California Stem Cell Report Now Optimized for Mobile App/Phone Use

For those of you who have been frustrated trying to read on your cell phone the information on this web site, the California Stem Cell Report is now optimized for viewing on cell phones.  Please let me know if you have any difficulties in that regard or have other suggestions for the California Stem Cell Report at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. Thank you. 

Proposition 14: Newsom Endorses California's $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Measure

Newsom pushed a $17 million bid for the CIRM HQ

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, long a supporter of the California stem cell agency, today endorsed Proposition 14, the November ballot measure to give the agency $5.5 billion more and save it from financial extinction. 

Known officially as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the agency is running out of the $3 billion voters provided in 2004. It will begin shutting its doors this winter without a major infusion of cash. 

Newsom's endorsement was buried in a news release announcing his stand on a number of ballot measures. It also came on one of the worst days of the week in terms of securing news coverage, not to mention that California news is dominated today by wildfire coverage, among other things. 

The news release could not be found on the Internet at the time of this writing. It was forwarded to the California Stem Cell Report by the campaign. The full text of the Newsom announcement concerning the stem cell measure said, 

"YES on Proposition 14 to continue funding stem cell research, as well as research and therapy development for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other neurodegenerative conditions.  As Mayor of San Francisco, Newsom was an outspoken champion of Proposition 71 (2004), which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and made California a global leader in the field." 

In 2004, Newsom played a major role in raising a $17 million, successful bid to lure the headquarters of the agency to San Francisco. After its free rent expired a few years ago, CIRM moved to Oakland because of the high cost of space in San Francisco. 

Below is the release thanks to the folks at the campaign. 

*********

​Read all about California's stem cell agency, including Proposition 14,  in David Jensen's new book. Buy it on Amazon:  California's Great Stem Cell Experiment: Inside a $3 Billion Search for Stem Cell Cures. Click here for more information on the author.

***********

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 11, 2020

 

NEWSOM TAKES ADDITIONAL POSITIONS ON NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURES 

Governor supports Props 14, 15, 18 & 19, opposes Prop 21

 

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced his positions on remaining measures appearing on California’s statewide ballot in November.

 

Newsom SUPPORTS Proposition 15, which would reclaim billions of dollars for California’s public schools, community colleges and essential local services by changing the tax assessment of the most expensive commercial and industrial (non-residential) real property to current market value.

 

Newsom has long endorsed the concept of this balanced “split roll” property tax reform as a matter of fairness, as long as residential property owners and small businesses are protected.

 

“California, like every state in America, is currently experiencing the severe financial aftershocks of global pandemic,” Newsom said.  “As a result, we’ve seen numerous proposals floated to stabilize our state’s long-term fiscal outlook, to protect our most vulnerable and local communities, and to fund critical programs with new revenue.”

 

“In a global, mobile economy, now is not the time for the kind of state tax increases on income we saw proposed at the end of this legislative session and I will not sign such proposals into law,” he said.                                                                                                             

 

“I do however support Prop 15 because: it’s a fair, phased-in and long-overdue reform to state tax policy, it’s consistent with California’s progressive fiscal values, it will exempt small businesses and residential property owners, it will fund essential services such as public schools and public safety, and, most importantly, it will be decided by a vote of the people,” he said.  

 

Newsom OPPOSES Proposition 21, which, with some modifications, is similar to the failed Proposition 10 he also opposed in 2018.

 

“In the past year, California has passed a historic version of statewide rent control – the nation’s strongest rent caps and renter protections in the nation – as well as short-term eviction relief,” he said.  “But Proposition 21, like Proposition 10 before it, runs the all-too-real risk of discouraging availability of affordable housing in our state.”  

 

In addition, Newsom is taking positions on the following measures:

 

• YES on Proposition 14 to continue funding stem cell research, as well as research and therapy development for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other neurodegenerative conditions.  As Mayor of San Francisco, Newsom was an outspoken champion of Proposition 71 (2004), which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and made California a global leader in the field.  
• YES on Proposition 18, which would allow Californians 17 years of age to participate, register and vote in primary elections if they turn 18 by the time of the general election that same year.
• YES on Proposition 19, extending financial protections to homeowners 55 or older who purchase a new home or lose their home to wildfire.  It also closes a property tax loophole and allocates those savings to local firefighting programs. 

 

Previously, Newsom had taken an early position on important criminal justice and civil rights measures appearing on the November ballot, including:  

 

• YES on Proposition 16 to restore affirmative action by repealing 1996’s Prop 209.
• YES on Proposition 17 to restore voting rights for Californians on parole after completing their prison term.
• NO on Proposition 20, which attempts to roll back criminal justice reforms enacted by California voters.
• YES on Proposition 25 to ban cash bail, by upholding the 2018 law signed by Governor Jerry Brown.

