With more than 3.0 million page views and more than 5,000 items, this blog provides news and commentary on public policy, business and economic issues related to the $3 billion California stem cell agency. David Jensen, a retired California newsman, has published this blog since January 2005. His email address is djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Coverage of Directors Meeting Concludes
Coverage of today's meeting of the governing board of the California stem cell agency is now concluded. Late in the afternoon, the board lost its quorum, a supermajority dictated by Prop. 71, and adjourned, leaving a number of items to be dealt with either by a telephonic meeting or the regular session scheduled for early September.
Two More Disease Team Applications Sent Back for More Review
Directors of the California stem cell agency today referred two additional research applications for $37 million in disease team funding back to reviewers for further consideration.
Both were the subjects of appeals by researchers whose proposals were rejected by grant reviewers.
One was from Timothy Hoey of OncoMed Pharmaceuticals in Redwood City, who sought $20 million. The other was from Henry Klassen of UC Irvine, who sought $17 million. (See here and here for their appeals.)
The board began the day by directing staff to come back to the board in early September. But with the large number of grants to be reassessed, it was acknowledged some might not be acted on until the board's meeting in late October.
Both were the subjects of appeals by researchers whose proposals were rejected by grant reviewers.
One was from Timothy Hoey of OncoMed Pharmaceuticals in Redwood City, who sought $20 million. The other was from Henry Klassen of UC Irvine, who sought $17 million. (See here and here for their appeals.)
The board began the day by directing staff to come back to the board in early September. But with the large number of grants to be reassessed, it was acknowledged some might not be acted on until the board's meeting in late October.
Disease Team Round Hits $151 Million with Final Action
Directors of the California stem cell
agency approved an additional
$20 million disease team grant today before adjourning their
meeting. The grant brought the disease team round to a total of $151 million.
The award went to Judith Shizuru
of Stanford. Scientist Irv Weissman and Robert
Klein, former chairman of the stem cell agency, both spoke on behalf
of her
appeal of a negative decision by grant reviewers.
At the suggestion of the current board
chairman, J.T. Thomas, the board placed conditions on the grant
would stipulate Stanford pick up certain unknown, additional costs if
necessary.
Here is a link to the CIRM press release on today's action.
CIRM Directors Continue Discussion on Disease Team Grants
The CIRM directors are continuing to purse action on the remaining disease team applications. Two more have been sent back for more review. Another is up for approval.
Stem Cell Directors Approve $151 Million to Commercialize Stem Cell Research
Directors of the California stem cell
agency today approved $151 million in research awards aimed at
commercializing stem cell research and pushing therapies into
clinical treatment.
Patients and researchers cheered when the action was announced.
The awards of up to $20 million each were ratified by CIRM's governing board, which added two to the six applications approved by reviewers. The original six totalled $113 million. Directors budgeted $243 million for today's round.
Five of the applications involving appeals were sent back by the board for more review. (See here, here and here.) They will be considered again in early September or October.
Patients and researchers cheered when the action was announced.
The awards of up to $20 million each were ratified by CIRM's governing board, which added two to the six applications approved by reviewers. The original six totalled $113 million. Directors budgeted $243 million for today's round.
Five of the applications involving appeals were sent back by the board for more review. (See here, here and here.) They will be considered again in early September or October.
The awards are the
second largest research round in CIRM's history,
surpassed only by an another, earlier $211 million “disease team”
round. The latest effort is aimed at bringing
proposed clinical trials to the FDA for approval or possibly starting
trials within four years. That deadline coincides roughly
with the date when CIRM is scheduled to run out of cash unless new
funding sources are developed.
CIRM is currently exploring seeking
private financing. It could also ask voters to approve another state
bond issue. (Bonds currently provide the only real source of cash for
CIRM.) In either case, the agency needs strong, positive
results from its grantees to support a bid for continued funding.
