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, March 13, 2014
Stem Cell Agency Directors Adjourn Until the End of May
The governing board of the California stem cell agency has concluded its meeting. Here is a link to the agency's press release on the events of the day. The board's next meeting is at the end of May. According to board Chairman Jonathan Thomas, the $3 billion program should have a new president by then.
California Stem Cell Directors Reject Conflict Charge on $13 Million Heart Research Proposal
Directors of the California stem cell agency today rejected a $13 million application for heart research despite allegations that the agency's review involved a conflict of interest.
The vote was 3-8 on the proposal by Eduardo Marban, director of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, who complained that a conflict existed during the review of the application.
The agency said it conducted an "extensive" examination of Marban's charges and determined that no legal violation of the agency's conflict of interest rules had taken place.
Appearing before the board, Marban said that the review was a "white-wash." He also said the CIRM staff's re-examination of the scientific issues was inadequate.
Marban did not disclose specifics of his complaints about the nature of the conflict. Nor did the agency. But he referred to unspecified actions by a "venture capitalist." CIRM said no venture capitalists were involved in the review.
CIRM Director Jeff Sheehy asked CIRM staff whether any California residents were among the reviewers during the grant round involving Marban. Gil Sambrano, CIRM's associate director, review, said there were and indicated they served as "specialists." Sambrano also said one of the reviewers in the round had a conflict because he was involved in one of the grant applications being reviewed.
CIRM has long contended that to avoid conflicts of interest no persons from California served as grant reviewers. However, Sambrano said that provision applied legally only to members of the grant review group, formally known as the Grant Working Group, and did not apply to the use of specialists. Sambrano said the specialists do not participate in the actual act of scoring during the closed-door reviews of grant applications.
Marban's application received a score of 48 out of 100 with a range of 20 to 74, CIRM disclosed today.
Several members of the board, including Chairman Jonathan Thomas, said it was necessary for the board to respect the opinions of grant reviewers and the conclusions of its staff.
Marban has been highly regarded by the agency, which cited his research during a review earlier today of CIRM's accomplishment. He has received $7 million in grants and a company he founded, Capricor, has received $20 million.
CIRM has long cloaked its grant review process in secrecy, in keeping with the traditions of scientific peer review, even though the awards involve public money. The reviews are conducted in private. The names of the applicants are not disclosed. The names of reviewers are not disclosed. The reviewers' economic, personal and professional interests are not disclosed. Scores on rejected grants are not disclosed, unless the applicant appears publicly before the board. Names of applicants appealing reviewer decisions are not disclosed unless they also communicate publicly with the board. That provision was put in place last year by the board.
The total number of directors voting on the application was only 11 compared to 29 on the board. The number is small because of conflict of interest rules at the agency.
For more on the Marban story, see here and here.
The vote was 3-8 on the proposal by Eduardo Marban, director of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, who complained that a conflict existed during the review of the application.
The agency said it conducted an "extensive" examination of Marban's charges and determined that no legal violation of the agency's conflict of interest rules had taken place.
Appearing before the board, Marban said that the review was a "white-wash." He also said the CIRM staff's re-examination of the scientific issues was inadequate.
Marban did not disclose specifics of his complaints about the nature of the conflict. Nor did the agency. But he referred to unspecified actions by a "venture capitalist." CIRM said no venture capitalists were involved in the review.
CIRM Director Jeff Sheehy asked CIRM staff whether any California residents were among the reviewers during the grant round involving Marban. Gil Sambrano, CIRM's associate director, review, said there were and indicated they served as "specialists." Sambrano also said one of the reviewers in the round had a conflict because he was involved in one of the grant applications being reviewed.
CIRM has long contended that to avoid conflicts of interest no persons from California served as grant reviewers. However, Sambrano said that provision applied legally only to members of the grant review group, formally known as the Grant Working Group, and did not apply to the use of specialists. Sambrano said the specialists do not participate in the actual act of scoring during the closed-door reviews of grant applications.
Marban's application received a score of 48 out of 100 with a range of 20 to 74, CIRM disclosed today.
Several members of the board, including Chairman Jonathan Thomas, said it was necessary for the board to respect the opinions of grant reviewers and the conclusions of its staff.