 

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2020.  The deadline to register online to vote is Monday, October 19, 2020, although Californians can register in person to vote up until Election Day.

 

In June, Newsom signed a law requiring election officials to automatically send a mail-in ballot to every registered voter in the state.  The law also requires election officials to count all ballots received within 17 days of the election. 

 

# # # 

Fourth California Newspaper Opposes $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Proposal

The Santa Rosa Press Democrat yesterday editorialized against Proposition 14, the $5.5 billion measure to save the California stem cell agency from financial extinction. 

The headline on the editorial said:

"No on 14: It’s time for stem cell agency to stand on its own"

Including the Press Democrat, four California newspapers have now opposed the measure. One is for it. 

The newspaper said it does not oppose stem cell research per se.

"Our objection (in 2004 to the measure that created the agency) was to ballot-box budgeting. That’s an even more acute concern today, with millions of Californians out of work and the state struggling to fulfill its most basic obligations in the face of historic budget deficits caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

"Is stem-cell research more important than education? Transportation? Safety net programs?

"There isn’t an easy answer, and that’s the problem with budgeting by ballot initiative. Voters must say 'yes' or 'no' without an opportunity to weigh the relative value of competing priorities, with no ability to adjust to unexpected situations such as the pandemic and, in the case of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, limited legislative oversight for a quasi-public agency that has been the subject of conflict-of-interest concerns."

The editorial continued,

"After 16 years, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is well established, and its successes should allow it to secure other sources of funding, including federal funding as the Bush-era restrictions have been lifted. The state, meanwhile, is struggling to balance its books, and it wouldn’t be wise to take on more debt at this time. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 14."

Read the California Stem Cell Report regularly for the latest and most in-depth coverage of the effort to save the California stem cell agency from financial extinction.  

How Does $5.5 Billion Turn Into $5.00 a Person? It's a Stem Cell Mystery So Far

Backers of this fall's $5.5 billion ballot measure to support the state stem cell research agency say that it will cost each resident of California only $5 a year. 

The calculation may be correct. It also could be campaign hype of the sort that arose in 2004 involving the initiative that created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the state stem cell agency is officially known.  

But it is impossible to tell as the date of this writing. The campaign has not responded to requests from the California Stem Cell Report for information on how it came up with the $5.00 figure. 

Whether it is $5.5 billion or only $5.00 a person, it involves money borrowed by the state. Proposition 14, the ballot measure in question, directs the state to borrow the cash over a 10-year period. Paying interest to investors would cost an additional estimated $2.3 billion over several decades, bringing the total estimated cost to $7.8 billion, according to the state legislative analyst. 

Calculating the annual cost per person over decades involves a number of assumptions including population predictions, future interest rates, timing of bond sales and so forth.  

The only language that could be found on the campaign website concerning the figure says, 

"When you consider that chronic disease is the leading cause of death and the leading driver of annual health care spending, this initiative is a small price to pay to potentially save millions of lives and billions of dollars in health care costs in the coming decades – less than $5 per person per year." 

It should be noted that the campaign web site does not seem to include a search engine, although that is common practice on most web sites. 

As for CIRM's cost today, it began with $3 billion in 2004. Estimates then of the interest costs were about $3 billion, making a total estimated cost of $6 billion. The actual cost as of this summer was $4 billion, largely because of the low interest rates since the Recession of 2008. 

CIRM is now running out of money and will begin closing its doors this winter unless Proposition 14 passes. 

If the campaign supplies information on the $5.00 figure, the California Stem Cell Report will carry it when it comes in.

$5.5 Billion California Stem Cell Campaign Intensifies, Voting Begins in One Month

California's 21 million voters soon will be receiving mail that tells them a $5.5 billion stem cell ballot measure is "outrageous," unaffordable and will perpetuate long-standing problems with the state's stem cell research program. 

The assertions are contained in the official state voter guide. It also says the state stem cell agency, which is running out of money, has made "significant progress" in developing therapies during its 15-year life. 

Supporters say in the pamphlet that Proposition 14 will "dramatically expand access to clinical trials and new therapies, make treatments and cures more affordable for Californians, and provide patients, their families, and caregivers with financial assistance."

The ballot measure is intended to re-finance the agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which will begin closing its doors this winter unless the proposition is approved. CIRM's original $3 billion is nearly gone. The ballot measure that created it in 2004 provided no funding beyond the state bonds that were approved then. 

