CIRM Says It Is Receiving More Cash From Bond Sale

We would like to call attention to a comment posted this afternoon by CIRM on this site declaring that the information contained in our item, “No New Stem Cell Cash,” is incorrect. Our piece reported that the state treasurer's office said that CIRM would receive no new cash from the latest California bond sale. CIRM disputes that information. We are checking with the treasurer's office concerning the item and the comment by CIRM's Don Gibbons, the stem cell agency's chief communication officer. You can read his comment by clicking on it at the left of this posting. Or you can find it by clicking on the word “comments” at the end of the original item.

No New Stem Cell Cash in Latest California Bond Sale

California's sale of $4.5 billion in bonds this week will not mean fresh cash for the California stem cell agency.

In response to a query, Tom Dresslar, spokesman for the state treasurer's office, said some of the proceeds will go to refinance earlier debt taken on to support the state research operation. But he said no additional funds will go to CIRM.

The agency currently has enough cash to operate roughly through the end of next year. Its sole source of any significant revenue is California state bonds.

The agency experienced a cash crunch earlier this year and raised the possibility of marketing state bonds privately. CIRM, however, received a $505 million infusion in April as the result of a $7 billion California bond sale.

Presumably the agency will be in line for some additional bond funding between now and December 2010.

CIRM Panel Approves $300,000 Economic Study; Public Access to Data Still a Question

A subcommittee of the directors of the California stem cell agency today unanimously approved a $300,000 economic impact study of the agency's work by a firm that is expected to “execute a vibrant and aggressive strategy” supporting CIRM.

Still up in the air is whether CIRM will allow other researchers and interested parties access to the basic data that will be gathered for the study at taxpayer expense. Much of the information will come from recipients of CIRM grants.

In response to an email query, Don Gibbons, spokesman for CIRM, said the Governance Subcommittee approved the study to be conducted by LECG of Emeryville, Ca. Gibbons did not respond directly to questions about whether the data would be available to other, non-CIRM researchers, who could make an independent assessment about the financial impact of spending $3 billion for research.

Gibbons looked askance at an earlier item on the California Stem Cell Report that discussed the issue of public availability of the information.

He said in an email that the article was “grabbing at straws.” The item was based on a brief response from Gibbons to two questions from the California Stem Cell Report. Gibbons said that he was “in a hurry” when he looked at our emailed questions and misread them as a request for a copy of a contract. (Our two sentence request can be found here.)

Gibbons added that at the Governance meeting, CIRM Chairman Robert Klein “pledged that the (economic analysis) model created will be made public,” a statement that raised another question from us.

We asked Gibbons,

“To double-check, your message....omits any reference to making the basic data public. The 'model' is different than the data used in it.

“Will the basic data be available to the public and will it be available in a non-proprietary format? Thanks.“

Gibbons' verbatim response:

“The bulk of their work will be on the model. The only case that will be worked through with full data will be the test case on Polycythemia Vera. There will be some data that will be protected by patient privacy laws. We have not worked out where that line will be drawn.”

CIRM's position falls far short of ensuring public and researcher access to the basic data, which is being generated with taxpayer funds. Bringing up patient privacy laws only confuses the issue. In virtually all major studies of this sort, individual names and personal information are not important to the analysis. The data are aggregated in an anonymous fashion.

The important point is to build a database from the very start that is publicly usable and that does not co-mingle confidential and public information in such a way that harms its public accessibility. If the two categories are interwoven inappropriately, it could make the data nearly impossible to unwind.

To fail to ensure public access to the basic information only damages CIRM's credibility, especially when the agency goes to Sacramento seeking additional funding. Klein has promised to adhere to the highest standards of openness. It is time for him to fulfill that promise.

As for the independence of the winning firm, CIRM's request for bids specifically stated that a successful bidder must “execute a vibrant and aggressive strategy to support the goals and initiatives of CIRM.”

More Locations for Economic Impact Meeting

If you are eager to participate in this morning's CIRM meeting involving a $300,000 economic impact study, the stem cell agency has added several new teleconference locations, including Des Moines.