Today's action came after nine out of
the 15 applicants who were rejected by reviewers appealed the
negative decisions. Two of the appeals were successful at today's meeting. It is a
good bet that at least some of those referred for more review
will be ratified by the board in September.
The appeals were based on a variety of
issues, ranging from technical science questions to inconsistencies
in CIRM's research approaches and mistakes by reviewers.
The outpouring
of appeals was the largest in CIRM history in terms of the
percentage of applicants seeking to overturn reviewer decisions.
The round also marked
another first in terms of the total initially approved by
reviewers. On occasion in the past, reviewers have not approved
enough awards to consume all the funds budgeted by the CIRM board.
But never before has the amount fallen so far short.
Most of the awards went to enterprises
connected to persons on 29-member CIRM governing board, continuing a
trend that has existed throughout CIRM's history. Board members with
conflicts, however, are not allowed to vote or participate in the
The full list of the winners and the
CIRM press release can be found here.
(Editor's note: This item was updated from an earlier version and the figures increased as the CIRM board added another grant and took additional action.)
(Editor's note: This item was updated from an earlier version and the figures increased as the CIRM board added another grant and took additional action.)
CIRM Board in Executive Session
The governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency has gone into executive session to consider confidential information on applications for $20 million disease team awards.
Harvard's McMahon on His Way to USC
Andy McMahon Harvard photo |
The scientist is Andrew McMahon, who serves on the executive committee of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. CIRM officials said McMahon is ready to begin his work immediately at USC.
McMahon won stellar reviews from CIRM's grant reviewers who said he was an “exceptional scientist and one of the leading young developmental biologists.” Reviewers gave his proposal a score of 90 and, in summary, said,
“Major strengths include the candidate's exceptional productivity and contributions to the fields of mammalian embryology and kidney development, the significance and potential of the research program, the PI's proven leadership capabilities, and the outstanding institutional commitment.”
$18 Million Cedars Sinai ALS Proposal Headed for Approval
The California stem cell agency today
cleared the way for approval of an $18 million grant to develop a new
cell-based therapy for treatment of ALS.
The agency's governing board moved the
application into a category that is expected to approved later today.
The action came on an appeal by
researcher Clive Svendsen of Cedars Sinai. Also supporting the
application were a number of persons with ALS.
StemCells, Inc., and Capricor Stave Off Rejection from Stem Cell Agency
Two California stem cell firms today
won a reprieve from rejection in their bids for $40 million in
funding from the California stem cell agency.
Robert Klein, who was the first chairman of the stem cell agency, appeared before his old board as a member of the public on behalf of the StemCells appeal. He said new evidence will be published soon in a scientific journal that supports the StemCells approach. Klein also said that he was personally involved in three CIRM grant reviews in which scientists affirmed the company's approach. (Here are links to the appeal and to grant reviewer comments.)
They are StemCells, Inc., of Newark
and Capricor, Inc. of Beverly Hills. StemCells was founded by
Stanford researcher Irv Weissman. Capricor was formed to
commercialize research at Cedars of Sinai that had been previously
financed in part by the state's $3 billion enterprise. Frank
Litvack, who unsuccessfully vied for the chairmanship of the stem
cell agency in June 2011, is the recently appointed executive
chairman of Capricor.
The CIRM board sent the firms' bids back for more scientific review based on
their appeals of reviewers' negative decisions as well as testimony
at the board meeting today. The board will take up the applications, which seek $20 million each, again in early September.
Robert Klein, who was the first chairman of the stem cell agency, appeared before his old board as a member of the public on behalf of the StemCells appeal. He said new evidence will be published soon in a scientific journal that supports the StemCells approach. Klein also said that he was personally involved in three CIRM grant reviews in which scientists affirmed the company's approach. (Here are links to the appeal and to grant reviewer comments.)
The other application also involved new
information. Litvack, former CEO of Conor Medsystem, told the board
the firm has made considerable progress since CIRM's closed-door
review of applications last April, both in terms of management and
science. The firm's appeal said Litvack's appointment is part of the
management improvements at the firm.
