It seems odd that the California stem cell agency cannot move effectively to temper the criticism that dogs it concerning conflicts of interest and accountability.
The issues have plagued CIRM since December when its first meeting was dominated by charges of impropriety and potential impropriety. Since then, Chairman Robert Klein and other oversight committee members have repeatedly stressed their intention to apply the highest standards to the conduct of the agency.
Yet the issues persist, attracting unfavorable attention in the media nationally as well is in California. The stain is not yet permanent. But the longer it exists, the harder it will be to purge. That would be a serious burden for an infant agency that must appear to be acting with propriety in order to succeed.
The latest flap surfaced last week as the result of a petition filed by Berkeley attorney Charles Halpern and Philip Lee, former chancellor of UC San Francisco. Some of the specifics in the petition are old, some new. The two, working with the Center for Genetics and Society, are seeking a 30-minute hearing before the oversight committee to air their concerns. Unless something changes, they are not likely to achieve that goal, based on the agenda for the March 1 meeting. Klein has an item on it to have the board directly delegate their petition to him.
It may be that some of CIRM’s critics simply want to cripple the agency. Halpern and Lee, however, say in their petition, "We want to see the program launched by Prop. 71 succeed."
They also say, "We stress that our focus on the conflict of interest issue is not intended to impugn the integrity of any members of the ICOC or its leaders. We believe that strict adherence to conflict of interest principles is necessary to maintain public confidence in the objectives and processes of the CIRM, and to assure that there can be no doubt that each decision of the ICOC is made exclusively on its merits."
One can understand that the drumbeat of criticism rankles Klein and others, who feel their integrity has been questioned. But testiness and defensiveness can be put aside. The appearance of brushing off ethical considerations should be avoided if CIRM is fulfill Klein’s own very high expecations.
There are a number of ways to handle issues raised by Halpern and others. One would be to create a special panel of perhaps 10 oversight committee members to hold a daylong hearing (no vote to be taken) into the issues. Ask all witnesses to submit all of their material in advance and mount it on the CIRM web site prior to the meeting. Thus the reading of lengthy statements could be avoided. Instead questions could be asked and answered, both on the part of the public and board members, which is more productive than endless readings.
It would be politic to have half of the committee consist of oversight members who are seen to have the greatest potential conflicts.
Holding such a hearing would help to eliminate allegations that critics have not been heard. It would provide useful input in developing rules on ethics and openness. And it would help the agency move forward more rapidly and successfully on its intended path.
--------------------
Comments on the conduct of CIRM or the failings of this blog are welcome and will be published. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Mighty Full Plate Next Tuesday
From grants to ethics rules, the Oversight Committee has more than enough to do during its day-long meeting scheduled for Tuesday March 1 at Stanford Univeristy.
One also might suspect that a new interim president could be named at the meeting, which has a personnel session scheduled on the matter, followed immediately by a related item during the public meeting. Of course, that could be just a contingency arrangement should a president be ready to announce.
For those interested in the many millions of dollars in grants that CIRM plans to ladle out this year, the board will consider the proposed framework for the initial grants program, including categories of grants and types of recipients.
Also on tap is a conflict of interest code for oversight committee members and staff. The board is additionally scheduled to be asked to delegate to Chairman Robert Klein the responsibility for dealing with the Halpern-Lee petition on conflicts of interest and salary limits.
For more details on the agenda, click here.
One also might suspect that a new interim president could be named at the meeting, which has a personnel session scheduled on the matter, followed immediately by a related item during the public meeting. Of course, that could be just a contingency arrangement should a president be ready to announce.
For those interested in the many millions of dollars in grants that CIRM plans to ladle out this year, the board will consider the proposed framework for the initial grants program, including categories of grants and types of recipients.
Also on tap is a conflict of interest code for oversight committee members and staff. The board is additionally scheduled to be asked to delegate to Chairman Robert Klein the responsibility for dealing with the Halpern-Lee petition on conflicts of interest and salary limits.
For more details on the agenda, click here.
The $200 Million Catbird Seat
Wisconsin could siphon off $200 million in future revenues generated by the California stem cell agency, according to one estimate.
