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.
Release of the information is a step forward in openness and
transparency for the agency, which has slipped in that area recently. (See here and here.)
The $20 million award is the only application up for
approval next Thursday, just four business days away. The California Stem Cell
Report will have more on the proposal later today.
Still missing is information involving the agency’s plans to
correct deficiencies identified in a $230,000 performance audit and the agency’s
ongoing revision of its plans for spending its last $1 billion.
Next Thursday’s meeting will be a teleconference session
with 17 remote locations, including Atlanta, where the public can participate
and listen in. All are places from which board members log in for the meeting. The locations include
San Francisco (3 locations), Fresno, Davis, Los Angeles(3 locations), Napa, Stanford,
Sacramento, Davis, Fresno, Berkeley, Los Gatos, Irvine and La Jolla (2
locations). Specific addresses can be found on the agenda.
The meeting will also be audiocast on the Internet, but no
public participation is available by that means.
All but one site is in California. One board member, Lauren Miller, will be
logging in from Atlanta for what is expected to be about an hour-long meeting.
This month’s session was originally scheduled for San Diego,
where board members and staff would have been available for face-to-face
discussions with the public. But the San Francisco-based agency switched the
meeting to a teleconference session because of estimates that it would last only
an hour.
The move upset Parkinson’s patient advocates in San Diego,
who planned to attend the session in their area to speak about the need for
funding for research into a possible cure for the affliction. They already have
protested delays in funding at the July meeting of the board in Oakland.
On this month’s agenda are mostly routine matters considered
earlier by board subcommittees that are expected to be quickly approved. Also
on the agenda is consideration of presumably multi-million dollar applications
for clinical stage research proposals. The board nearly invariably
rubber-stamps the actions of its blue-ribbon panel of application reviewers. No
information is yet available on those applications.
Up for discussion is a plan to correct
unspecified deficiencies identified in a $230,000 performance audit of the agency.
The study, commissioned by the agency
and required by law, said the agency needed to improve its procedures involving
conflicts of interest and grant application reviewers. Also identified as an
area needing work is the tracking of potential royalties. No board action is expected to be necessary this
month to implement the plan.
The agency’s president, Randy Mills, is additionally
scheduled to give an update on the agency’s strategic plan, which is being
reformulated. The board has roughly $1 billion left before its cash for new applications runs out in 2020.
No background information has yet been posted on the meeting
agenda for any item to be discussed or acted on. The California Stem Cell
Report will carry items on the material as it becomes available. If interested
parties would like to submit comments to the board in advance of the meeting,
they can be addressed to mbonneville@cirm.ca.gov.
The teleconference locations where the public can
participate in the meeting and comment can be found on the agenda. The session is scheduled to be audiocast on the Internet as well. Directions will be placed on the agenda.
This is a Summit4stemcell video prepared following an emotional protest at the July meeting of the board of the California stem cell agency.
Highlights
Lack of speed, openness protested
Agency cites cost issues
Patient-CIRM relationships unique
A group of Parkinson’s patients from San Diego is less
than pleased today with a move by the $3 billion California stem cell agency that the
group says will stall efforts to secure much-needed funding for a possible cure for the disease.
The events this week follow an emotional protest at an agency board meeting in Oakland in July and highlight the often intense
relationship between patient advocates and the stem cell agency – not to
mention the pressure on the agency to move fast to find cures.
Anger and the Parkinson's symptoms of trembling and speech difficulties marked the protests. One patient advocate, Jenifer Raub of San Diego, said it was "outrageous" that an award round being discussed at the meeting would not provide funding until possibly 2017.
The patient advocate group, Summit4stemcell, had planned to
address the stem cell agency board again at a Sept. 24 meeting scheduled to be
held in San Diego. However, yesterday the group was told that the meeting would
not be held in their city. Instead the session was being turned into a
teleconference meeting and would be only about one hour long. Most in-person
board meetings last much of the day.
Responding to questions from the California Stem Cell Report,
Sherrie Gould, executive director of the Summit group and a nurse practitioner,
said in an email,
Sherrie Gould, Scripps Health photo
“We are both confused and disappointed that this PUBLIC (Gould’s
capitalization) meeting has been essentially cancelled. We were prepared
to talk with the ICOC (the agency board) and answer all questions about our patient advocacy
movement (Summit4stemcells) and our research….
“Unless we can be present in front of the CIRM board,
Summit's strong voice is diminished. Being physically present in human form is always more effective than a teleconference. Delays, which we realize are a part of any government associated agency, are devastating to people suffering from the progressive symptoms of Parkinson's disease.”
Jeanne Loring, head of the Scripps stem cell program in La
Jolla, also voiced her displeasure in an email to Kevin McCormack, senior
director of communications for the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM), as the agency is formally known.
She wrote,
“CIRM has rather pulled the rug out from under the patient
advocates. These meetings are supposed to be public, so how is the public going
to participate if there is no access?…. I'm disappointed and the Parkinson's
patients are exceedingly disappointed. The Parkinson's group is trying to
find out the resolution, if any, of the timing of the grant applications.”