Sherry Lansing, a member of the CIRM
board and former CEO of a Hollywood film studio, enthusiastically
recalled a presentation last year before the board about the results
of the initial research. She the firm has solved the problems cited by reviewers. She said,
“We have a fiduciary responsibility to select the best science.”
Stem Cell Directors Order More Consideration on $20 Million UCLA Research Application
Directors of the California stem cell
agency today deferred action on a $20 million proposal that was
rejected by its grant reviewers and sent it back for more consideration.
The move involved an application by
Stanley Nelson and M. Carrie Miceli of UCLA dealing with Duchenne
muscular dystrophy. They are parents of a child with the affliction,
which is usually fatal by age 25. The CIRM review summary said it is
“a devastating and incurable muscle-wasting disease caused by
genetic mutations in the gene that codes for dystrophin, a protein
that plays a key role in muscle cell health.”
Nelson had filed an appeal seeking to
overturn reviewers' action. Five mothers and two fathers with
children suffering from the disease made emotional appeals to
CIRM directors on behalf of the application. Following their presentation, Art
Torres, co vice chairman of the CIRM board, responded equally
emotionally that the board is dedicated to finding therapies for such
afflictions as Duchenne muscular dystrophy
The board approved more review for the
application after it was disclosed that a company issued a press
release two days ago that showed that a drug involved in the
proposal was more effective than reviewers believed. Philip Pizzo, a
member of the board and dean of the Stanford medical school,
expressed caution about the press release, given its timing and
source. His comments came prior to the appearance of the parents.
The application is scheduled to be
brought back to the full board in September for further action.
Labels:
disease team,
Grant-making,
patient advocates
Rejected Grants May Be Sent Back for More Review
California stem cell agency chairman J.T. Thomas has raised the possibility of sending some of the disease team applications back for additional review if the board feels that is necessary to consider new information and resolve scientific disputes.
Thomas discussed such a move at the beginning of the discussion of the $243 million disease team round. Nine out of 15 rejected applicants have appealed to the full board. Some have presented new information. Others have disputed the scientific work of reviewers.
The board used such a referral process for one application in the past. That grant was ultimately approved.
Discussion Beginning on Disease Team Grants
The governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency has begun discussion of applications in the $243 million disease team round. A large number of speakers are in the audience and will be limited to three minutes each.
Short-term Borrowing to Continue to Provide California Stem Cell Cash
The California stem cell agency will continue to be funded with short-term borrowing -- commercial paper -- provided through the state treasurer's office, J.T. Thomas, chairman of the agency's governing board, said today.
Until late last year, the $3 billion agency was funded through state bond funds, but California Gov. Jerry Brown is trying to reduce the state's long-term debt load, which has skyrocketed in the last decade.
Thomas told directors this morning that short-term funding comes at "the lowest possible interest rate." He said the arrangement leaves the agency in "very good shape."
The state will provide the funding to CIRM on a month-to-month basis in addition to providing a two month cushion, Thomas said.
At some point, the short-term debt is likely to covered by state bonds. As of June 30, CIRM
had $50.9 million on hand, down $42 million from April 30. During the fiscal year ending June 30, the agency paid out $232.7 million compared to $201.4 million in the previous fiscal year.
California Stem Cell Directors Open Meeting
Today's session of the governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency has begun. The major item on the agenda is a $243 million grant round that has triggered a record pace for appeals by rejected applicants. At the request of the California Stem Cell Report, the agency has provided the conflict of interest list used by the agency to determine which directors will not be allowed today to vote or participate in the discussion of specific applications. The list can be found below. Conflict of Interest List -- CIRM Directors Meeting 7-26-12ound below.