Here is the latest list of locations for the 11 a.m. PDT session in addition to Des Moines: San Francisco (2), Palo Alto, Los Angeles (2), UC Davis and Irvine,

Specific addresses can be found on the agenda. Some of the locations do not have room numbers. CIRM should be able to provide them at 415-396-9100.

Will CIRM Withhold Economic Data?

The California stem cell agency today left open the possibility that the basic data gathered during a proposed $300,000 economic impact study will be withheld from the public and outside researchers.

The question of whether CIRM considers the information a public record arose in connection with the proposed contract with LECG of Emeryville, Ca., which comes before the CIRM directors' Governance Subcommittee during a teleconference meeting Tuesday.

Earlier today, we pointed out that none of the CIRM documents currently available on the proposed study provide assurances that the basic information, which will be gathered at taxpayer expense, will be considered open to the public and made available in a non-proprietary format.

We asked CIRM in an email,

“Will the data gathered under the economic impact study proposal to be considered tomorrow be public record? Will it be available in a non-proprietary format?”

Here is the verbatim response from Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer.

“We don’t quite have a final contract yet.”

CIRM's best interests would be well served in being very explicit that the data are public. The agency holds an unprecedented position in state history and is engaged in activities that reach deep into the scientific community, academia and the biotech industry. To draw a curtain over information that would allow truly independent study of CIRM's impact would be a disservice to California taxpayers and to those who would study CIRM in the future.

Just as scientists test the results of research by attempting to replicate published results, it is only appropriate to apply the same standard in the case of the CIRM economic study. That means that the basic data must be available to all researchers or interested parties, not just those consultants hired by CIRM.

CIRM Moving Forward with 'Vibrant' Economic Benefit Study

Key directors of the California stem cell agency tomorrow are likely to give the go-ahead to a $300,000 proposal to study the economic impact of its $3 billion research effort.

Under the terms of the RFP, the folks doing the study must “execute a vibrant and aggressive strategy to support the goals and initiatives of CIRM.”

Five firms responded to the RFP last year. Only one, LECG of Emeryville, Ca., is being considered tomorrow at a teleconference meeting of the directors' Governance Subcommittee. LECG says Henry Miller of its Washington, D.C., office and Jose Alberro will be co-directors of the study.

We have written previously about the credibility problems associated with any economic study funded by CIRM. There is no doubt that CIRM's efforts have a beneficial economic impact. But no CIRM-financed study will convince skeptics that the program is necessarily justified.

Nonetheless, CIRM is proceeding with the effort, which will undoubtedly be a useful public relations tool. The study is also likely to be served up at some point to support the need for additional state funding. And it could serve as a marketing device should CIRM push forward with its plans to peddle state bonds privately.

If the data are public record and available in a non-proprietary format, they could be useful to other economists and interested parties. Most of CIRM's records are public, but sometimes some of its important information is tucked away from the public gaze. The RFP, the LECG bid and the staff report carry no assurances that the information gathered during the study will be available publicly or in a format that could be used by non-CIRM researchers.

We have asked CIRM whether the economic data will be a public record and will carry the agency's response when we receive it.

The RFP for the study was first posted about a year ago, but is no longer available on the CIRM Web site. A CIRM staff report said that negotiations on the contract were suspended because of concerns about CIRM's financing.

The report said that contract being considered tomorrow will involve something of a pilot project. The staff said,

“The plan agreed upon between CIRM and LECG is to initially build a model around a test case, a specific disease – Polycythemia Vera – that is the target of a clinical trial under the direction of Dr. Catriona Jamieson at UCSD (the topic of a disease “spotlight” at the June 2009 ICOC meeting in San Diego). This clinical trial involves a small molecule drug therapeutic identified through studies using stem cells. The model will take into account direct benefits of CIRM funding (job creation through research and facilities awards), secondary cascades of CIRM funding (“multiplier effect” – e.g. payments to suppliers and subcontractors along with affiliated job creation and state revenues from income, sales and property taxes), potential savings in health care costs (compared to current therapies) and increased productivity for both patients and their caretakers (related to improved vitality and quality of life). Once this model is created, it will be evaluated and fine-tuned by a panel of experts selected by LECG and CIRM. The application to Polycythemia Vera will then be completed and a report prepared by December 2009.