Marban has been highly regarded by the agency, which cited his research during a review earlier today of CIRM's accomplishment. He has received $7 million in grants and a company he founded, Capricor, has received $20 million.
CIRM has long cloaked its grant review process in secrecy, in keeping with the traditions of scientific peer review, even though the awards involve public money. The reviews are conducted in private. The names of the applicants are not disclosed. The names of reviewers are not disclosed. The reviewers' economic, personal and professional interests are not disclosed. Scores on rejected grants are not disclosed, unless the applicant appears publicly before the board. Names of applicants appealing reviewer decisions are not disclosed unless they also communicate publicly with the board. That provision was put in place last year by the board.
The total number of directors voting on the application was only 11 compared to 29 on the board. The number is small because of conflict of interest rules at the agency.
For more on the Marban story, see here and here.
$13 Million Heart Disease Application Up
Directors of the California stem cell agency are taking up the appeal on a $13 million application involving a conflict of interest.
Link to Approval of $72 Million for Commercialization of Stem Cell Research
The California stem cell agency today approved $72 million for spending in new awards rounds aimed at commercialization of research. Here is a link to the full story, which also involves issues dealing with recruitment of a new president.
Only $402 Million Left for California's Stem Cell Agency
Here is the CIRM chart from today's board meeting |
The nearly 10-year-old research effort is scheduled to run out of cash in 2017 and is looking for ways to continue funding, including possibly asking California voters to authorize more borrowing for stem cell research. The agency operates on funds borrowed by the state (bonds). The borrowing roughly doubles the cost of the program to $6 billion because of the interest on the bonds.
The agency has handed out $1.8 billion so far. About $512.5 million more has been approved in concept. That figure is subject to change until the award rounds officially start with the release of an RFA. The remaining amount is for administration of the CIRM program, which is capped by law at 6 percent of spending.
The figures assumed approval of $72 million in new concept proposals today.
Lunch Break for CIRM Board
Directors of the California stem cell agency are taking a break for lunch. They should resume their formal meeting in about an hour. During lunch, they are hearing a presentation about autism research.
California Approves $72 Million for Stem Cell Commercialization
Directors of the California stem cell
agency today approved $72 million to help drive stem cell research
into the clinic and commercialization, despite concerns that it would damage the agency's ability to hire a new president.
The total for two concept proposals will consume roughly 14 percent of the agency's remaining cash, leaving only $402 million for future awards.
Director Jeff Sheehy said that the agency is going through money at an "alarming pace" and that approval of the plans would limit the agency's future ability to take advantage of research opportunities. He said the board was basically telling presidential candidates that we want "to hire you to manage the last embers of a dying fire."
The agency is scheduled to run out of cash in 2017.
Other directors were concerned about losing the agency's research momentum. Some said businesses could not wait many months or a year to gain funding.
A motion to delay a decision was rejected on a 7-12 vote. Directors then approved one of the two concept proposals, a $32 million program, on a 14-3 vote with two abstentions.
The total for two concept proposals will consume roughly 14 percent of the agency's remaining cash, leaving only $402 million for future awards.
Director Jeff Sheehy said that the agency is going through money at an "alarming pace" and that approval of the plans would limit the agency's future ability to take advantage of research opportunities. He said the board was basically telling presidential candidates that we want "to hire you to manage the last embers of a dying fire."
The agency is scheduled to run out of cash in 2017.
Other directors were concerned about losing the agency's research momentum. Some said businesses could not wait many months or a year to gain funding.
A motion to delay a decision was rejected on a 7-12 vote. Directors then approved one of the two concept proposals, a $32 million program, on a 14-3 vote with two abstentions.
The proposal will provide up to $32 million for possibly three awards in the agency's business-friendly strategic partnership program ranging from $10 million to $12 million. The objective would be completion of a phase one or phase two clinical trial within three years. Matching funding would be required. Both businesses and non-profits would be eligible with forgivable loans a possibility for businesses.
The largest new proposal will provide up to $40 million for four or five
preclinical development awards and was approved on a 19-0 vote. It is aimed both at development
activities prior to a phase one clinical trial and at helping to
attract future funding. Businesses and non-profits would eligible
with businesses possibly taking a forgivable loan.