The figure was contained in a story in the Milwaukee Journal written by reporter Kathleen Gallagher. It was the first significant media overview of the potential connections between CIRM and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which is known as WARF.
She wrote: "The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, or WARF, has two basic patents that broadly cover the preparation of embryonic stem cells, the basic material from which virtually all organs, cells and other body tissues are formed.
If therapies are developed from the research, WARF could be due royalty payments.
" ‘You can allocate $3 billion for research, but you can't spend your way past the basic patents that are in the field,’ said Peter Balbus, managing director at Pragmaxis LLC. The Glen Ellyn, Ill., company helps commercialize technology. ‘I think WARF is really in the catbird's seat.’ "
Balbus gave the preliminary estimate of $200 million going to WARF if the stem cell agency were to generate $4 billion annually in stem cell revenues, a figure cited by Prop. 71 backers.
Gallagher's story is definitely worth a look.
The figure was contained in a story in the Milwaukee Journal written by reporter Kathleen Gallagher. It was the first significant media overview of the potential connections between CIRM and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which is known as WARF.
She wrote: "The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, or WARF, has two basic patents that broadly cover the preparation of embryonic stem cells, the basic material from which virtually all organs, cells and other body tissues are formed.
If therapies are developed from the research, WARF could be due royalty payments.
" ‘You can allocate $3 billion for research, but you can't spend your way past the basic patents that are in the field,’ said Peter Balbus, managing director at Pragmaxis LLC. The Glen Ellyn, Ill., company helps commercialize technology. ‘I think WARF is really in the catbird's seat.’ "
Balbus gave the preliminary estimate of $200 million going to WARF if the stem cell agency were to generate $4 billion annually in stem cell revenues, a figure cited by Prop. 71 backers.
Gallagher's story is definitely worth a look.
Preying on Desperation
Reporter Alan Zarembo of the Los Angeles Times has produced two excellent stories on the desperation that has fueled the growth of firms peddling unproven stem cell therapy.
One article chronicles the tragic last months of an ALS patient and his relationship with a firm called Biomark, which still has a site on the Web. The other piece begins, "At the junction of desperation and the fantasies of science is a business opportunity. Stem cell clinics offering unproven therapies for a range of diseases have become a multimillion-dollar industry, operating in Mexico, Ukraine, Barbados, China and elsewhere."
One article chronicles the tragic last months of an ALS patient and his relationship with a firm called Biomark, which still has a site on the Web. The other piece begins, "At the junction of desperation and the fantasies of science is a business opportunity. Stem cell clinics offering unproven therapies for a range of diseases have become a multimillion-dollar industry, operating in Mexico, Ukraine, Barbados, China and elsewhere."
Corrective Measures
We all make mistakes.
With that in mind, we want all of the avid and not-so-avid readers of the California Stem Cell Report to know that it is our policy to correct mistakes as quickly and completely as possible.
Nothing is to be gained by making misstatements. Failing to correct them is even a greater disservice to readers. But stuff happens, as they say, particularly in the world of blogging where writers work without editors. So if you see something that is incorrect on this site, please send a note to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. Our appreciation will know no bounds.
With that in mind, we want all of the avid and not-so-avid readers of the California Stem Cell Report to know that it is our policy to correct mistakes as quickly and completely as possible.
Nothing is to be gained by making misstatements. Failing to correct them is even a greater disservice to readers. But stuff happens, as they say, particularly in the world of blogging where writers work without editors. So if you see something that is incorrect on this site, please send a note to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. Our appreciation will know no bounds.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Bee and Chron alone?
The Sacramento Bee and the San Francisco Chronicle may be the only major California newspapers to have written their own stories on the latest move to compel the California stem cell agency to deal more directly with accountability and conflict-of-interest allegations.
Carl Hall wrote in the Chronicle: “A decorated veteran of the country's public health battles -- dating back to the founding of the Medicare system -- is taking aim at the California stem cell program.
“Dr. Philip R. Lee, a consulting professor at Stanford University and former UCSF chancellor who helped craft national health policies for the Johnson and Clinton administrations, signed onto a legal petition to protest some of the early activities of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.”
Laura Mecoy of The Bee said, “Using a new tactic, critics of the state's stem cell program have filed a petition seeking more open meetings, salary caps and tighter conflict-of-interest rules for paid executives.”
