRM asked search firms to provide advice on salary levels based on “industry trends and best practices.”

The CIRM board has yet to approve creation of the new vice presidency although the RFP was posted 11 days ago. Bids from search firms must be in by Monday. The board takes up consideration of the new post on Thursday.

Here are links to funding for Spencer Stuart: 2005, 2008.

Call for CIRM Reform to be Heard by Agency Board

Recommendations for sweeping changes in the $3 billion California stem cell agency come before its board of directors next Thursday, including one proposal that would trim the unwieldy 29-member board to 15.

The full board will hear an interim report on the recommendations by the Little Hoover Commission, the state's good government agency. The meeting will follow a session the same day of its Legislative Subcommittee.

Earlier this month, the subcommittee opposed five proposals by the commission contained in an 88-page report entitled, “Stem Cell Research: Strengthening Governance to Further the Voters' Mandate.” The rejected recommendations included a reduction in the size of the board and a move to curtail the power of its chairman, Robert Klein.

One CIRM director, Jeff Sheehy, has said the Hoover Commission offered some “reasonable suggestions.” Late last month, Sheehy said he was disappointed by the “vigorous negative response” from CIRM.

Prior to next Thursday's meeting of the full board, the Legislative Subcommittee will discuss nine other Hoover recommendations, including polling scientists who review grants about whether they would resign if they must publicly disclose their financial interests.

The grant review group makes the de facto decisions on grant applications, although the board has the final legal authority. In practice, the board almost never overturns reviewers' recommendations either to fund or not to fund a specific grant.

Other Hoover proposals include:

• Elimination of the 50 employee cap, which is unnecessary given that there is also a cap on administrative spending. The limit on staff has created a heavy reliance on outside contracting.


• Adoption of a succession plan for leadership and a transition plan when bond funding is no longer available. State bonds are virtually the source of cash for CIRM.


• Identification of all applicants for a grant. Currently only successful applicants are identified. Identification of all applicants would allow the public to see what is not being funded and allow better assessment of whether certain areas of science are being overlooked.


• A performance audit of CIRM by a special oversight committee chaired by the state's top fiscal officer, the state controller.

Responding to a query, John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., said,

"The (board) needs to spend its time thinking about and acting on many of the issues raised in the report. Number one on my list would be succession planning now that Bob Klein has made it clear he won't be chairman after 2010. Another important thing to deal with is the revised strategic plan that has been lingering in draft form since last December.”

Some of the recommendations being considered on Thursday would require legislative action – an unprecedented, super, supermajority 70 percent vote mandated by Prop. 71, the ballot initiative that created CIRM, plus the signature of the governor. No other California legislation requires a 70 percent vote, including raising taxes and passing a budget.

Earlier this month, the Legislative Subcommittee rejected the more sweeping recommendations largely on the grounds of its own attorney's opinion that they would require a vote of the people – an even more challenging political feat than gaining a 70 percent vote of the legislature.

A memo to other directors from Klein and Art Torres, co-vice chairman of the board and chairman of the Legislative Subcommittee, said that if those changes were adopted only by the legislature, it would be unconstitutional.

They said,

“As members of the board, we took an oath to uphold Proposition 71 and could not support these proposed changes.”

Legal opinions, however, are just that -- opinions. Another equally skilled attorney could come to an entirely different conclusion.

The opinion from the board's attorney was ordered up by Klein before the final report by the Hoover Commission was released. It placed the CIRM board in a box. To do anything but follow the opinion could be construed as a repudiation of Klein and CIRM's outside legal counsel.

The subcommittee session and the full board meeting will be available to the public via numerous locations statewide. The subcommittee meeting begins at 1 p.m. With the full board to follow at 4 p.m. The full board is expected to take up the Hoover recommendations again in August.

Specific addresses can be found on the subcommittee agenda and the board agenda.

The full text of Simpson's remarks can be found in the item below.

Text of Simpson Hoover Comments

Here is the text of comments by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., concerning next week's CIRM board meeting on recommendations by the Little Hoover Commission.

“The Little Hoover Commission requires no response and the Legislative Subcommittee is wasting the valuable time of its members trying to formulate one. What matters is action, not rhetoric.

“If the ICOC (the CIRM board) needs to send something, send a simple note:

"'Dear Little Hoover Commission:

"'Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful report. We appreciate its constructive tone and are giving serious consideration to all the recommendations you made.

"'Thank you,
"'The ICOC'

“Then the ICOC needs to spend its time thinking about and acting on many of the issues raised in the report. Number one on my list would be succession planning now that Bob Klein has made it clear he won't be chairman after 2010. Another important thing to deal with is the revised strategic plan that has been lingering in draft form since last December.

“Little Hoover did its job. They offered an independent assessment and a bunch of suggestions. They have done their job and are on to their next study. They really don't care what your write back.

“Now the ICOC needs to do its job. Surely that's not wasting members' valuable time formulating a response to the report. That approach smacks more of ego -- and thin skin -- than anything else. Instead, tackle the very real issues the agency is facing.”

Need Work? San Francisco Organization Offers Opportunities

Looking for a job with a fast-paced enterprise that is on the cutting edge of science and medicine, big business, big politics and big academia? Do you enjoy working in areas that involve life, death, morality, ethics and religion?

Look no further. The $3 billion California stem cell agency has openings for persons who are willing to work long hours with pretty good pay.

In addition to a new vice president/chief scientific officer, CIRM is seeking additional science officers, a deputy legal counsel and an administrative assistant. You should move fast. An opening for a deputy grants management officer was up only yesterday, but now has been removed from the CIRM job listings.

The deadline for the deputy legal counsel application is Aug. 4. The salary range is $133,700 to $200,500 annually. The deadline for the administrative assistant was July 16, but CIRM says the position is open until a suitable candidate is found. The pay range is $51,408 to $77,100. No deadline has been posted for the science officer applications, which pay from $90,000 to $165,000.

CIRM Adds Info on Possible Endorsement of Public Insurance Option

The California stem cell agency has posted a host of wide-ranging links to documents dealing with the public health insurance option that it will consider endorsing at its Legislative Subcommittee meeting next Thursday.

They range from Wall Street Journal and New York Times articles to pieces in support and against the plan, which is being considered by Congress as part of the national health care reform legislation.

The posting of the documents well ahead of the meeting is another instance of giving both the public and CIRM ample time to consider the issues involved.

However, the background material does not address several questions that CIRM directors should consider. Is this sort of broad national issue something that CIRM should be chasing? If so, how many votes can CIRM deliver for or against the plan? The latter may be the most important question in the real world of politics. Third, is this something that CIRM's high-flying federal lobbyist, the Podesta Group, can weigh in on appropriately? It has several other clients that have a major stake in the legislation. And those clients may have interests at odds with whatever position CIRM chooses to take.

If you would like to take part in the CIRM debate over the plan, you can do so via teleconference locations throughout the state. They include San Francisco, Los Angeles, Healdsburg, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Irvine, La Jolla and Sacramento. The specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

You can also weigh with comments on this Web site. Just click on the term "comments" below. Anonymous postings are permitted.