The posting of a request for
applications is scheduled for April and May. Board action on
applications would come early next year.
(Editor's note: This item has been revised from an earlier version to reflect action on both proposals and to add new figures on the amount of cash remaining for CIRM.)
(Editor's note: This item has been revised from an earlier version to reflect action on both proposals and to add new figures on the amount of cash remaining for CIRM.)
Monitoring CIRM at 1 a.m.,
CIRM Director Ken Burtis of UC Davis is participating in today's meeting of the governing board of the California stem cell agency from a teleconference location in Japan. He said that his current time at his location is a little after 1 o'clock in the morning.
Briefing on Stem Cell Portfolio
The first order of business at today's meeting of the governing board of the California stem cell agency is a briefing on the agency's development portfolio. Ellen Feigal, senior vice president for research and development, is speaking.
California Stem Cell Directors Open Meeting
Directors of the $3 billion California stem cell this morning began their meeting in Burlingame, Ca., at 9:05 a.m. PDT. On the agenda is a $13 million grant application that has been rejected by agency reviewers and staff. The applicant, Eduardo Marban, director of the Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, has filed an appeal, contending that the review involved an unspecified conflict of interest. Also to be considered are proposals for $72 million for new grant rounds to advance research into the clinic.
Conflict of Interest Charge On California Stem Cell Agenda Today
The California Stem Cell Report will provide live coverage of today's daylong meeting in Burlingame, Ca., of the governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency.
On the agenda are $72 million worth of concept proposals aimed at speeding stem cell therapies into the clinic, along with an allegation that a conflict of interest was involved in a $13 million grant application.
The meeting begins at 9 a.m. PDT. For those who would like to listen in live via the Internet, the agenda contains instructions and information about how to see the Power Point presentations being used.
The public can also participate in the meeting, make statements and ask questions at teleconference locations in Japan, Los Angeles(2) and La Jolla. Specific locations are on the agenda.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Conflict of Interest Alleged: Cedars-Sinai Scientist Appeals Rejection of $13 Million for Heart Research
The director of the Cedars-Sinai Heart
Institute today asked the governing board of the California stem cell
agency to approve his application for $13 million for heart research,
declaring that the agency's review of the proposal was tainted by a
conflict of interest.
Eduardo Marban Cedars-Sinai photo |
In a letter, Eduardo Marban
contested the findings of a CIRM staff review of the conflict
allegations. He said,
“The initial review was tainted by conflict of interest concerns. The re-review was conducted by staff in a peremptory manner without the usual CIRM due process: no patient advocates were involved, no comparator grants were evaluated, and no formal review reports have been provided. Only a pithy, dismissive summary by CIRM staff has appeared, and that only yesterday.”
Marban's application was the subject of
an article on the California Stem Cell Report yesterday, which
discussed the lack of transparency in the agency's grant review process, particularly in relationship to conflicts of interest. The
application was quietly removed from CIRM board consideration in
December and has been placed on the board's agenda for action
tomorrow in Burlingame, Ca.
The agency withheld Marban's name, the
names of reviewers and the nature of the conflict charges. Marban did
not go into specifics concerning the conflict in his letter today. We
have emailed him, seeking details.
Marban has previously received $7
million for research from the agency. Capricor, a company he founded,
has received $20 million. The company is scheduled to be highlighted in
tomorrow's CIRM governing board meeting as one of its success
stories.
In his letter, Marban noted his previous research along with the latest proposal and its clinical potential, an increasingly
important consideration for the CIRM board. Marban wrote,
“The commercial potential of (the earlier funded product) has been validated by a collaborative/option agreement between Capricor (the company I founded to develop regenerative therapeutics) and Janssen, an arm of the pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson. This represents the first time that 'big pharma' has partnered with a regenerative medicine biotech to develop a product.”
Marban also said,
“The present proposal (DYNAMIC) is ready to go into patients immediately; it is FDA and IRB approved. In fact, we have a list of 30+ patients who are waiting to be screened for enrollment, as soon as funds are available. These patients are ill, with a mortality exceeding that of many cancers. Indeed, several eligible patients have died in the interlude between the last ICOC meeting, when this proposal might have been funded, and the present.