The Summit group has raised $2 million to support Loring’s
research and to match what CIRM might award for her effort.
Asked for comment today, McCormack said in an email,
“The reason we switched from an in-person to a
teleconference board meeting is simple, the agenda for this meeting consisted
of just a few items that could probably be handled in one hour. We can’t justify
the cost of an in-person meeting in San Diego – which includes transportation
for all those going there, plus hotel rooms, meals and the cost of the ballroom
for the day - for one hour’s worth of business. As a state agency we are always
mindful of how we spend our money so we made the change.”
Under the agency’s procedures and state law, members of the
public can listen in and speak during teleconference meetings but only from the specific
location from which an individual board member is participating.
On the other hand, the in-person meetings offer
an opportunity to speak face-to-face with all board members, chat with them
informally during breaks and to converse directly with CIRM staff. The meetings
have been an important tool for many patient advocate groups to press their
cases. At times, however, their lengthy presentations have tried the patience of the agency.
The relationship between patient advocates and CIRM is notable. One of the unique features of the agency is the influence
of patient advocates, particularly on its board. Twelve sit on the 29-member panel and often
play important roles. Sometimes they are the only way the board can approve
awards because most of the other members have legal conflicts of interest and
cannot vote.
David Higgins of San Diego is one of the patient advocate members of the board, which has a
David Higgins
specific slot for a Parkinson’s disease advocate. He
was interviewed in July following the protest of the many-months delay in
possible funding for Parkinson’s research. His remarks were recorded on a
Summit-produced video(see at top of this item). Higgins, who is a scientist and has Parkinson's, said,
“It’s tough, it’s really tough, to be involved in the
Parkinson’s community, especially to have Parkinson’s disease, and to watch
things go in what seems like slow motion.”
Contacted today for additional comments, Higgins said,
“In my year at CIRM I have only encountered enthusiasm and
support for patient advocacy - both from the staff as well as the board.
Patient and patient advocate participation in the process is welcomed. CIRM is
first and foremost about patients.”
Following the protests at the July meeting, CIRM President
Randy Mills told the board he would see if there is anything he could do to speed
funding. He said he would report back to the board later.
McCormack did not directly respond to a question today about
whether recent, proposed changes in the award scheduling would have an impact
on the Parkinson’s research. He said
only that the changes would provide more flexibility.
(The text of remarks by the various parties follow this item.)
Here is the text of the Sept. 9, 2015, email message to
Sherrie Gould, executive director of Summit4stemcell, from Kevin McCormack,
senior director of communications for the California stem cell agency, along
with one from Jeanne Loring, head of the stem cell program at Scripps, to
McCormack. Loring sent her email to McCormack after she received a copy
of his email to Gould.
The Gould-McCormack email comes first with the
Loring-McCormack email following.
“Dear Sherrie
“I just wanted to let you know that there has been a change
in plans for our September board meeting. As you know, it was originally
scheduled to be held in San Diego, however, that has changed and it is now
simply a telephonic meeting. The reason is that the agenda is going to be
lighter than originally anticipated and it didn’t make sense to incur the cost
of an in-person meeting for one hour’s worth of business.
“I know you were planning to have many of the
Parkinson’s group attend the meeting so I wanted to let you know so
you can alert them to the change. “Our next in-person meeting will now be in Los Angeles
on December 17th.
“Cheers,
“Kevin McCormack”
Loring’s email to McCormack:
“Hi Kevin: “Two in a row?? CIRM has rather pulled the rug out
from under the patient advocates -these meetings are supposed to be public, so
how is the public going to participate if there is no access? Does CIRM
have a plan to give access? More importantly, is CIRM doing this to avoid
having public access? “I'm disappointed and the Parkinson's patients are
exceedingly disappointed. The Parkinson's group is trying to find out the
resolution, if any, of the timing of the grant applications. Has anything
been done in that regard yet? “In addition to the advocates, my students will be
disappointed. I always bring my interns and my CIRM fellows to the
meetings so they can meet their benefactors. “Any plans for access to the public would be welcome. “Jeanne”
Here is the text of comments by Sherrie Gould, executive
director of Summit4stemcellof San Diego, made in connection with changes in the stem cell
agency board meeting Sept. 24. Gould made the remarks in response to a query
from the California Stem Cell Report.
“We are both confused and disappointed that this PUBLIC
meeting has
been essentially cancelled. We were prepared to talk with the ICOC (the stem cell agency) board and answer all questions about our patient advocacy
(Summit4stemcells) movement and our research. The Summit4stemcell
project has been faithfully attending public meetings every other
month for the last two years. We have flown in numbers to make sure
our voice is heard. We have spoken to board members, and to the media
about our plight. This San Diego meeting, now cancelled, was an
opportunity attend to discuss the funding possibilities for
Parkinson's disease and whether funding might be appropriate for our
project. Our science is sound and we have a clinical arm to this
project. We believe CIRM could take ownership of this very exciting
translational research if we were indeed funded.