"Subsequently, the model will be expanded and adapted for analyzing other diseases and other applications of stem cells for treating these diseases. In addition to the development of small molecules, other approaches will include cellular therapies (replacing cells, organs &/or organ functions) and the creation of normal and disease specific cell lines for screening (e.g. predictive toxicology) and early diagnostics. The entire project should be completed by the beginning of May 2010. Further, we expect the results to identify data that CIRM should collect on an on-going basis as part of its grants management process for use in future economic analyses.”

The other firms offering bids for the economic RFP included the Analysis Group, which previously performed studies for CIRM and the Prop. 71 ballot campaign. The others were RiskAnalytica, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Tripp Umbach.

The public can take part in the teleconference meeting at locations in San Francisco (2), Palo Alto, Irvine, Los Angeles and UC Davis. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

Prop. 71 Fallout: Bond Guru Assails California Voter Initiatives

Bond maven Bill Gross kicked off October by lashing out at California's “perverted” form of government including ballot measures such as Prop. 71, which he said have have “almost tragically shaped” the state's laws.

Gross made his remarks in his monthly commentary, which is widely followed in the financial community. The Southern California resident is the head of the $178 billion Pimco Total Return Fund. He is also a backer of stem cell research at UC Irvine to the tune of $10 million.

For those of you not familiar with ballot measures, Prop. 71 is the voter initiative that created California's $3 billion stem cell agency, which uses borrowed money to finance scientific research for the first time in the nation's history.

Gross deplored the current financial state of affairs in California, which he likened to dog excrement. He wrote:

“Perhaps more than any other state, California has been affected by its perverted form of government, requiring a two-thirds vote by state legislators to effectively pass a budget. In addition, the state’s laws are almost tragically shaped by a form of direct democracy more resemblant of the Jacksonian era, where the White House furniture was constantly at risk due to unruly citizens, high on whisky, and low on morals and common sense. Propositions from conservatives and liberals alike have locked up much of the budget, with Proposition 13 in 1978 reducing property taxes by 57% and Prop. 98 in 1988 requiring 40% of the general fund to be spent on schools.”

Gross continued,

“What is critical to recognize is that both California and the U.S., as well as numerous global lookalikes such as the U.K., Spain, and Eastern European invalids, are in a poor position to compete in a global economy where capitalism is morphing from its decades-long emphasis on finance and levered risk taking to a more conservative, regulated, production-oriented system advantaged by countries focusing on thrift and deferred gratification.”

Prop. 71 is just one of the ballot measures that California voters have approved over the years, although its impact ($6-$7 billion with interest) is tiny compared to the examples that Gross cited.

Nonetheless, government by ballot measure is a poor way to regularly do the people's business. Indeed, one of the chief obstacles to the smooth functioning of the stem cell agency is, in fact, the ballot measure that created it. Like some smothering parent, Prop. 71 effectively prevents the agency from making much-needed changes in its operations, ranging from removing the poorly conceived 50-person staff limit to changing its super-majority quorum requirements, which continue to make it difficult for its board of directors to do business. The board's own attorney earlier this year declared that CIRM is handcuffed. He said that it is impossible for the board or the legislature to make important reforms (see the the Little Hoover Commission findings) without going to another vote of the people, an exceedingly unlikely event, short of a major scandal at the stem cell agency.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item did not contain the reference to Gross' $10 million contribution.)

CIRM Looking for Closer Conformity on Egg Rules

SAN FRANCISCO --As part of its effort to achieve consistency with national standards, the California stem cell agency is moving towards allowing the use by CIRM researchers of embryos created through IVF that originally involved payments.