“DYNAMIC would be the first study in the CIRM portfolio to target hard clinical endpoints (mortality and re-hospitalization) in a very high-risk population (that of advanced heart failure). The population to be studied is very different, and much sicker, than in the ALLSTAR trial.”
Labels:
big pharma,
clinical trials,
conflict,
transparency
Cedar-Sinai's Marban Files Appeal on $13 Million Heart Research Application
Eduardo Marban of Cedars-Sinai today filed a public appeal on his application for $13 million for heart research from the California stem cell agency. The application is the subject of an investigation by the agency into allegations by Marban of a conflict of interest involving the grant review. We will have more details shortly.
California Stem Cell Agency Reviews Its Response to Blue Ribbon Recommendations for Major Changes
The outside counsel for the $3 billion
California stem cell agency has revisited actions taken by the agency
in the wake of the Institute of Medicine report that recommended
sweeping changes to deal with conflicts of interest at the agency, its controversial dual executive arrangement and the fundamental nature of its governing board.
James Harrison of Remcho Johansen and
Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., prepared a 21-page report, including
attachments, as part of an earlier plan to examine actions by the
board in response to the blue ribbon report by the IOM, which cost
CIRM $700,000.
The CIRM board greeted the IOM study in 2012 with
something less than enthusiasm(see here and here), but has taken some
steps to deal at least partially with issues raised by the IOM. Last
week the California Stem Cell Report asked the chairman of the study,
Harold Shapiro, former president of Princeton University, for his
take on Harrison's recap. Shapiro has not responded.
Harrison repeated the agency's
contention that only perceived conflicts of interest exist at the
agency. And he said the board's alteration of voting procedures appear
“to have largely addressed the perception of conflict of interest.”
However, most of the document was merely descriptive as opposed to an
evaluation of the pros and cons of each agency response. Nor did he compare the
CIRM's responses to each of the recommendations of the IOM.
Live Coverage of Tomorrow's California Stem Cell Board Meeting
The California
Stem Cell Report will provide live coverage of tomorrow's
daylong meeting in Burlingame, Ca., of the governing board of the $3 billion California
stem cell agency.
On
the agenda are $72 million worth of concept proposals aimed at
speeding stem cell therapies into the clinic, along with proposed
changes in the administration of grants involving hundreds of
researchers.
The
meeting begins at 9 a.m. PDT. For those who would like to listen in
live via the Internet, the agenda contains instructions and information about how to see the Power Point presentations being
used.
The public can also participate in the meeting, make statements and ask questions at teleconference locations in Japan, Los Angeles(2) and La Jolla. Specific locations are on the agenda.
The California Stem Cell Agency and Death by Power Point
One of the readers of the California
Stem Cell Report this week sent along the following commentary as a
result of Monday's item called “Critiquing the California Stem Cell Story: 'Continuums' vs. Cures.”
The reader is a researcher at a major
California institution, who does not want to be otherwise identified.
The scientist's comment focused on one of the host of Power Point presentations used by CIRM at last January's meeting of the Citizens
Financial Accountability and Oversight Committee, the only state
entity charged with overseeing the stem cell agency and its governing
board. Here is the full text of the comment.
“You referred to the slide show as mind-numbing. I might call it weird.
“The title: 'Advancing Stem Cell Science, CIRM's scientific scope'
“The first slide 'CIRM's vision and strategy' No vision or strategy follows.
“The near last slide: 'what does CIRM want?' is the stunner.
“CIRM 'wants:'
“Stem cell therapies -- Not just any therapy but those 'where the stem cell connection is strong.' And if the connection is weak? Say the disease path was identified in stem cells, and the drug for the path made separately or turns out to be a small molecule? Then what? CIRM won't fund it. A plan for development -- so what have they been doing for 10 years?
“CIRM wants to have a strong, 'major impact' -- Is this a vision, lament, or failure to hire the right publicist?
“CIRM wants diseases that already come with biomarkers and a good understanding of the pathophysiology, diseases that come with their own definitions of efficacy, so that clinical trials are easy to do. Heck, if we knew all that, then treatment development would be rational and easy; both NIH and industry money would and does fund it.
“CIRM wants proof of concept by 2017. Please give us a disease and intervention for which we can do a phase 2a study and show efficacy.