“Unless we can be present in front of the CIRM board, Summit's strong
voice is diminished. Being physically present in human form is always
more effective than a teleconference. Delays, which we realize are a
part of any government associated agency, are devastating to people
suffering from the progressive symptoms of Parkinson's disease. And
although hope springs eternal, we are saddened by the repetitive
delays.”
Here is the text of comments by David Higgins, a member of
the governing board (the ICOC) of the California stem cell agency, in
connection with changes in the September meeting of that board. By law, Higgins is appointed as a patient advocate for Parkinson’s disease. He made his comments in response to questions from the
California Stem Cell Report.
“It is my understanding that the September ICOC meeting was switched to a phone
format because the modest agenda planned made the cost associated with having
this meeting ‘on the road’ questionable.
“In my year at CIRM I have only encountered enthusiasm and support for patient
advocacy - both from the staff as well as the board. Patient and patient
advocate participation in the process is welcomed. CIRM is first and foremost
about patients. There will be differences in opinion on how best to allocate
CIRM’s financial resources, but there are no difference of opinion on the
importance of patient advocacy and the value of interactions between the public
and the ICOC.”
Here is the text of remarks today from Kevin McCormack,
senior director of communications for the California stem cell agency,
concerning changes involving this month's governing board meeting. He made the comments in
response to questions by the California Stem Cell Report. One of the questions involved the agency's strategic plan, which was scheduled to be discussed at the meeting this month.
"The reason we switched from an in-person to a
teleconference Board meeting is simple, the agenda for this meeting consisted
of just a few items that could probably be handled in one hour. We can’t
justify the cost of an in-person meeting in San Diego – which includes
transportation for all those going there, plus hotel rooms, meals and the cost
of the ballroom for the day - for one hour’s worth of business. As a state
agency we are always mindful of how we spend our money so we made the change.
"In order for CIRM to operate
efficiently and to respond to changing
circumstances and needs, CIRM must be
nimble and flexible. To ensure that the
CIRM team has the ability to make
adjustments to the program schedule to
meet these needs, we propose to
eliminate the specificity in the translation and
Discovery Program concept plans regarding
the schedule for the submission of
applications in response to program
announcements issued under these programs.” (McCormack's boldface)
"As for the Strategic Plan, we have already conducted
extensive outreach, through both on-line surveys and in-person meetings, with
Patient Advocates (including meetings in San Diego, Los Angeles and San
Francisco), researchers, Board members and the public. We are now working on
bringing all those thoughts and suggestions together in order to be able to
present them to Board.
"And the Board agenda will be posted ten days ahead of the
meeting as usual."
The $3 billion California stem cell agency is looking for a
handful of new employees, including a top level executive who could be paid as
much as $250,000 a year.
Openings for four positions are currently up on the Web site
of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is
formally known.
The listings with two different titles are for one job only. The ultimate title of the successful candidate will depend on their level of prior experience, according to the agency.
The director of therapeutics position carries a maximum salary of $250,065. The job would involve managing budgets of $600
million plus. The job listing also said candidates should know “what ‘great’
looks like and (use) that vision to set clear direction that is fully
understood by the therapeutic team.”
The position would report to the vice president for
therapeutics, Ramona Doyle, a former Genentech executive who joined CIRM in July.
The agency is currently based in San Francisco but will be
moving its headquarters to Oakland this fall.
California’s
$3 billion stem cell research effort made one of its rare appearances in the
New York Times this weekend in a long article on the front page of the
newspaper’s Sunday business section.
The piece,
however, carried not a word about the agency’s accomplishments. Instead the story
by Matt Richtel talked about a proposal to build an 18,000-seat arena for the
Golden State Warriors basketball team.
The
arena would be located a short walk from the current headquarters of the stem cell
agency as well as the UC San Francisco Mission Bay complex and the biotech
enterprises that surround it. The proposal has triggered a major flap in the
city involving the biotech industry, among other issues. A former vice chancellor of UCSF, Bruce Spaulding, is leading a move to
block the project.
The stem
cell agency, known formally as the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM), popped up in the article as a result of its decision to transfer
its headquarters to Oakland. The California Stem Cell Report wrote about the move on Aug. 17, triggering a spate of articles in the Bay Area media. (See here and here.)
Richtel
wrote,
Jeff Sheehy -- Sheehy photo
“’San
Francisco has always been that other city with a different set of values,’”
said Jeff Sheehy, a governing board member of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, the largest stem cell funding
agency in the world. The institute is moving to Oakland after the expiration of
a free-rent deal on its space near the proposed complex; it discovered that
office rents in San Francisco were prohibitively high. He sees the arena, which
he opposes (he would like affordable housing on the land), as suggestive that
San Francisco secretly wanted mainstream credibility all along.
“'We
should have an arena because New York has Madison Square Garden. We should
compete for the Olympics and the Super Bowl,' he says, mocking the pro-arena
attitude. He describes the new San Francisco as 'just another capitalist,
consumerist, profit-driven, money-motivated Disneyland.'”
Sam Hawgood -- UCSF photo
Another
CIRM board member was mentioned in the piece, Sam Hawgood, chancellor of UCSF,
which also employs Sheehy as a communications manager.