Because the money is borrowed, the actual cost to taxpayers rises. In the case of Proposition 14's $5.5 billion, the cost climbs to an estimated $7.3 billion, according to the state legislative analyst. The original $3 billion actually will cost about $4 billion, according to CIRM, and will not be paid off for many years.

The voters' guide is aimed at very briefly allowing supporters and opponents of ballot measures to make their cases. The guide has been issued by the state for many decades prior to actual voting, which begins in about a month -- not Nov. 3, which is the last day to vote either by mail or in person. 

Absentee voting has long been practiced in California. During the presidential primary election earlier this year, 72 percent of the ballots were cast by mail. The percentage is likely to be higher this fall because of Covid-19 and the intense interest in the presidential race. 

The mail-in voting pressures campaign organizations to make their cases very early and to assure that the turn-out of their supporters begins as soon as possible. Voters can expect to see more pitches for Proposition 14 in coming weeks. The opposition is not well organized and unlikely to mount a large media effort. 

In addition to the pro and con arguments, the guide includes the full text of the roughly 10,000-word measure, which is written in legalese and less than transparent. The legislative analyst's summary does a good job as far as it goes. 

However, important aspects of the measure are missing from the summary, including how CIRM's scope would be greatly expanded to include such things as funding research for "aging as a pathology" and "therapy delivery."  You can read about those here on the California Stem Cell Report.

The $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Proposition: A "Christmas Tree" Measure Loaded With More Than Cash

 Editor's note: The following item was written by the producer of the California Stem Cell Report and was the most-read article carried by the Capitol Weekly online news service in 2020, where it first appeared. 

By David Jensen

Proposition 14, the fall ballot measure to save California’s stem cell agency from financial extinction, contains much, much more than the $5.5 billion that it is seeking from the state’s voters.

Added to the agency’s charter would be research involving mental health, “therapy delivery,” personalized medicine and “aging as a pathology.“ That is not to mention a greater emphasis on supporting “vital research opportunities” that are not stem cell-related.

The measure would enlarge the board from 29 to 35 members. Even at 29, the board has been much criticized for its large size, which creates more possibilities for conflicts of interest, a long-standing issue for the agency.

Proposition 14 would ban royalties generated by state-backed stem cell inventions from being used for such things as prisons and schools, isolating the funds from tinkering by lawmakers.

It creates a building program for treatment centers that could total about $82.5 million. They would be located in areas not now well-served. And the measure locks up $1.5 billion for “diseases and conditions of the brain and central nervous system,” such as autism and schizophrenia. 

Approved by voters in 2004, the agency is already a prodigiously ambitious effort, seeking stem cell cures and treatment for afflictions that backers say burden half the families in California. However, the original $3 billion that voters provided is dribbling to an end. Unless voters provide $5.5 billion more, the agency — known officially as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) — will begin shutting its doors this winter. 

While Proposition 14 is the cure for what financially ails the agency, the measure also sends CIRM into arenas that some would argue muddle its focus and distract from its original goals.

(Click here to see the Legislative Analyst’s description of the measure, which is going to nearly 21 million California voters )

Details of the changes in CIRM’s mission are tucked away in the complex and murky, 10,000-word initiative sponsored by Robert Klein, a Palo Alto real estate developer and attorney. He oversaw the writing of the initiative as well as the 2004 stem cell measure that created the agency. Klein was the first chairman of the agency and is now leading the current campaign.

The new playing field for CIRM encompasses particularly critical areas of costs to patients and profits for companies. Stem cell therapies are expected to be enormously expensive — $1 million or more in many cases. That’s a figure that makes health insurance companies balk and Medicare blanch.

Proposition 14  would launch a hefty effort to make stem cell therapies more affordable and accessible. The cash behind that drive could run as high as $155 million. And that’s not necessarily going for patients.

The intent is to create and build support for financial models for health insurance companies. CIRM would also be charged with helping to implement them. Such models would justify the cost of the theoretically one-time cures by demonstrating that they would actually save money — ending the need to treat patients in what currently seems to be an endless and expensive cycle.

Proposition 14 speaks of covering patients and, importantly,  their caregivers for medical expenses, lodging, meals and travel. That would help provide access to clinical trials that are located in prohibitively expensive urban areas, which poses financial barriers for persons who live some distance away. The added coverage would additionally help researchers and companies recruit enough trial participants, which can be a problem in some disease areas.

Proposition 14 creates a 17-member, CIRM affordability committee to drive all this. It would work with industry and the federal government to win their support.  The committee would be backed with as many as 15 CIRM staffers. The ballot allows as much as $55 million for their compensation over 10 or so years. 