“Finally, CIRM wants 'a strong, credible team with expertise ...' and executive ability. Yes, as their regular pronouncements indicate, they lack credibility and expertise in many areas?"
Our take: Clearly the use of Power
Point presentations at the CFAOC session did not have the desired
effect, either on the audience at the time or on the scientist who
sent the above commentary. However, that was only part of the problem at that meeting.
The California Stem Cell Report's comment about mind-numbing Power Point presentations was also aimed beyond last January's meeting to include CIRM's heavy reliance on such presentations, which too often substitute for nuanced, written explorations of the issues at hand. The presentations by their very nature are nothing more than outlines. Almost invariably they are simply read to the audience, as in the governing board of the agency. If the goal of the agency is to convince persons outside the agency of the virtues of its billions of dollars in spending, “death by Power Point” is not the way to do it. Like any tool, such presentations have a use. But they are not always the best tool for everything.
The California Stem Cell Report's comment about mind-numbing Power Point presentations was also aimed beyond last January's meeting to include CIRM's heavy reliance on such presentations, which too often substitute for nuanced, written explorations of the issues at hand. The presentations by their very nature are nothing more than outlines. Almost invariably they are simply read to the audience, as in the governing board of the agency. If the goal of the agency is to convince persons outside the agency of the virtues of its billions of dollars in spending, “death by Power Point” is not the way to do it. Like any tool, such presentations have a use. But they are not always the best tool for everything.
Changing or dropping Power Point
presentations, however, will not guarantee that CIRM can make the
sale on its programs. If it is going to avert financial death in
2017, when funds for new grants run out, it will have develop a pitch
that connects viscerally as well as intellectually.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Nine-year Veteran of California Stem Cell Agency Board Resigns
Marcy Feit, a longtime member of the
governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, has resigned from
the position.
She gave no reason for her resignation
in her Feb. 6 letter to Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. She was appointed by
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante in 2005, who heralded her for her work in
improving health care for rural residents of California.
Marcy Feit CIRM photo |
In the letter, she said she was
resigning as of Feb. 4, the same day she quit as CEO of ValleyCare
Health Systems in Northern California. No reason has been given for her departure from ValleyCare, but since then a wave of cutbacks has
been announced for the enterprise.
Feit had headed ValleyCare since 1997.
She was one of the few minority women to head a California health
care system and the only minority woman on the 29-member CIRM board.
(She is a Latina.) She has been noted for her efforts to improve its
fiscal operations and accounting procedures. Here is the full text of
her letter to Newsom, who will appoint her successor. The letter was provided by CIRM at the request of the California Stem Cell Report.
“I write to inform you of my resignation as a member of the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, the Governing Board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, effective February 4, 2014. It has been my honor to serve the State of California as one of your appointees to CIRM’s Governing Board. I am extraordinarily proud of the progress we have made in establishing CIRM, developing strong ethical, medical, and scientific policies, and ensuring that Californians will have the opportunity to benefit from the important research that CIRM is funding.
“With your support and with the hard work of CIRM’s Board and staff, CIRM has become the largest funder of human embryonic stem cell research in the world. Dramatic findings have already emerged from CIRM-funded research and I am hopeful that this research will one day lead to therapies for Californians who suffer from chronic disease and injury. Thank you for the opportunity to serve.”
The $13 Million Matter of DR3-07201: Allegations of Conflict of Interest at the California Stem Cell Agency
In an unusual move last December, the
California stem cell agency removed – with no public explanation –
an application for $13 million from consideration by its governing
board.
That application is now back before the board on Thursday and is almost certain to be rejected.
What is missing, however, are important specifics about the matter. They are cloaked by the agency's rules that
conceal most of the CIRM grant review process, including the names of
applicants along with the identities of reviewers and their economic and
professional interests. Also shrouded are the details of any
complaints about conflicts of interest as well as any other appeals.
Nonetheless, since the proposal was listed on the agenda of a public meeting of a state agency, it is known that it
involves application DR3-07201. The unidentified applicant, according to a CIRM summary, sought $13 million for research into a treatment for heart failure, a therapy that is labeled by the applicant in all capital letters as “DYNAMIC.”