Richtel
wrote that Hawgood “has
offered qualified support for the Warriors, as long as the owners and the city
address his big concerns about traffic, including creating dedicated lanes for
health emergencies and increasing public transportation options and the number
of parking lots.”
Joe Lacob -- Kleiner photo
In another stem cell/biotech-related linkage, Joe Lacob is one of the majority owners of the Warriors. He also contributed $759,017 to the campaign for Proposition 71, the ballot measure that created the stem cell agency in 2004. He is a
partner in the Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers venture capital
firm, which pumped nearly $6 million into the campaign and
which is a major investor in biotech.
Highlights $34 million Alpha Clinics involved Information failure on proposal Discourages public/researcher participation
California’s stem cell agency this past couple of weeks skidded significantly backwards in its efforts to improve clarity and
transparency in its $3 billion operation.
The latest example came this week and involved its
ambitious, $34 million Alpha stem cell clinic program at four major California
institutions: the City of Hope, UCLA and UC Irvine and UC San Diego.
A proposed, multimillion dollar project involving the effort
was scheduled for action next Tuesday by the Science Subcommittee of the agency’s
governing board. As of early this morning -- only one full business day from the meeting -- the agency had released only nine words about it to
the public. Here is the full text:
“Consideration of concept plan for Alpha Clinics Accelerating
Center.”
Opaque is the only way to describe the process. And it was bound
to create issues with affected parties, which it has in this case.
Such cryptic notices make it impossible for the public to
comment intelligently or otherwise, given the lack of information. The failure
to provide the information in a timely fashion also feeds suspicion and
distrust.
Clarity is one of the watch words that Randy Mills has
invoked in his 15-month tenure at the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM), as the agency is formally known. He has done much to sharpen CIRM’s
focus and provide additional clarity through his analysis of the agency’s work.
But failing to provide material in a timely fashion removes
more than the shine on his efforts. The meetings of the agency’s directors are CIRM’s
most important public events. They are where
patients, advocates, researchers, biotech executives and even the unwashed
public can come together to hear and see the board in action and discuss issues
informally with directors and the CIRM staff. Attendance should be encouraged – not discouraged.
Which is what happens when important information is withheld from
the public.
Last Friday the California Stem Cell Report carried an item
on another mysterious agenda item, one that involved forgiveness of agency
loans and potential royalty revenue, something that was promised in the
election campaign that created the agency in 2004.
That too was a case of missing information until it was much
too late for the public or affected parties to make thoughtful comments. (See here and here.)
CIRM can and should do better than this.
(The California Stem Cell Report this morning asked CIRM for comment on the failure to provide information on the Alpha proposal scheduled for Tuesday. About ninety minutes later, CIRM spokesman Don Gibbons responded, saying that the item was now being postponed "to allow more time for refinement and consideration.")
(By this afternoon, the agency had also posted the first explanation of another cryptic item on the Tuesday agenda for the Science Subcommittee. This one would eliminate the specific schedule for RFAs in the upcoming basic research (discovery) and translational RFAs. The reason for the change is to provide more flexibility.)
(Editor's note: The last paragraph of this item was added several hours after the original posting.)
The California stem cell agency this week scored moderately well
in media coverage of the announcement of its $32 million stem cell bank, the
world’s largest such public effort.
Most of the coverage was based in California but, of course,
all of the stories can be read globally. The San Francisco Chronicle, The
Sacramento Bee and a chain of newspapers in the Bay Area carried articles,
among others.
Missing was coverage from major national outlets, such as
the New York Times. Also absent was coverage by television news outlets,
according to a search this morning on Google. A spokesman for the agency said the Buck Institute, which houses the bank, has restrictions on video coverage.
A story by Stephanie ONeill of KPCCcarried a factoid missing
from all other stories – the cost of the cells from the bank in Marin County,
north of San Francisco. O'Neill reported,
"The cost of each vial will range from $750 for researchers
affiliated with nonprofit research organizations to $1,500 for those who work
for-profit companies, says (California) Institute for Regenerative Medicine spokesman
Kevin McCormack."
The Bee story reported much larger figures, which the
stem cell agency today said are incorrect.
Jeff Buchanan, who is based in Wisconsin for xconomy, wrote a story with a headline that reflected his focus on the Wisconsin firm
involved,
“Cellular Dynamics Launches ‘World’s Largest’ Public Stem Cell Bank”
Buchanan also wrote that the company’s executive vice
president, Chris Parker, said that the bank offers more than other banks.
Buchanan reported,
“’The diseases, the demographic information that’s
associated with them, the clinical data, the genetic and genomic data
available—that’s what’s really making these lines valuable,’ (Parker) says. Donors
gave consent for their tissue samples to ‘be used for a variety of research
purposes,’ giving investigators considerable latitude, says Parker.”
Stem cell storage tanks at new stem cell bank -- Coriell photo
Highlights 300 different stem cell lines 3,000 donors Coriell, CDI operating, supplying Stanford, UCLA, UCSF and UCSD involved
Thanks to the taxpayers of California, the Golden State is
now home to the largest publicly available stem cell bank in the world.