We will have more on this move during the next few days.
Carl Hall wrote in the Chronicle: “A decorated veteran of the country's public health battles -- dating back to the founding of the Medicare system -- is taking aim at the California stem cell program.
“Dr. Philip R. Lee, a consulting professor at Stanford University and former UCSF chancellor who helped craft national health policies for the Johnson and Clinton administrations, signed onto a legal petition to protest some of the early activities of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.”
Laura Mecoy of The Bee said, “Using a new tactic, critics of the state's stem cell program have filed a petition seeking more open meetings, salary caps and tighter conflict-of-interest rules for paid executives.”
We will have more on this move during the next few days.
Ten Thousand Emerging Realities
Interesting realities often emerge during the start-up of a new enterprise. One of those occasions came this month when John Reed, a member of the oversight committee of the California stem cell agency, noted the potential size of the grant-making effort.
His remarks were made as the oversight group discussed the 15-member grant committee, which he said would be not be able to handle the tens of thousands of grant proposals that are likely to come in annually.
That raises the possibility of creation of some sort of adjunct bureaucracy to assist with the burden, given that even a mere 10,000 proposals amount to roughly 38 for every working day of the year. All would have to be responded to, considered more or less seriously and preserved securely for some time and then presumably destroyed, if not archived. That's just the basics.
Given that the stem cell agency staff is limited to 50 employees, not including members of committees, it seems likely that additional help may be needed for processing, not to mention “a large cadre of expertise” for evaluation. Reed's comments also suggest the stem cell agency could look at other programs to learn more about the workload and how it was handled.
Here is what Reed, who is chief executive of the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, had to say on Feb. 3:
“'...(T)hat number of people (15) is not going to be sufficient to cover the full range of proposals and ideas that's going to emerge in the next decade. So I see them as simply a group that can serve as an initial nodal point for review, but they're going to have to involve a large cadre of expertise.
"I have some statistics here....(I)f you look at a couple of the research grant programs of a magnitude only half of what we're going to be spending, they get 20,000 proposals per year for that amount of money. So we're going to be talking about potentially a lot of proposals, and there's no way 15 people are going to review all those.
“So I think we have to bear that in mind, that this is going to be a much broader group of participation in the end than 15 people.'
“Mr. Shestack: 'The proposals are limited by having to originate in California.'
“Dr. Reed: 'To be put in perspective, there's going to be thousands, if not tens of thousands of proposals potentially.'”
Reed's remarks can be found on p. 163 of the Feb. 3 oversight committee meeting transcript.
His remarks were made as the oversight group discussed the 15-member grant committee, which he said would be not be able to handle the tens of thousands of grant proposals that are likely to come in annually.
That raises the possibility of creation of some sort of adjunct bureaucracy to assist with the burden, given that even a mere 10,000 proposals amount to roughly 38 for every working day of the year. All would have to be responded to, considered more or less seriously and preserved securely for some time and then presumably destroyed, if not archived. That's just the basics.
Given that the stem cell agency staff is limited to 50 employees, not including members of committees, it seems likely that additional help may be needed for processing, not to mention “a large cadre of expertise” for evaluation. Reed's comments also suggest the stem cell agency could look at other programs to learn more about the workload and how it was handled.
Here is what Reed, who is chief executive of the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, had to say on Feb. 3:
“'...(T)hat number of people (15) is not going to be sufficient to cover the full range of proposals and ideas that's going to emerge in the next decade. So I see them as simply a group that can serve as an initial nodal point for review, but they're going to have to involve a large cadre of expertise.
"I have some statistics here....(I)f you look at a couple of the research grant programs of a magnitude only half of what we're going to be spending, they get 20,000 proposals per year for that amount of money. So we're going to be talking about potentially a lot of proposals, and there's no way 15 people are going to review all those.
“So I think we have to bear that in mind, that this is going to be a much broader group of participation in the end than 15 people.'
“Mr. Shestack: 'The proposals are limited by having to originate in California.'
“Dr. Reed: 'To be put in perspective, there's going to be thousands, if not tens of thousands of proposals potentially.'”
Reed's remarks can be found on p. 163 of the Feb. 3 oversight committee meeting transcript.