The CIRM Standards Working Group last week approved the move although specific language is yet to be worked out. Bernie Lo, co-chairman of the group and director of the medical ethics program at UC San Francisco, said the language would be narrowly focused.

Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society of Berkeley, Ca., said he was
“encouraged” by the CIRM direction. Earlier, the group had expressed concern that CIRM might be creeping towards possible creation of a loophole in the Prop. 71 ban on compensation for egg donors.

CIRM hopes to present specific language soon for its proposed rule to the Standards Working Group in a telephonic meeting. The proposal would then go to the CIRM board and from there into the official state regulation process.

In other matters involving the standards group, Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, who has been a member of the group since its beginning in 2005, is leaving the panel because of her new position as a senior advisor at the FDA,

CIRM hopes to approve a replacement at the board meeting that begins Oct. 27.

Reynolds also praised CIRM staff for the early posting of background material on matters to be discussed at the meeting last week. Additional material has been posted as well on the research standards issues facing CIRM. It all can be found here.

Germany Added to CIRM's Stable of Partners

The California stem cell agency today announced its sixth international agreement – this one with Germany – with the hope that it will lead to joint research in stem cell transplantation and immunology.

The agreement is intended to make it easier for researchers in California and Germany to obtain joint funding. As with the other agreements, no California funds are permitted to be spent outside of the state.

CIRM already has agreements with organizations in Canada, the state of Victoria in Australia, Japan, Spain and the United Kingdom.

CIRM's news release quoted California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as saying,

“There are brilliant minds all over the world, especially here in California, and with collaborations like this we can help ensure that potentially life-saving breakthroughs can come more quickly and more often.”

In response to a query, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, said,

“We have over $60 million in commitments from our international collaborative funding partners.... There were a total of nine collaborative applications in the Disease Teams, with Canada, Spain and the UK represented, but of course we won’t know how those nine fared among the 31 until October 28(the next CIRM board meeting). There are a number of Japanese collaborations among the Basic Biology 2 awards that have just come in and are being assessed internally now.”

The only international grants awarded so far came last spring in the early translation research round. Four collaborations were funded for a total of $29 million($24 million California and $5 million Victoria) involving Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and techniques for working with embryonic stem cells.

Egg Donor Proposal Stirs Concern; CIRM Says Language is 'Placeholder'

The Center for Genetics and Society Thursday raised “serious concerns” about some of the matters to be discussed at today's meeting of the research standards group of the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

CIRM, however, said the center has “misconstrued the intent of the proposed changes.”

In a letter to CIRM, the Oakland, Ca., organization center referred to preliminary language contained in a briefing paper for the group that dealt with compensation for egg donors, which is banned by CIRM. The draft language, which is intended to conform CIRM rules to others nationally, would “limit the payment restriction to donation of oocyctes provided specifically for research purposes.”

The center said,

“We were startled to see this for two reasons. As you know, both Proposition 71 and California law prohibit paying women to provide eggs for research. This proposed policy would mean that a woman undergoing egg extraction could be compensated or receive other valuable consideration as long as research is not the specifically stated purpose of harvesting her eggs. Diverting eggs for which payments have been made from the reproductive to the research context would be contrary to Proposition 71 and state law.

“We sincerely hope that this is an oversight. We ask the Standards Working Group to reject the proposed language and to clarify that paying women for eggs that will be used for research (beyond reimbursing their expenses) is contrary to law, and will not be done in California.”

CIRM posted a response to the CGS letter on the agency's website. In the response, CIRM referred to National Academy of Sciences guidelines and said,

“The language 'specifically for research' is a placeholder taken directly from the NAS Guidelines. The SWG (standards group) has consistently drawn from the NAS guidelines to provide a model for our regulations. This example is no different. This placeholder language is designed to support policy development. Any proposed regulatory language is subject to SWG review, ICOC approval, OAL review and public comment to ensure the regulatory language is consistent with the intent of the policy.”

Our take? We think CIRM's intent is clear. However, whether the proposed regulatory language achieves that goal is another question. We suspect more artful language will be developed as these proposed changes work their way through the regulatory process during the next few months.