The state’s $3 billion stem cell agency this morning
announced that the bank, located in Marin County north of San Francisco, is open for business.
The project is
backed by $32.3 million from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine
(CIRM), as the agency is formally known.
In a news release this morning, CIRM said the bank is “offering
the first 300 different stem cell lines for researchers interested in
gaining a deeper understanding of, and developing treatments for 11 common
diseases and disorders.”
The agency said the bank, housed at the Buck Institute in Novato, is collecting samples from as many
as 3,000 donors. CIRM said,
“Those samples will then be turned into high quality stem
cell lines – known as induced pluripotent stem cells or iPSCs – which are
available to researchers throughout California and the rest of the world.”
CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas said,
“We believe the bank will be an extraordinarily important
resource in helping advance the use of stem cell tools for the study of
diseases and finding new ways to treat them.”
As of this writing, the announcement had received coverage on the San Francisco SFgate Web site and on other sites in the San Francisco Bay Area that are owned a news media chain and another site in Pennsylvania. The coverage is likely to
grow throughout the day, which is important to the agency. It is hard-pressed
to generate news coverage for its achievements.
The bank was funded by awards from California in 2013 and is
operated by the non-profit Coriell Institute of Camden, N.J. Generation of the cells is performed by Cellular
Dynamics International, Inc., of Madison, Wisc.
Unspecified changes upcoming in $93 million award programs
A little
sunshine popped up over the weekend on a bit of fiscal alchemy at the
$3 billion California stem cell agency, and a little clarity emerged.
The matter involves the agency’s loan program, which affects multi-million awards
to businesses. The awards are called loans but are forgiven if no viable product
emerges.
The matter
surfaced as a result of a cryptic agenda item for Thursday’s meeting of the
agency’s directors’ Intellectual Property Subcommittee. Here is what
happened:
About a week
ago, the agency posted the agenda for the meeting. The agenda
contained a 24-word line that said that it was going to change its policies “to
permit existing loan recipient whose loan has been forgiven to convert its
award to a grant.”
The need for
change and its financial impact on the agency was not discussed. The specific
language being changed was not spelled out. The timetable for the changes was
not specified. Nor was it discussed whether the move was desired by any recipients
of the agency’s largess.
Given the
opaque nature of the agenda item, the California Stem Cell Report carried an
item Friday morning that said,
“In just
four business days, the $3 billion California stem cell agency is going to
perform a bit of financial alchemy. But like most alchemists, its methods are
less than transparent.”
Much later
that day or possibly early Saturday, the
agency posted a brief memo and regulatory language that provided a better look
at the loan rule changes, which could have an impact on royalties the state
might receive on a successful stem cell therapy.
Based on
what is now on the agency’s Web site, the proposal would clarify what happens if
a loan-financed therapy is dropped and then revived, leading to actual revenue.
Under existing rules, such a situation could trigger an ambiguous financial
burden that would have to show on the company books. And business executives
and investors do not like ambiguous financial burdens.
The memo from
the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is
formally known, said,
“To provide
clarity regarding future obligations, CIRM proposes giving existing loan
recipients whose loan has been forgiven by CIRM the option to convert their
loan to a grant and forego reinstatement of a forgiven loan. In this way, loan
recipients will be automatically governed by the revenue sharing (and other)
principles of the agency’s intellectual property regulations in the event
future revenue streams are realized. This will be particularly important in the
event future revenues are realized after CIRM has exhausted its funding.”
The
directors’ subcommittee is likely to approve the change on Thursday. It would
then go to the full board at its Sept. 24 in San Diego for action before it
enters the state’s regulatory process, which will open it to further public
comment.
The Thursday
meeting will also take up changes in the “loan election policy” for this year’s
$100 million clinical award program. Details on that are still not available as
of this morning, but one assumption would be that they are an extension of the
proposed loan changes to that particular program.
The weekend’s memo on the loan changes was dated Aug. 20.
One can only assume that it was lingering on some CIRM executive’s desk for
eight days until it was made available to the public, researchers and likely
affected businesses.
Problems
with timely posting of agenda material are not new to the agency. In the more
distant past, they were significant but have diminished. That is, until this
case and others earlier this year.
This morning, no additional
details were available on those two matters.
The Science
Subcommittee teleconference session on Sept. 8 will be based in San Francisco. Interested
parties can weigh in at public locations in Irvine, La Jolla, Los Angeles and
Duarte. Addresses are on the agenda.
The only public access to these meetings is at their physical locations. No participation is available via the Internet. However, comments may be submitted in advance or later by emailing them to mbonneville@cirm.ca.gov.
In just four business days, the $3 billion California stem
cell agency is going to perform a bit of financial alchemy. But like
most alchemists, its methods are less than transparent.
The case in point involves a session of the intellectual
property subcommittee of the agency’s board of directors. The committee is
scheduled to meet next Thursday to deal with an unknown amount of cash that the
agency has given to an unidentified recipient.