The agency's scientific reviewers last
year recommended rejection of the request for funding. The agency's review summary
said,
“The major serious criticism and flaw stems from the fact that the applicant is currently evaluating the same cellular product in a Phase 1/2 trial in a different subgroup of cardiac patients. Since the objectives of the proposed and currently enrolling trials are similar, reviewers agreed that the proposed Phase 1 trial does not add value and should be re-evaluated after completion and analysis of data from the current trial .”
No scientific score was released for
the review but it was last on the list of all applications in this
particular round. The agency usually lists the applications in order
of their scores.
Following the removal of the
application from the board agenda, the California Stem Cell Report in
December inquired about the reason. Kevin McCormack, senior director
of communications, replied via email,
“We received a last-minute appeal based on an alleged conflict of interest. In order to allow time to review the claim, we deferred action. We have done this previously, though I don’t have an exact count.”
When the application
popped up on the agenda for this week's meeting, we inquired again,
seeking more information. That was seven days ago.
The answer came in the
form of a posting yesterday on the CIRM Web site of a one-page memo dated March 7 from Gil Sambrano, CIRM's associate director, review. In the note to the CIRM board, Sambrano said a conflict of interest allegation
was raised by the applicant on the morning of Dec. 12, 2013, the day
on which the application was to be considered. Sambrano said,
“The applicant alleged that the GWG (grant working group) review of the proposed project may have been 'tainted' by the 'perceived lack of objectivity' of one member of the GWG. There was no specific basis to support a financial, professional or personal conflict as defined in the GWG conflict of interest policy.”
Sambrano said the
investigation into the complaint determined there was no violation of
the agency's conflict of interest rules. He said,
“We found no evidence that the reviewer had any significant influence on the score or the recommendation. The reviewer was not an assigned reviewer and therefore did not contribute a written critique to the panel. Consistent with the recollection of the review chair and CIRM science officers in attendance, the discussion notes suggest that this reviewer did not provide any comment either in favor or against the proposal. The individual score given by the reviewer was very close to the mean score and thus did not contribute to the broad standard deviation.”
Sambrano continued,
“The applicant also submitted a request for reconsideration based on material new information. Although the applicant provided some information that is new, it did not directly address the main concern of reviewers and therefore did not provide adequate grounds for reconsideration. The request was denied.”
Sambrano said the agency took an
additional step of seeking the opinion of two new expert reviewers
and the chair of the grant review group. He said they did not find
the new information “compelling.”
Reviewer Joyce Frey-Vasconcells was
barred from participating in the review of the application, according
to its CIRM review summary. Other reviewers in the round who could
participate in assessing the application included Joy Cavagnaro, Raj
Chopra, Derek J. Hei, Hassan Movahhed and Andrew Balber. Their names
were listed on review summaries on other applications in the round
where they had conflicts of interest, either professional or
economic.
The applicant's appeal does not necessarily end with the CIRM staff decision. The applicant can appear before the board in public on Thursday and seek to overturn the action or ask for further investigation. It can also send material to the agency for delivery to all board members.
As mentioned previously, the name of
the applicant was withheld by the stem cell agency. But it could
likely be discerned by a knowledgeable stem cell researcher based on
information contained in the review summary. If the applicant would
like to send both of its appeals to the California Stem Cell Report,
we would be glad to carry their full text and any additional
commentary that the applicant would like to make. Other applicants
have done so in the past. The agency has no prohibition against such
an action and actually has a term for it – self-disclosure.
Our take: The stem cell agency's appeal
process ill serves the California public, grant applicants and CIRM itself. The $3 billion agency's reliance on secrecy only raises more questions
about cronyism and unfairness, some of which have dogged CIRM since its inception. The recent flap over the $40 million genomics round is only the most recent example. Roughly 90 percent of all the
cash handed out by CIRM has gone to institutions that are represented
on its governing board, which sets the rules for the grant-making
process and determines the nature of the grants. The board's
conflicts are built in by Prop. 71, the measure that created the
agency in 2004. The only genuine way to ameliorate the issue is with
more transparency.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Critiquing the California Stem Cell Story: 'Continuums' vs. Cures
It was a genuine “where's the beef”
session for California's nearly 10-year-old, $3 billion state stem
cell agency.