Live Coverage of Today's CIRM Board Meeting
The California Stem Cell Report will provide gavel-to-gavel coverage of today's meeting of the governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency. Among other things, the board is scheduled to give away anywhere from $113 million to $243 million to help push research into the clinic. Stories will be filed as warranted, based on the Internet audiocast. Instructions for listening directly to the audiocast can be found on the agenda. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. PDT in Burlingame, Ca., with remote teleconference locations in Los Angeles, La Jolla and Pleasanton. The public can participate and comment from those locations. Addresses can be found on the agenda.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The Harsh Message at the California Stem Cell Agency
Grant reviewers have delivered a harsh
message in the latest $243 million research round at the California
stem cell agency – at least that is one way to look at it.
In effect, they told the governing
board of the $3 billion enterprise that the overwhelming majority of
applicants in its signature disease team round do not measure up,
despite the fact that CIRM had early on partially vetted their
efforts. Indeed, the reviewers said that the researchers deserve only
$113 million instead of the full $243 million that was budgeted.
Obviously the results of the review can
be interpreted in other ways as well. But the review outcome should
raise some flags within the stem cell agency and its 29-member board,
which meets tomorrow in Burlingame. It may not auger well for future rounds that also involve CIRM's newly energized drive to push research into the clinic.
One interpretation of the review
results could well be that CIRM's goals are unrealistic, that the
agency is trying to move too fast for the normally glacial pace of
research and development. Another interpretation is that the science
is not good enough in California to accomplish what the agency is
seeking to do, a view expressed by some in the early days of the
nearly 9-year-old program. Another is that the reviewers themselves
don't know enough or have failed to do their homework, which some of
the rejected applicants have argued in their appeals. Yet another is
that the CIRM review process is inadequate to the task of meeting
CIRM's goals. And still another interpretation is that the normal
peer review process on which CIRM's procedures are based is mightily
flawed, a general contention argued by some(See here, here and here.)
Or quite possibly the result of the
disease team reviews could reflect a combination of all of the above,
to one degree or another.
Little is known about the substance of what goes on during the grant review process, aside from the staff-written review summaries. Even CIRM board members, who see only the summaries, have complained from time to time about not having enough information to make a good judgment on an application. Reviews are conducted behind closed doors. Information about the economic and professional interests of reviewers is withheld from the public by the stem cell agency.
Here is a look, however, at what we do know. Initially the
universe of applicants in this round totalled 36. That was the
number that applied for planning grants for this round. Without a
planning grant, they could not apply for a full $20 million award,
with some exceptions. The exception process was controlled by CIRM
President Alan Trounson, not reviewers. CIRM used the planning grants and the exception process not
only to assist applicants but to winnow out weak applications.
Nineteen researchers won planning
awards. With exceptions included and minus dropouts, 22 applied
later for the big money. Out of the 22, only six were recommended for funding by reviewers, who are known more or less
formally as the Grants Working Group. (See the four items at the
end of this piece for a list of reviewers involved.)
In the past, reviewers have sometimes
not approved sufficient applications to consume the entire amount
budgeted for a round. But they have never produced a shortfall as
great as in this case. It is all the more dramatic since this
round carries a lot of weight for CIRM, which is pushing hard to
commercialize research and fulfill at least part of the promises that
were made to California voters in 2004 to win approval of creation of
the stem cell agency.
One reflection of the unusual nature of
the round is the record pace of researchers' appeals of negative
decisions by reviewers. At least nine of the 15 rejected scientists
are willing to say publicly that something is is not quite right in the review process, ranging from missing facts to inconsistencies in
CIRM's endorsement of particular paths of research.
It is safe to say that CIRM directors
tomorrow will pluck some applications out of the reject bin and
increase the total awarded. But they should also examine the process
to determine what generated this particular outcome. The Institute of
Medicine, which is currently engaged in a $700,000 examination of
CIRM, also might scrutinize this round with some care, given its size
and importance to the California stem cell research effort.
Labels:
cirm strategy,
disease team,
Grant-making,
IOM,
peer review
Riding the Stem Cell Financial Wave in Newark
The stock price of StemCells, Inc., of
Newark, Ca., has more than doubled this month following the
publication of several “good news” stories about the company,
including the virtual certainty that it will receive a $20 million
loan tomorrow from the state of California.