But if 15 is not enough, more employees could be hired beyond the nominal cap on CIRM employees of 70 if they are compensated through the use of private cash.

The extraordinary cost of stem cell treatments involves something called “reimbursement,” a biomedical industry euphemism for how companies cover the high costs of the research and still make a profit. If money is not to be made, businesses are not likely to be motivated to turn CIRM research into cures.

The measure additionally allows the new affordability panel to hire consultants, capping that expense at about $105 million.

The affordability effort involves important public policy, industry and research issues that concern patient groups and industry. However, the affordability panel would be permitted to operate behind closed doors as it considers the problems and weighs the solutions.

Votes by the committee, however, would have to be taken in public.

Members of the panel would not be required to disclose publicly their economic or professional interests. The committee would be exempt from the state public records act except for material specifically submitted to the CIRM board.

Proposition 14 locks up $1.5 billion for “diseases and conditions of the brain and central nervous system, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, dementia, epilepsy, depression, brain cancer, schizophrenia (and) autism.”  The $1.5 billion would not be available for research into the No. 1 killer in the United States, heart disease, or other excluded conditions. 

Beyond the affordability program, Proposition 14 gives CIRM new authority to finance research in several additional fields. The authorization is scattered throughout the initiative document. Mental health research first appears on page nine. Depression appears on page 26. Therapy delivery, which is not defined in the measure, crops up in 10 locations. Personalized medicine and “aging as a pathology” surface on page 34.

On a much smaller scale, but important to researchers, the proposition includes up to $27.5 million for a shared labs program that was scrubbed a few years back when CIRM turned more towards clinical trials. And the initiative opens the door to even more programs that are not specifically mentioned. It gives a high priority to supporting pluripotent stem cell research that is unlikely to receive federal funding or where funding is “not timely or sufficient.”

Perhaps the biggest, but not entirely new opportunity for CIRM to expand beyond stem cell research involves “vital research opportunities.”  CIRM calls them VROs. And they are a loophole that allows CIRM to finance almost any kind of research if there are enough votes on the board to do so.

In both the original and current initiative, a  VRO is defined as “scientific and medical research and technologies” that provide “a substantially superior research opportunity, vital to advance medical science.”

Proposition 14 makes it easier for the CIRM board to declare a VRO. Currently, it takes a two-thirds vote of a quorum of the group that reviews applications. Under this year’s ballot measure, CIRM does not need to meet those criteria. The governing board could invoke a VRO on its own. In some cases, it could require only 12 votes or less of the 35-member board, depending on the quorum and the number of board members present.

Proposition 14 specifically added the fields of  “genetics, personalized medicine, and aging as a patholoqy” to VROs. In the 2004 initiative, the phrase “vital research opportunities”  appeared only seven times. In this year’s initiative, it appears 17 times as the possibility of its use has expanded. Significantly, experience involving vital research opportunities is now listed as part of the qualifications for the chair, two board members and 15 members of the group that reviews grant applications.

CIRM has invoked the original VRO clause only twice. A third attempt was rejected last May after directors expressed concern about mission creep. However, Klein’s new emphasis on it points to the likelihood of increased use, especially if he once again becomes chairman of CIRM.

Under existing law, CIRM’s royalties go into the state’s general fund, the source of state expenditures for prisons, schools and health services. Under Proposition 14, the royalties would still go into the general fund, but they would be locked up for use in dealing with affordability. In 2004, the stem cell campaign financed studies that envisioned royalties of as much as $1.1 billion. To date, they have totaled only $462,433. However, it can take years for a scientific discovery to work its way into an actual product. And a particular discovery may well amount to only a tiny contribution to a product, which would reduce the likelihood of major royalties.

In another major move, Proposition 14 would benefit some of the less-than-urban areas of the state in a new “geographic diversity” program. Rural or semi-rural areas suffer from a lack of physicians as well as the high tech facilities needed to make stem cell treatments available for participation in clinical trials. The measure earmarks as much as $82.5 million for new “community centers of excellence.” They would “support clinical trials and…serve as the foundation for the delivery of future treatments,” the proposition states, giving priority to “geographic distribution.”

One of them could well be in Fresno where the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), has established an outpost. One of the new members on the CIRM board would be from the UCSF operation in Fresno, making it the only institution that has two representatives on the board. Another new member of the board would be from UC Riverside, whose medical school is only seven years old. UC Riverside also serves a community that incorporates large rural and semi-rural areas.