According to the very limited information on the meeting agenda,
the cash was once a loan. But that loan has been forgiven by the agency. Now
the plan is to turn that forgiven loan into a grant.
Why? How much money is involved? What is the rationale? What
is the benefit to the people of California, if any? It is all something of a
mystery.
Also on the agenda are unspecified changes in the “loan
election policy” for clinical awards, a program that is budgeted for $100
million this year. Again, no rationale or explanation is publicly available as
of this morning.
One of the favorite words of agency’s president, Randy
Mills, is clarity. He reminds folks regularly that the agency should have
clarity in what it does.
Mills has indeed improved the clarity of the organization in
his one-year tenure at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, as
the agency is formally known. He has brought analytic and presentation skills
that have opened new insights into how the organization spends the taxpayers’
billions. The result has been an
improvement in the way the agency operates.
But in this case, the agency is falling short. Its rules
call for notifying the public about meetings 10 calendar days in advance of the
sessions. However, cryptic agendas that raise more questions than answers do
not add up to clarity. Instead, they are opaque and can generate suspicions
about the conduct of the agency on the part of the public and interested
parties.
Trust in government – and the stem cell agency is part of our
government – is at all-time lows. It behooves the California stem cell agency
to do what it can avoid feeding that distrust and to make its operations as
transparent and open as possible.
The California state auditor this week warned that a host of
state agencies are poorly secured and vulnerable to intrusion, but the
California stem cell agency is apparently not now one of the miscreants.
In a report released yesterday, State Auditor Elaine Howe said that 73 of
the 77 state departments answering a recent security standards survey said that
they were not in compliance with security standards.
A story by Jon Ortiz and Jim Miller in The Sacramento Bee
said that most departments “have not planned for interruptions or disasters” and
five departments audited more closely all had “security deficiencies.”
The Bee story said state departments’ databanks are “stuffed
with Social Security numbers, medical records, tax return data and other
sensitive information.”
The $3 billion California stem cell agency is one of those
departments filled with sensitive data, including proprietary information that is
submitted as part of applications for the billions that the agency is handing
out.
Responding to a query today from the California Stem Cell
Report, Kevin McCormack, senior director of communications for the agency, said
that the agency was surveyed by the auditor and now meets state standards. He
said,
“We were one of those 77 departments. We did not have security deficiencies as such
– in that we put confidential information at risk – but some aspects of our
site were not in full compliance with the state standards, for example not
having a link to all previous privacy policies and the dates they were in
effect. So we put together a plan of action on how to correct the problems,
that plan was approved by the state and those changes have been implemented.”
McCormack continued,
“The question of proprietary information was one of the
things we had to address, namely showing all the protections we have in place
in our Grants Management System which is the only place that any kind of
proprietary information is kept. Because that system already requires separate
log in and password protections those met the state standards without any
changes being necessary.”
The agency has awarded tens of millions of dollars to a variety
of businesses. It also has relationships with researchers in a number of
countries, including China.
Periodically news surfaces about Internet theft of business
information by Chinese interests, including in the world of biotech and
pharmaceuticals (See here, here and here.)
China is also widely believed to have ambitious stem cell
research aspirations, although current specifics are scarce. In May, however, Reuters skimmed off a quick look at Chinese biotech. Earlier this month, China announced regulations aimed at both clearing the way for human research and regulating rogue stem
cell clinics. (See here also.)
The California research involving a Chinese collaborator
does not allow the collaborator password access to the stem cell agency’s grant
management system, McCormack said.
“None of the collaborative funding partners, foreign or
domestic, can access our (grant management system). We explicitly make clear in
the rules for these collaborations that we take care of the California portion
of the funding and their respective agency/government/institution, etc., takes
care of their portion. The California researchers would have access to our (system)
through a protected log in and password
but not their collaborative funding partner.”
The latest progress report on his research on the agency’s Web site said,
“The objective of this project is to establish the
feasibility of liver cell therapy with human induced hepatocyte-like cells
(iHeps). As proposed we established the feasibility of generating iHeps from
several expandable, potentially autologous human cell types. We identified
transcription factors effective in inducing hepatocyte differentiation as well
as further maturation of these cells. We also identified small molecules and
culture conditions (extracellular matrix composition and stiffness) that
promote proliferation and hepatocyte-specific differentiation. The next steps
are to investigate the genomic integrity and therapeutic efficacy of these
cells.”
Last week, two interesting stories popped up involving
California’s $3 billion stem cell research effort.
One of the stories dealt with a matter that could affect as many as 27 million
people. The other involved less than 100.
One story involved creation of important linkages that could help
speed up the transformation of stem cells into cures. The other concerned little more
than a change of address.
The story about the change of address was displayed on the
front page of the largest circulation newspaper in Northern California, the San
Francisco Chronicle, and appeared in many other outlets. (See here and here.)
Not a word was reported in the mainstream media about the development that
could affect the 27 million people afflicted with arthritis in this country.(See
here and here.)
For many persons, such disparities in news are puzzling and frustrating, not to mention disturbing. Sort of like trying to find meaning by reading the entrails of animals.
Stem cell research is exceedingly
important, the reasoning goes, and how can those dolts in the press ignore it?