Overcoming Short-term Thinking
By the time you read this, the “crunch time” situation for San Francisco's bid for the headquarters of the California stem cell agency may have eased.
That's likely because an article in the San Francisco Chronicle will probably now have served the purposes of the persons providing the information. That would be to flush out some free space for the proposed HQ.
Columnists Matier and Ross reported on Wednesday that San Francisco couldn't get its act together on the bid. Nobody was willing to donate 15,000 square feet of space for a sufficient number of years. Outrageous, opined some civic leaders, who said they expected more.
If the Matier-Ross article did not generate more than one offering for space, we would be surprised. The article also had some interesting details about the SF bid, including insights into the short-term thinking of San Francisco businessmen. We can assure you that Angelo Tsakapoulos in Sacramento, who is offering up 10 years of free space, is not plagued with that ailment.
That's likely because an article in the San Francisco Chronicle will probably now have served the purposes of the persons providing the information. That would be to flush out some free space for the proposed HQ.
Columnists Matier and Ross reported on Wednesday that San Francisco couldn't get its act together on the bid. Nobody was willing to donate 15,000 square feet of space for a sufficient number of years. Outrageous, opined some civic leaders, who said they expected more.
If the Matier-Ross article did not generate more than one offering for space, we would be surprised. The article also had some interesting details about the SF bid, including insights into the short-term thinking of San Francisco businessmen. We can assure you that Angelo Tsakapoulos in Sacramento, who is offering up 10 years of free space, is not plagued with that ailment.
More Meetings
In case you missed them, here are the latest meetings for CIRM committees.
Site Search Committee -- Thursday Feb. 24, 2 p.m., UC San Francisco. Subjects include the RFP for a permanent site location. Details here.
Presidential Search Subcommittee – Monday Feb. 28, 9 a.m., UC San Francisco. Subjects include the executive search process timeline proposed by Spencer Stuart. Details here.
Site Search Committee -- Thursday Feb. 24, 2 p.m., UC San Francisco. Subjects include the RFP for a permanent site location. Details here.
Presidential Search Subcommittee – Monday Feb. 28, 9 a.m., UC San Francisco. Subjects include the executive search process timeline proposed by Spencer Stuart. Details here.
A Few “Clicks” for CIRMers
USA Today carried a story on the California stem cell agency that has an interesting quote from Chairman Robert Klein.
Reporter Elizabeth Weise wrote:
"I'm verging on complete mental exhaustion trying to get it right," says Klein, looking as if he hasn't gotten a full night's sleep in weeks. "I'm averaging 10 to 12 phone calls a day that have to get taken care of immediately, and then a few more to make sure the process keeps moving along."
Klein has a mammoth task before him. It is virtually unprecedented in state history: the almost overnight creation of a new multi-billion dollar state agency exploring the frontiers of science, medicine and theology. Daunting for anyone.
Some folks get a little impatient with the process and progress, partly because of the high expectations that Klein himself has created. But we should remember and appreciate the human aspect of this endeavor. A bunch of folks are working madly to meet the needs of the agency and the people of California. They will never be able to make everybody happy. They are also bound to feel unappreciated as well from time to time. And that includes Mr. Klein.
In the sailing world, we have regular “nets,” times when scores of people gather via ham or VHF radio each day to exchange information. Sometimes people are recognized for their efforts by listeners who all click their microphones at the same time. So here are a few clicks for the CIRMers, including Robert Klein.
Reporter Elizabeth Weise wrote:
"I'm verging on complete mental exhaustion trying to get it right," says Klein, looking as if he hasn't gotten a full night's sleep in weeks. "I'm averaging 10 to 12 phone calls a day that have to get taken care of immediately, and then a few more to make sure the process keeps moving along."
Klein has a mammoth task before him. It is virtually unprecedented in state history: the almost overnight creation of a new multi-billion dollar state agency exploring the frontiers of science, medicine and theology. Daunting for anyone.
Some folks get a little impatient with the process and progress, partly because of the high expectations that Klein himself has created. But we should remember and appreciate the human aspect of this endeavor. A bunch of folks are working madly to meet the needs of the agency and the people of California. They will never be able to make everybody happy. They are also bound to feel unappreciated as well from time to time. And that includes Mr. Klein.