The increase in the size of the board to 35 flies in the face of recommendations by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM). Among other things, it said in 2012 that the current 29 board members are more than sufficient for the agency. CIRM paid $700,000 for the IOM study, which it hoped would help generate voter support for more funding.

If Proposition 14 passes, the measure creates a relatively quick way to begin to overhaul the board. Under the measure, a number of current members of the board could lose their seats if they have served at least half of their terms.

It is not clear whether the CIRM governing board understood the removal provisions when they endorsed Proposition 14 June 26 on a 21-1 vote. The discussion lasted only 30 minutes. “It’s a no-brainer,” said George Blumenthal, chancellor of the UC Santa Cruz campus and a member of the CIRM board..

Proposition 14 is something of a “Christmas Tree” measure — a term used to describe legislation that has something for everyone. Many ballot initiatives are like that. They must run the gauntlet of a ballot campaign, luring millions of voters into voting for them. Backers of initiatives need to satisfy potential donors and potential beneficiaries, all the while not alienating anybody enough to generate well-funded, powerful opposition.   

The 2004 measure fulfilled those needs nicely. Nearly every institution that stood to benefit from CIRM funding gained a seat at the table where the decisions were made — for better or worse. 

Proposition 14 carries on in that tradition and expands it. Plus the initiative attempts to deal with the tough challenges of costs and profits in what many expect to be a revolution in medicine. Voters will begin casting their ballots in early October. Backers of the initiative have only five weeks to catch the early birds in that particular flock.
—
Editor’s Note: David Jensen is a retired newsman who has followed the affairs of the $3 billion California stem cell agency since 2005 via his blog, the California Stem Cell Report. He has published more than 5,000 items on California stem cell matters.

*********

​Read all about California's stem cell agency, including Proposition 14,  in David Jensen's new book. Buy it on Amazon:  California's Great Stem Cell Experiment: Inside a $3 Billion Search for Stem Cell Cures. Click here for more information on the author.

This post was deleted.

It was a draft that was inadvertently published. 

Grand Goals and Record Speed; Hype and Human Biology

 An ad from 2004 ballot campaign that created the California stem cell agency. 

An article in the Los Angeles Times today took on scientific research and "grand goals and grander ambitions, all to be achieved with record speed."

The piece was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning Times columnist and author Michael Hiltzik. He was not writing about the California stem cell program. 

But, as readers know, the stem cell agency hopes voters will approve a $5.5 billion bond measure this fall to allow it to continue its own ambitious pursuit of stem cell cures. 

Hiltzik, author of "Big Science" and the just-published "Iron Empires," wrote about the Trump Administration and its "warp speed" therapies for Covid-19. But he also mentioned the Golden State's stem cell effort. Here is the text of what Hiltzik had to say:

"Hype has become an inextricable part of science because it can generate millions of dollars of support. Consider the 2004 campaign to pass Proposition 71, which created the $3-billion California stem cell program (known formally as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM).

"As I’ve reported before, the measure 'was sold to a gullible public via candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking again and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson’s.'

"The hype got the proposition passed, but CIRM has struggled ever since to live up to promises that it has been unable to deliver. That could be a burden this election season, when CIRM is seeking an additional $5.5 billion from voters and will have to explain why all the cures it predicted haven’t materialized. 

"'That still might be a worthwhile public investment,' (Leigh) Turner (of the University of Minnesota) observes, adding that the research actually funded by CIRM has been conducted along responsible scientific lines. 'But you have this disconnect between what’s used to float the entire enterprise, and what the actual results are.'"

Turner, who is a bioethicist, was also quoted as saying, 

“In human biology often as you proceed with your research, as you think you’re getting closer and closer to the finish line, you begin to discover it’s more and more distant. You become increasingly aware of the complexity you’re dealing with.”

California Governor and Proposition 14: Will He Endorse Prop. 14?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom today endorsed three of the measures on the fall ballot but skipped over Proposition 14, the $5.5 billion stem cell bond measure. The move does not necessarily mean he will not take a position, however. 

Newsom was a big supporter of the stem cell agency in 2004 and 2005. When he was mayor of San Francisco, he helped to put together a $17 million package that lured the agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), to San Francisco. 

When the free rent deal expired, CIRM switched its headquarters to Oakland because of the costs of renting office space in San Francisco. 

It is a good political move to delay an endorsement until next month when the news is less likely to be filled with stories about fire, presidential conventions and Covid 19.  But the endorsement -- if there is one -- should come at least a couple of weeks before voting begins in early October. 

Of course, if Newsom is seriously out of public favor by that time, an endorsement may not help Proposition 14.