More specifically, the situation poses a continuing challenge for California’s stem cell agency,
which has a hard time breaking into ink except when it moves its headquarters a
few miles from San Francisco to Oakland.
So how do editors and reporters make the decisions that lead
to such disparities? The first thing to remember is that -- like of all us -- the
news media are most comfortable doing the things they have always done. The treatment of these two stories follows a pattern that has been established over
many decades. Newsies like “horse race”
stories – ones with clear winners and losers. In this case, San Francisco "lost" the headquarters of the stem cell agency and Oakland "won" it.
The move also fit with an ongoing news theme – skyrocketing office
space costs in San Francisco – coupled with high housing costs and the current conflict between the impact of high tech on the city vs. the desire to return to a
past that is perceived by many as more benign.
Additionally, the stem cell agency headquarters story is fundamentally local as opposed to the arthritis
research, which is not solely about the San Francisco Bay Area.
The tale was easy to report. It did not require weeks of digging or lengthy interviews to understand the science. The story was basically handed to the news media as a result of
the Aug. 17 item on the California Stem Cell Report, although the move has been
around publicly at least since July 23.
At our request, one longtime observer of the California stem scene, who must remain anonymous, elaborated on the situation.
“Well, you write a blog that catches the eye of a
reporter/editor. It concerns a state agency that was lured to the city to help
kick start biotech, to be a lynch pin, if you like, for a new regional research
base. Ten years after arriving the agency is a victim of its own success, or
the city’s success, or just the economy (choose your story line here), so you
have a story about a state agency moving, a city that is experiencing soaring
rents losing businesses like this, and another neighboring city that stands to
benefit. You can then focus on the biotech angle - 'is the city doing enough to
keep businesses here' - or the people angle or any angle except the only one
that really matters, the science. “That results in a front page article on the local newspaper
– they love to put local stories on the front because it is more attractive to
potential readers, and put all the national/international wire stories inside –
which then leads other local news outlets to follow along. Why the delay?
Because most media outlets don’t have specialist reporters anymore so they rely
on some other news outlet, usually newspapers, to dig up something interesting, and they can then follow along. Radio first usually, they are rapid responders
and can get stories on the air very quickly, followed by other online media and
then TV.”
We should add that the treatment of the two stories has lessons that apply to
dealing with the media generally. If
researchers want to get their stories out – as they should – the first thing to
consider is the needs of the media. Work into the existing
framework. Don’t try to create a new one. That may take longer than getting a
stem cell treatment approved by the FDA.
Find a compelling angle, one that can be summarized in a
couple of sentences. Speak English. Avoid jargon and technical-speak. Talking about a “chondrogenic drug candidate
targeting resident mesenchymal stem cells” will never make the front page.
Talking about a relatively simple therapy, the first of its kind for arthritis, has a much better chance.
Don’t expect to find relatively well-informed science
reporters at news outlets. The few that once existed are mostly gone. Be a
guide for editors and reporters and help them along by providing material
that answers all their basic questions.
Finally, lower your expectations. The financial crunch on the
news media means less space for science stories and fewer reporters to write
them. But don’t be discouraged. A good story, properly presented can find a
home at some point in the media. But it may not be tomorrow.
Back in July,
after the Planned Parenthood, anti-abortion controversy erupted and entangled a
California firm, one Internet headline read,
“Fetus
Miner’s Friends in High Places”
The site that
posted the headline was the American Conservative. The item referred to
Charlotte Ivanic, the older sister of Cate Dyer, CEO of StemExpress LLC of
Placerville. It is the stem cell and human tissue firm that was named in the videos
involving Planned Parenthood.
In July,
Ivanic was the highly regarded top health policy aide to House Speaker John
Boehner, who denounced Planned Parenthood and approved House committee
investigations into Planned Parenthood and StemExpress.
Dyer once
said that her sister is “one of her biggest inspirations.”
Now she is
gone from public service. She left on Aug. 5 and has become a Capitol Hill
lobbyist. In a press release, Boehner said,
“Charlotte
has spearheaded some of our most significant accomplishments on behalf of the
American people. She is one of the best I’ve seen at bringing people together
to find common ground, and she leaves Boehnerland with the deepest respect —
and best wishes — of her peers as well as lawmakers from both parties.”
The news
about her resignation was slow to ripple out. It was only yesterday that one
anti-abortion Web site caught up with the news. Fireandreamitchell.comhad this to say,
“It took
three weeks for Charlotte Ivancic to resign from John Boehner’s staff after the videos went
public. This yet again shows that John Boehner is just a progressive like
liberal Democrats. Why else would he have a leftist like Charlotte Ivancic on
his staff in the first place? John Boehner is not only mentally unstable but a
progressive hack too. Boehner has to go, NOW!”
A
beleaguered California company caught in the national, anti-abortion
controversy involving Planned Parenthood late today said its foes were engaged
in a “long series of lies.”
The company,
StemExpress LLC of Placerville, made the charge in a statement that included the unedited portions of the latest anti-abortion video along with a transcript of what was said. (If you would like the video, please email djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. It is a large file.)