A member of the only state body legally
delegated to oversee the California Instititute of Regenerative
Medicine (CIRM) and its governing board wanted an answer to a simple
question: What cures has the agency produced as promised during the 2004
ballot campaign that created the state program?
The occasion was a meeting Jan. 22 in
downtown Los Angeles of the Citizens Financial Accountability and
Oversight Committee, a group headed by state controller John Chiang.
It meets once a year to examine the activities of the agency.
Jim Lott COPE photo |
Jim Lott, a long-time member of the
panel and an executive vice president of COPE Health Solutions of Los
Angeles, was pressing CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas and Ellen Feigal,
CIRM's senior vice president for research and development.
According to the transcript, Lott, who described himself as a “big supporter”
of CIRM, said,
“I think when many voted for this, they thought there were going to be some cures coming out of this effort. And my bias is I have a 13-year-old daughter who has a spinal cord injury, partial break. I'd like to go home and tell my wife that this did something to advance the medical therapy that will ultimately provide her with the opportunity to walk again. What can you tell me that we've done that's going to get my daughter out of her wheelchair sooner (rather) than later after all this money has been spent?”
Thomas and Feigal struggled at some
length to give him satisfying answers to his question.
It was a tough series of exchanges with Thomas and
Feigal talking about “incremental” work and “continuums”
along with unrealistic, high expectations raised by the 2004
campaign. Those expectations burden the agency's current efforts to
find new funding for awards beyond 2017, when the cash runs out.
At one point, Lott said it would be a “hard sell” to get voters to back more funding. Thomas acknowledged that and said it is “not stuff that readily translates into good sound bites.”
“You don't have a good message,” Lott said, declaring that he raised the issue two years ago.
“You guys are not speaking to people in ways that they understand the value of what you are doing. And that bothers the heck out of me.”
Here is an exchange from early in the meeting involving Feigal and Lott, who has spent 23 years
in the California hospital industry.
Lott:
“What can we say we've done to advance to a cure or to cures? It's fine that we've got all -- we've contributed to all. What can you say that we've actually done? We don't really have any -- I'm going to just say this because it's a bias and I know it's a bias. We don't have any tangible specific and measurable results that I can point to.”
Ellen Feigal |
Feigal:
“Actually –”
Lott:
“Tell me if I'm wrong and demonstrate it to me. I want to understand where the results are.”
Feigal:
“So I'm happy to tell you the results, but I guess the issue is the expectations. And when this was funded, it probably was an expectation that (if we) give them money and within a very, very, very short period of time, and frankly ten years is a relatively short period of time, and, as you may not know, the funding didn't start till 2006, but if you try -- we're trying to do things in a very accelerated way. The funding actually for the disease teams and strategic partnerships just started three years ago. Part of it is advancing....”
Feigal continued in that vein for a few
more minutes. Lott then asked about CIRM's return on investment(ROI),
which amounts to $6 billion that the state will have to pay to support
the agency, including the interest on the money that was borrowed for
grants.
Jonathan Thomas CIRM photo |
Thomas, a bond financier from Los
Angeles, jumped in,
“The results are, do we have any cures? No, we don't have any cures, but the results are many. They're incremental, but they are all moving along a research continuum that any sort of drug therapy would follow.....”
Lott:
“Here's my problem. As you said earlier, and I agree with it completely, I think it's a question of expectations. I know when I voted for this, and I did vote for it, I had some expectations. And my expectations were (that) we were going to see something in terms of cures at the end of the rainbow after we spend $3 billion, whatever it is that we're spending here.
“So when I asked for an ROI -- and I do understand what you are trying to tell us. I do get it, but it's not translatable. It doesn't translate to the expectations that many of us voters had.”
Lott kept coming back to his essential
question
“The point is if we did spend all this money, what did we
get for it?”
Thomas and Feigal, aided by their Power Point presentations, continued to talk about CIRM's partnerships, disease teams and funding mechanisms.
Thomas:
“So if we do go back for a subsequent bond measure, I think we will be able to tell a story that will make California proud of being on the cutting edge and having facilitated the acceleration of the research, which, as Ellen said --”
Lott:
“Not if you don't get beyond the marketing problem you got. I'm telling you, pal, I would have a hard time voting for it again."