CIRM is to be lauded for posting its 28-page briefing paper well in advance of today's meeting. That allows time for such parties as the Center for Genetics and Society and others to comment thoughtfully on the matters to be considered. It also allows time for CIRM to respond publicly in advance of the meeting. The upshot is likely to be better policy and better regulations and enhance CIRM's image as responsive to the public.

We should also note that the center's letter also raised concerns about the “prospective use for research of paid-gamete IVF embryos could create conflicts of interest for the physician attending an egg provider, and thus put her at increased risk.”

Correction

The “Prop. 71 Minutia” item on Sept. 16 contained a quote that referred to “advice” from the Little Hoover Commission that CIRM should lower its quorum requirements. A draft of the Hoover report contained that recommendation, but it was omitted in the final version. The final report said the super-quorum requirement was “restrictive” and “problematic” but said the problem would be eased by reducing the size of the board from 29 to 15.

Prop. 71 Minutia Stalls CIRM Again

SAN FRANCISCO – The board of directors of the California stem cell agency Tuesday failed to achieve a quorum and was forced to put off action on regulations tied to its ambitious, $210 million disease team grant round, the largest ever in CIRM history.

That means it will be at least another two weeks or more before the board can act on the IP rules that it needs for disease team project. The grants are scheduled to be awarded later this year.

The board has been handicapped for years by its super-quorum requirement, 65 percent of its 29 members. Tuesday, the quorum was 19 but only 18 answered the roll call during the special, teleconference meeting based here. Twenty-one had been expected. Without a quorum, the board cannot take legal action.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., said today that problems with quorums are a persistent and important issue at CIRM. Simpson has followed the matter for several years. In one case in 2008, he wrote about how the board “essentially” drafted a member of the audience to raise a quorum.

Commenting today, he said,

“This clearly shows that (the board) has not resolved its nagging problem with mustering a quorum. They should have taken the Little Hoover Commission's (initial) advice and moved to make a simple majority all that is necessary to conduct business. Instead, they insist on a meaningless charade that wasted the time of 18 very busy people.”

The quorum mandate is written into state law by Prop. 71, which created the stem cell agency in 2004. It cannot be changed without a vote of the people or by the legislature. But the latter involves another super-majority requirement, 70 percent of both houses of the legislature and the signature of the governor.

The Little Hoover Commission, the state's government good government panel, earlier this year cited CIRM's problems with achieving quorums. But the CIRM board last month rejected suggestions that the quorum be reduced to 50 percent. It relied on its attorney's opinion that to do so would “undermine” the intent of the voters and would leave the board open to being captured by a minority.

However, super-majority requirements actually facilitate minority dominance of bodies such as the CIRM board. On Tuesday, the absence of one member paralyzed the board. In other cases, a few members have left CIRM board meetings and thus prevented it from taking action. Conceivably, 11 members of the board could control it by simply refusing to attend unless their wishes prevailed.

The regulations under consideration Tuesday dealt with intellectual property requirements. Initially, they appeared to be relatively non-controversial, although CIRM director Susan Bryant, vice chancellor for research, University of California, Irvine, raised anew concerns expressed last July by the University of California (statewide).

Director William R. Brody, president of the Salk Institute, also criticized some of the proposed regulations as “absurd” and suggested that language from federal IP law be adopted. However, others noted that CIRM deliberately moved away from federal law in its development of the regulations over several years.

In the absence of a quorum, CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said the proposed regulations will be taken up later after CIRM director Ed Penhoet, head of the IP Task Force and a co-founder of Chiron, has a chance to discuss them with Brody and Bryant.

The CIRM board also did not act on hiring underwriters (more than one is needed because of potential conflicts of interest) to run its $500 million biotech loan program. The effort is scheduled to begin with the disease team grant round. But the board was told that a very small number of potential borrowers are involved in that round.