In the sailing world, we have regular “nets,” times when scores of people gather via ham or VHF radio each day to exchange information. Sometimes people are recognized for their efforts by listeners who all click their microphones at the same time. So here are a few clicks for the CIRMers, including Robert Klein.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Web-casting for CIRM Proceedings?
The California stem cell agency is considering Web-casting the meetings of its oversight committee to make the operations of the group more accessible to the public and media.
The topic was brought up by Jeff Sheehy, of UC San Francisco and a member of the oversight committee, at the group's February meeting. He said that many members of the public and the media cannot attend the committee meetings for a variety of reasons.
Committee Chairman Robert Klein indicated he would ask an information technology consultant to look into Web-casting as part of a broader review of technology issues.
This is a step in the right direction, but nothing stands in the way of doing right now. It shouldn't take more than a week to set it up for the March meeting of the committee. Any number of firms could handle a one-time shot, and it would provide useful information for evaluating longterm procedures.
Given the nature of the agency, a wise firm would offer to post the proceedings without charge.
The affairs of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine are of global interest, not only at academic institutions but at private companies and government agencies. Web-casting would help provide the details that are of critical to scientists and policy makers.
Making the proceedings available live on the Web additionally would do much to fulfill the committee's pledges of openness. It would make the stem cell agency accessible to those bright, young scientists it wants to encourage and attract to California.
And it would help counter the negative images now flitting across the country as a result of The Washington Post's page one piece on Sunday (see item on this blog on Feb. 14). Doing that sooner rather than later would seem to be in the stem cell agency's best interests.
Sheehy's very brief comments begin on page 214 of the transcript of the meeting.
The topic was brought up by Jeff Sheehy, of UC San Francisco and a member of the oversight committee, at the group's February meeting. He said that many members of the public and the media cannot attend the committee meetings for a variety of reasons.
Committee Chairman Robert Klein indicated he would ask an information technology consultant to look into Web-casting as part of a broader review of technology issues.
This is a step in the right direction, but nothing stands in the way of doing right now. It shouldn't take more than a week to set it up for the March meeting of the committee. Any number of firms could handle a one-time shot, and it would provide useful information for evaluating longterm procedures.
Given the nature of the agency, a wise firm would offer to post the proceedings without charge.
The affairs of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine are of global interest, not only at academic institutions but at private companies and government agencies. Web-casting would help provide the details that are of critical to scientists and policy makers.
Making the proceedings available live on the Web additionally would do much to fulfill the committee's pledges of openness. It would make the stem cell agency accessible to those bright, young scientists it wants to encourage and attract to California.
And it would help counter the negative images now flitting across the country as a result of The Washington Post's page one piece on Sunday (see item on this blog on Feb. 14). Doing that sooner rather than later would seem to be in the stem cell agency's best interests.
Sheehy's very brief comments begin on page 214 of the transcript of the meeting.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Correction
On Feb. 13, we wrote incorrectly that a document having to do with grant proposals was no longer available on the CIRM web site. That item is available on the web site but was obscured during a web redesign, and we could not find it. Here is one link to it and here is another that was produced by using the search engine on the site.
HQ RFP by End of Month
The final RFP for the permanent headquarters of the California stem cell agency is expected to be issued by the end of the month. Fiona Hutton, a spokeswoman for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, says a press release will be issued when the proposal is ready.
The site search committee has scheduled a meeting to consider the matter on Feb. 24 at 2 p.m. at UC San Francisco. The agenda is here.
Meanwhile, California newsies are busy writing more about the subject and the lobbying efforts that are underway. Most of the stories are in the weekly business newspapers around the state, which specialize in development and leasing news.
Daniel Levine of the San Francisco Business Times reported that AKT Development in Sacramento plans to offer 10 years free rent with views of the Sacramento River and the Capitol. He also noted that Wareham Development, CIRM's interim landlord in Emeryville, is definitely going to bid for the permanent site. Wareham touts its connection to Chiron, which was co-founded by Ed Poenhoet, vice chairman of the CIRM oversight committee.(See previous items in this blog on Feb. 6 and Feb. 8)
Katherine Conrad of the East Bay Business Times has perhaps the most fulsome account of Wareham and its approach.