Thomas:
“That's fair.”
Our take: The California stem cell agency is virtually unknown to most of the people of California, which is not an unusual situation for most state agencies. Since Thomas was elected chairman in 2011, however, it has vastly improved its communications efforts. Nonetheless, it has not fulfilled the campaign promises of cures and won't be able to do so in the next two years. It does have a story to tell, albeit one that does not fit with the mythology of magical stem cells. Telling that story is hindered by mind-numbing Power Point presentations, which are little more than outlines that would be better replaced by nuanced, written documents. The challenge for the agency is to present not only the dry numbers but package the key figures with information that will connect viscerally and persuade people of the virtues of CIRM. Packaging and sizzle are the watchwords, depending on the audience. Each group has different concerns that need to be researched in advance and then addressed in tailored presentations. Whether CIRM's efforts so far have been worth $6 billion remains to be determined, but it is clear that it has not yet made its best case.
Labels:
cfaoc,
cirm accomplishments,
cirm financing,
cirm future,
CIRM PR
Saturday, March 08, 2014
Japanese and California Stem Cell Affairs: An Opportunity to Make a Connection
This
baby is a spin-off in Japan from CIRM-financed research. Kazuhiro
Kawamura
of
the St. Mariana School of Medicine delivered the child, which he
is holding.
(Kawamura
photo)
|
Ken Burtis UC Davis photo |
That's because one of the board
members, Ken Burtis of UC Davis, is in Nara, Japan, for a visit on
the day of the meeting in Burlingame, Ca. He will be linked to the
session via a telephone connection. It will be a two-way hookup that the public can use to participate, a requirement of California
state law.
Stem cells are a hot scientific and
commercial topic in Japan. According to an article last November in the Japan Times,
the country's regenerative medicine market is expected to climb to
$15.85 billion in 2030, up from $260 million in 2012. Japan is also
the home of the induced pluripotent stem cell, which was first
produced there.
Burtis is a professor of genetics and
provost at UC Davis. It was not immediately known whether his visit
to Japan involved UC Davis, the stem cell agency or was personal.
Burtis' access to the stem cell
meeting, which includes a lengthy briefing on the agency's development portfolio, will be from the Hotel Nikko in Nara. Interested parties will be able to participate from the room in which Burtis is monitoring the meeting. However, the meeting agenda does not specify a room number. That will have to be obtained by emailing the stem cell agency at info@cirm.ca.gov. It is
best to do that well in advance of the meeting.
This week's meeting has nothing specific on the agenda related to Japanese stem cell affairs, but stem cell research is a global matter. Researchers and others in Japan may well learn something new, particularly from the briefing on the agency's portfolio, and will have an opportunity to pose questions. Additionally, the board will be considering $72 million in "concept" proposals to speed commercialization of stem cell research, which could well be of interest to Japanese stem cell researchers and biotech firms even if they are not eligible for awards.
The California stem cell agency, which is known as CIRM, has also had a collaborative arrangement with Japan Science and Technology Agency since 2008.
The California stem cell agency, which is known as CIRM, has also had a collaborative arrangement with Japan Science and Technology Agency since 2008.
Masaya Nakamura Keio photo |
Aileen Anderson UCI photo |
The agreement has resulted in one
collaborative funding project involving Aileen Anderson of UC Irvine
and Masaya Nakamura of Keio University. Anderson has received $1.3 million from CIRM, which did not announce the amount of funding that
Japan provided to Nakamura.
Aaron Hsueh AFP photo |
Aaron Hsueh of Stanford received $2
million from CIRM for work that later led to a novel way of treating
some forms of infertility and further work with Japanese researchers. One
child has been born in Japan using the techninque. Kazuhiro Kawamura (pictured at the top of this item) and others at St. Mariana University School of Medicine were involved
in that effort, which was not funded by CIRM. Another woman was
pregnant as of October 2013. No information about the result of that
pregnancy was immediately available. (See here and here.)
(Editor's note: This item has been altered slightly from the original version to make it clearer what is on the agenda this Thursday and its relationship to Japan. The headline has been reworded. No information has been dropped.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)