The firm
said,
“David
Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress today released their latest heavily
edited, highly-deceptive video in which they claim StemExpress “admitted” to
receiving fully intact fetuses from Planned Parenthood….
“During the
video, the parties refer to 'cases,' which is a term of art referring to livers
in this conversation. CMP’s accusations that this conversation somehow refers to
'intact fetuses,' which were never mentioned at any point during the entirety of
the illegally recorded conversation, are false.
“StemExpress
has never requested, received or provided to a researcher an “intact fetus.”
CMP’s and Daleiden’s claims to the contrary are unequivocally false.”
The
statement and release of the transcript reflected a more aggressive posture on
the part of StemExpress, which has lost business as a result of the activists’
efforts. Its employees have also been threatened with violence.
Here is the
full text of the StemExpress statement.
“StemExpress
today released the following concerning CMP’s 8th video:
“David
Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress today released their latest heavily
edited, highly-deceptive video in which they claim StemExpress ‘admitted’ to
receiving fully intact fetuses from Planned Parenthood. Accompanying this document
is a link to the unedited part of that video where this supposed admission discussion
occurred, as well as a transcript of what was actually said.
“As anyone
can see and read, the entire discussion was in fact about ‘intact livers.’ Livers
are among the most urgently needed of medical tissues by scientists and medical
researchers working to cure cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease.
“During the
video, the parties refer to ‘cases,’ which is a term of art referring to livers
in this conversation. CMP’s accusations that this conversation somehow refers to
‘intact fetuses,’ which were never mentioned at any point during the entirety
of the illegally recorded conversation, are false.
“StemExpress
has never requested, received or provided to a researcher an ‘intact fetus.’
CMP’s and Daleiden’s claims to the contrary are unequivocally false.
“Earlier
today, a court found that this footage was likely obtained in violation of California
criminal law prohibiting the illegal recording of private conversations. In a
different court later this afternoon, Daleiden and his CMP co-defendants
invoked the 5th Amendment rather than answer questions about their ongoing
illegal activities in a related case in federal court. The release of today’s
video and CMP’s claims about it are just another in a long series of lies.”
A Los
Angeles judge today rejected a bid by a California stem cell/human tissue firm to
halt the release of an anti-abortion video that the firm said is harming its
business and endangering the lives of its employee.
The firm,
StemExpress LLC of Placerville, said, however, it is considering appealing the
ruling.
“Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge Joanne O'Donnell rejected efforts by StemExpress to block
the videos, though she said the company likely will prevail in its lawsuit
claiming its privacy was violated by an anti-abortion activist posing as a
biomedical company employee.”
Melley
continued,
“StemExpress
won a temporary restraining order last month, but O'Donnell said Friday that
the center's First Amendment rights to release the videos trumped the company's
right to block them under their privacy claims.
“The judge
said she couldn't tell who was telling the truth about how confidential the May
meeting was, but she said the fact (David) Daleiden concealed his identity and
secretly recorded the conversation made his account less believable.
“O'Donnell
rejected the center's argument that the secret recordings were legal under an
exemption that allows such subterfuge if someone believes they are gathering
evidence of a crime.
"'Defendants'
apparent ideological conviction that fetal tissue procurement is a violent
felony does not, without more (evidence), rise to the level of a 'reasonable
belief,' O'Donnell wrote.”
A California stemcell/human tissue company this morning
renewed its efforts to halt distribution of a video by anti-abortion activists
that it says will endanger its employees and damage its business.
The firm, StemExpress LLC of Placerville, said in court
filings that it was only seeking to stop the distribution of the video, not the
information contained within it.
It said that the activists, the Center for Medical Progress of Irvine, Ca., and David
Daleiden, have misled the judge in the case. The firm said the activists want to distribute the video to “inflame”
the public against the company and provoke a “hostile reaction.” The company
has already received death threats against its president.
StemExpress also said its request for a preliminary
injunction does not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The firm argued that such orders have been upheld in other
cases “where anti-abortion protesters were constitutionally enjoined not in what
they wanted to say, but how, where, and when they wanted to say it. Such
injunctions are simply not subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.”
The activists have argued that they did not violate state law barring recording the conversations without the permission of all parties because the discussions involved a crime --
“harvesting and killing live babies for resale.”
StemExpress noted that the activists did not report any
alleged crimes to authorities during a two-year investigation.
The court filing said the activists’ belief that StemExpress is
“…‘harvesting and killing live babies for resale’ is
neither objectively reasonable nor credible from a subjective standpoint.
First, abortion before viability is not murder in California…. While
defendants may wish that abortions were illegal and constitute murder, that is
simply not the law. This alone precludes defendants’ purported ‘defense’
of their illegal conduct. Second, defendants have no evidence that would
even remotely support the claim that plaintiffs participated in any abortion
procedure involving a viable fetus. To state the obvious, StemExpress
does not perform abortions. And contrary to Daleiden’s hearsay
statements, StemExpress has never received a living, fully-intact fetus from an
abortion clinic.”