The company also could well receive $20
million more if its appeal on another award from the California stem
cell agency is successful.
StemCells, Inc., founded by Stanford
researcher Irv Weissman, has seen its stock plummet as low as 59
cents during the last 12 months. On July 16, its price stood at 88
cents. On July 17, it jumped to $1.80. Today it is running about
$2.28 at the time of this writing. (The latest stock price can be found here.)
All of which is to the benefit of
Weissman, who acquired 15,433 shares of StemCells, Inc., on July 2 at
no cost. According to SEC filings, the stock was given by the
company to Weissman as a quarterly retainer for his services on the
firm's scientific advisory board. Weissman also serves on the board
of directors and currently holds 88,612 shares of the company.
Most of the good news about the company
focused on its research into an Alzheimer's therapy. The California
Stem Cell Report also reported on July 18 that the company was in line
for a $20 million award from CIRM for its spinal cord injury therapy.
CIRM's grant reviewers rejected the company's bid for $20 million for
an Alzheimer's treatment but the firm is appealing that decision to
the full board. (See here and here.)
Here are links to recent stories on
StemCells, Inc.
Seeking Alpha by Chris Katje – July
17
California Stem Cell Report by David
Jensen – July 18
First public report that StemCells,
Inc. was in line for a $20 million loan from CIRM development of
human neural stem cells to treat chronic cervical spinal cord injury
Technology Review by Susan Young –
July 24
Labels:
disease team,
Grant-making,
stem cell business
Live Coverage for Tomorrow's Board Meeting of the California Stem Cell Agency
The California Stem Cell Report will
provide gavel-to-gavel coverage of tomorrow's meeting of the
governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency. Among
other things, the board is scheduled to give away anywhere from $113
million to $243 million to help push research into the clinic. Stories will be filed as warranted, based on the Internet audiocast. Instructions for listening directly to the audiocast can be found on the agenda. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. PDT in Burlingame, Ca., with
remote teleconference locations in Los Angeles, La Jolla and
Pleasanton. The public can participate and comment from those
locations. Addresses can be found on the agenda.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Record Appeals by Researchers in Huge California Stem Cell Agency Round
The California stem cell agency's
latest grant round – which is budgeted for $243 million – has
drawn an extraordinary and record outpouring of appeals from more
than half of the scientists rejected by the grant reviewers.
Nine of the 15 applicants who were
turned down have filed appeals to the governing board for its meeting
Thursday in Burlingame. No other CIRM grant round has drawn
as high a percentage of appeals, formally known as extraordinary
petitions. (See here
for a story on the previous record for percentage of
appeals.)
Only six applicants were approved for funding in the second of the agency's signature disease team rounds.
Their applications totaled $113 million, although $243 million was
allotted by the board, which would make it the largest in the
agency's history. The round is aimed at bringing
proposed clinical trials to the FDA for approval or possibly starting
trials within four years.
The rejected applicants come from both
biotech firms and nonprofit institutions, including at least two that
are ready to begin clinical trials next year, a much-sought goal of
the stem cell agency.
The appeals, posted late yesterday on the CIRM web site,
deal mainly with the details of the research although they also say,
in some cases, that reviewers did not grasp the facts or were dealing
with information that is now outdated. Here are some samples of what
the applicants had to say in their petitions.
Linda Marban, CEO of Capricor, Inc.,
said her firm's heart disease therapy proposal, which was rejected by
reviewers, is set for a clinical trial beginning next year. She said
that since the time of the review last April the firm has “made
major advances in both our clinical development program and our
management and operational team.”
Marban noted that Frank Litvack,
former CEO of Conor Medsystems Inc. of Menlo Park, Ca., is now
executive chairman of the Capricor and will provide “experienced
operational leadership.” In June 2011, Litvack was nominated to chair the CIRM board. However, directors chose J.T. Thomas, a Los
Angeles bond financier who has filled that post since then.