Instead of hiring two or more underwriters, John Robson, CIRM vice president for operations, said the lending effort can begin with a pilot project involving one underwriter. He said that it will help the agency develop a better underwriting effort for the directors to approve next year. Following the meeting, Robson said he hopes to conclude a pilot agreement within days.

You can read more on quorum problems, as discussed by Simpson, here, here, here, here and here.

(Editor's note: In an earlier version of this item, the quotation from John M. Simpson did not contain the word "initial" in parentheses.)

Eggs, Donors, NIH Rules and More This Week

For those of you interested in research standards and rules, the California stem cell agency has posted 28 pages of background material for its meeting in San Francisco this Thursday and Friday.

On the agenda is New York's policy that permits compensation for human eggs to be used for research. CIRM does not permit compensation(valuable consideration), but the agency plans to make some changes in its rules to conform to national standards.

Also available via the CIRM web site is briefing material on proposed changes for donor consent requirements and an update on the NIH rules for human embryonic stem cell research, plus more.

CIRM CEO To Gain More Power in Grant Reviews

The president of the California stem cell agency would wield more power in the agency's grant review process under a proposal that was approved by CIRM's Grant Working Group earlier this month.

The proposal, which will probably go before the CIRM board of directors in October, would give CIRM CEO Alan Trounson the authority to pick an “acting” chairman to preside over each grant review session.

Currently responsibility for the reviews lies with the existing position of chairman, which will be eliminated in its current form. That post has been vacant for nearly a year.

Instead two types of chairs will be created. An “administrative” chair would be named to handle chores other than grant application reviews, which are the chief function of the Grants Working Group. The acting chairs would handle the review sessions. The board of directors would retain authority to approve the administrative chair.

The grants group makes the de facto decisions on CIRM grants, which are expected to total $1 billion by the end of the year.

Correction

The “More Clout” item on Sept. 8 incorrectly stated that the CIRM president will have the ability to appoint an administrative chairman for the Grants Working Group under proposed changes in the group's bylaws. In response to a query, CIRM spokesman Don Gibbons said the current responsibilities of the existing chair are being split between an administrative chair and various acting chairs.

CIRM Airs Powerful Patient Video

With some regularity, the board of the California stem cell agency hears directly from some of those afflicted with diseases and conditions that are among the targets of its $3 billion in research.

All of their stories are emotional, sometimes heart-rending.

The CIRM staff recently captured on video one of the more powerful presentations at its meeting in San Diego last June. Called “Spotlight on Leukemia,” it is now available via CIRM's YouTube site.

The video is a fine piece of work that tells a strong human story and well supports CIRM's mission.

Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communications officer, aired the video at last month's CIRM board meeting. He said,

“Amy Adams led the story direction and Todd Dubnicoff did the amazing video editing.”

It is narrated by Geoff Lomax, senior officer for the CIRM Standards Working Group.

CIRM Nearing Agreement on Underwriters for $500 Million Biotech Loan Program

The board of the California stem cell agency will hold a special, teleconference meeting next Tuesday to consider hiring a bank or two to run its new and ambitious $500 million biotech lending program.

Also on the agenda are revised IP rules dealing with affordable access to taxpayer-financed stem cell therapies, although there appears to be no controversy about the rules at this point.

CIRM had hoped to have the bank underwriters in place by now for its $210 million disease team program, the largest research round ever for CIRM. Applications for that program are being reviewed behind closed doors today through Friday in San Francisco by the CIRM Grants Working Group.

Three banks were under consideration to run the biotech loan effort. They were Comerica, Square One and Silicon Valley Bank. The first two provided the lowest cost estimates, with Comerica coming in at $71,000 for handling a $20 million, six-year loan. More than one bank is expected to be hired because of the potential for conflicts of interest.

At the August CIRM board meeting, John Robson, vice president for CIRM operations, said that once the agency had some sort of initial agreement in place with Comerica and Square One, negotiations would follow with Silicon Valley Bank.

CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, who originated the concept for the biotech lending program, stressed the importance of moving forward with Silicon Valley Bank. He said,

“Given the tight time frame, moving forward with Silicon Valley Bank is going to be important, if feasible, so that the board really has the full choice and the cost differences in front of them when they are asked to approve the delegated underwriters. With a prototype process, we will and have run into some issues with these banking institutions as they've -- their legal departments have understood the complexity of dealing with the state. So we need to bring forward, to the extent we can, all three opportunities for the board so the board can make a decision.”

CIRM is seeking to hire a bank to run the program because the agency does not have the expertise or the staff to do the work. The banks would perform an analysis of business applicants, assess their operations and management and make recommendations.

CIRM plans to lend money to risky enterprises that otherwise could not secure financing. Loan failure rates of up to 50 percent in the program have been predicted by CIRM.

The first loans are scheduled to go out following formal approval later this year of winners in the disease team program.

The IP rules that are also under consideration next week stirred a flap at one point. The board, however, last month rescinded the controversial proposed changes.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., and who raised the earlier concerns, says he is satisfied with the current proposed changes.

The public can listen to and participate in the board meeting at a number of locations throughout the state. Their specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

A transcript of last month's brief discussion of the biotech loan program can be found here.

Correction

Based on incorrect information on the CIRM Web site, we stated in the “CIRM President to Gain More Clout” item that Stuart Orkin was chairman of the stem cell agency's Grants Working Group. Orkin says he resigned as chairman last November and is no longer on the panel. According to CIRM, Rainer Storb of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center served as acting chair at the last meeting of the group and is presiding over the meeting underway today in San Francisco. CIRM has also corrected the information on its Web site.

Advisory/Correction

Based on incorrect information on the CIRM Web site, the item below states that Stuart Orkin is currently chairman of the CIRM Grants Working Group. However, he told us in an email that he resigned last November and is no longer on the panel. We are querying CIRM concerning the current status of the chairman's position.

CIRM President to Gain More Clout in Competition for Millions in Grants

The California stem cell agency is moving to strengthen the hand of its president in the review of applications for hundreds of millions of dollars in grants.

The proposal comes before the agency's Grants Working Group tomorrow morning at a two-day meeting in San Francisco to consider applications for its ambitious $210 million disease team program, the largest single research grant round in CIRM history.

The grants group makes the de facto decisions on CIRM grants, which will total about $1 billion by the end of this year.

The group operates behind closed doors for review of applications, but the move to alter CIRM's review process will be considered and voted on in public.

According to a staff memo, the new procedures would allow CIRM President Alan Trounson to pick “acting” chairs to head each grant review session. The selection would be made from either regular or alternate members of the grants group.

It was not clear what responsibilities would remain in the hands of the existing chair position. The exact language of the proposed changes in the group's bylaws was not available on the CIRM Web site at the time of this writing.

Currently the grants review chairman is appointed by the CIRM board of directors and has sole authority to preside over scientific evaluation of grants. The position of chairman has been vacant since last November.

The CIRM staff memo said changes are called for because the $3 billion agency is broadening its research to include translational, preclinical and clinical trial programs.

CIRM said,

“Consequently, there is an important need to have chairs of CIRM review panels with the expertise and seniority that is complementary to the type of RFA being considered.”

The agency also said it is impractical to have one person lead the five to seven review meetings in San Francisco each year. CIRM said similar NIH review groups rarely meet more than twice a year.

The proposal follows CIRM board approval of changes last month in compensation for review group members that could provide perhaps $4,500 or so per grant round per scientist, depending on payment decisions by CIRM staff.

(Editor's note: Based on inaccurate information on the CIRM Web site, an earlier version of this item incorrectly stated that Stuart Orkin was chairman of the Grants Working Group. Orkin says he resigned as chairman last November and is no longer on the panel. At the time of this posting, CIRM said that the position remains vacant and has been filled over the last 10 months by others on an "acting" basis. CIRM has also corrected the information on its Web site.

(The earlier item also incorrectly stated that Trounson would appoint the administrative chair. That responsibility will remain with the CIRM board. )