In another appeal, researcher Stuart Lipton of Sanford-Burnham said,
“Some reviewers were concerned about the PI's (principal investigator's) lack of experience in developing a cell therapy for clinical transplantation. Reply: Since there is currently no FDA-approved stem cell product for transplantation therapy for (the) brain, no PI could possibly have the experience requested here.”
Alexandra Capela of StemCells, Inc.
said reviewer comments on her application “were inconsistent with previous guidance provided by CIRM.” She said
reviewers “objected to a clinical approach that was already supported by the CIRM in a successful early translational research
grant and the planning grant(for her application).” Capela said
this “contradicts previous acceptance of this strategy by CIRM and
constitutes a central reason for our appeal to the (CIRM board).”
Henry Klassen of UC Irvine said
reviewers “overlooked facts” in his application and “had no real way of gauging
the extraordinary rate of our progress.”
He said trials are already scheduled for next year, far earlier than
time frames set up in the RFA for this round.
In addition to the written appeals,
scientists can appear before the full board at its meeting and often
have. Sometimes they bring patients, who make emotional presentations. The board does not have to discuss any of the appeals. Unless a
board member makes a motion on an appeal, it does not even come up for a vote. Directors are generally reluctant to approve an appeal. Here is a link to a CIRM description of the petition process.
Here is a list of researchers appealing
their rejections along with links to their appeals. The list is in
the order in which CIRM posted them on the board agenda. The review
summaries for all the grants can be found here.
For more on the CIRM grant appeal
process, see here.
Monday, July 23, 2012
California Stem Cell Agency Shy This Week on Openness
In the past year, since J.T. Thomas has
served as chairman of the California stem cell agency, the $3 billion
enterprise has done well in providing the public with important
information about matters that come before its governing board – a
welcome change from the grievously
deficient past performance.
However, that new, high standard for
openness and transparency is coming up short this month.
With less than three days remaining
before Thursday's
meeting of the governing board, important information
remains missing on significant matters scheduled to be discussed
later this week in Burlingame.
At the top of the list is the response
by CIRM President Alan Trounson to the first-ever
performance audit of the nearly eight-year-old agency. The $234,944
study said the agency is laboring under a host of problems, ranging
from protection of its intellectual property and management of
its nearly 500 grants to an inadequate ability to track its own
performance. Trounson's response could have come much earlier than
this week, even last May when the results were unveiled publicly, although the agency had been briefed privately on them still earlier.
Also missing from the agenda is an
important update on what Thomas has called a “communications war”
– shorthand for the efforts by CIRM to generate more and favorable
news coverage of the agency along with solidifying support among its
constituent groups. The agency's weak PR effort, which is now
improving, has troubled many directors for some time. The CIRM story
is critical to the agency's financial future as it looks to
private funding to continue its life beyond 2017 when its money runs
out.
Also not be found is an explanation of an
item before the directors' Science Subcommittee on Wednesday evening
that appears to have interesting implications, given CIRM efforts to
embrace the biotech industry more warmly. The proposal calls
for establishing “responsible budgeting as a criterion
for evaluating applications for funding.” No further information is available. But one wonders whether the proposal could reflect CIRM's unfortunate experience with Geron, which signed
a $25 million loan agreement with CIRM last summer only to dump its hESC program a little more than three months later. Geron cited
financial reasons. One also wonders whether the need to focus on
“responsible budgeting” reflects problems with some researchers
or whether it is intended to help businesses pick up a larger share
of awards.
Posting details on issues to be decided by directors -- in a
timely fashion -- should be a routine matter for the agency. It is also
key to engaging the public, industry and researchers – not to
mention that it is good policy, good management and good government. Without adequate notice, it
is impossible for interested parties to comment on proposals or make
well-considered suggestions. Given the agency's improved performance
during the past year, this month's slippage may only be an aberration. We
hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)