The HQ has even entered the mayor's race in the city of Los Angeles with the incumbent offering free space downtown.
Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council, and Sean Randolph, president and CEO of the Bay Area Economic Forum, plumped for a Bay Area location for the site in an op-ed piece in the Silicon Valley Business Journal.
The site search committee has scheduled a meeting to consider the matter on Feb. 24 at 2 p.m. at UC San Francisco. The agenda is here.
Meanwhile, California newsies are busy writing more about the subject and the lobbying efforts that are underway. Most of the stories are in the weekly business newspapers around the state, which specialize in development and leasing news.
Daniel Levine of the San Francisco Business Times reported that AKT Development in Sacramento plans to offer 10 years free rent with views of the Sacramento River and the Capitol. He also noted that Wareham Development, CIRM's interim landlord in Emeryville, is definitely going to bid for the permanent site. Wareham touts its connection to Chiron, which was co-founded by Ed Poenhoet, vice chairman of the CIRM oversight committee.(See previous items in this blog on Feb. 6 and Feb. 8)
Katherine Conrad of the East Bay Business Times has perhaps the most fulsome account of Wareham and its approach.
The HQ has even entered the mayor's race in the city of Los Angeles with the incumbent offering free space downtown.
Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council, and Sean Randolph, president and CEO of the Bay Area Economic Forum, plumped for a Bay Area location for the site in an op-ed piece in the Silicon Valley Business Journal.
Hearing Changed to March 9
The legislative hearing on the California stem cell agency has been changed from March 2 to March 9 at 1:30 p.m. in room 4203 of the Capitol. See item Feb. 7 on this blog for more details.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Bedtime Reading Posted at CIRM
For those of you who have trouble getting to sleep, the California stem cell agency has posted its first cure.
Go to the site and download the 218 page transcript of its February oversight committee meeting. If that isn't enough, try 266 pages from January. For the capper, dig into 99 pages from the accountability working group meeting.
But seriously, this an excellent step in the right direction in keeping the agency open to interested parties. It also serves the agency well. More information on the Web means fewer direct calls to harried staffers and demonstrates its commitment to openness.
Good work, CIRMers.
Go to the site and download the 218 page transcript of its February oversight committee meeting. If that isn't enough, try 266 pages from January. For the capper, dig into 99 pages from the accountability working group meeting.
But seriously, this an excellent step in the right direction in keeping the agency open to interested parties. It also serves the agency well. More information on the Web means fewer direct calls to harried staffers and demonstrates its commitment to openness.
Good work, CIRMers.
Whither Melissa?
Melissa Carpenter of Canada's Robart Research Institute may have taken herself out of the running for the post of interim head of California's stem cell agency. Then again she may be right at the top of the list.
The London Free Press is reporting, in an article by John Miner, that she is leaving the institute to work for an unnamed biotech firm in San Diego to research the use of stem cells in the treatment of diabetes.
While she may be eager to return to California and start work in her new position, it certainly would not hurt her or her new firm for the good doctor to take a brief leave before actually reporting in San Diego. Spending six months setting up CIRM would provide invaluable experience and contacts for future endeavors.
The London Free Press is reporting, in an article by John Miner, that she is leaving the institute to work for an unnamed biotech firm in San Diego to research the use of stem cells in the treatment of diabetes.
While she may be eager to return to California and start work in her new position, it certainly would not hurt her or her new firm for the good doctor to take a brief leave before actually reporting in San Diego. Spending six months setting up CIRM would provide invaluable experience and contacts for future endeavors.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
The Washington Post Strikes
Reporter Ariana Eunjung Cha of the Washington Post weighed in on Sunday with a piece on California's stem cell agency that is likely to help shape the national view of the fledgling insitute.
And that is not good news for the agency.
The Page One headline said “Struggling Science Experiment.” The third paragraph of the article said:
“The initiative has been tainted by accusations that those who pushed hardest for the money stand to benefit from it the most. Advocates question the pell-mell pace organizers have set to get the program up and running; they worry that in their haste, program leaders are taking too many shortcuts, leaving the initiative vulnerable to being taken advantage of by private profiteers and unscrupulous scientists.”
The piece contained little that has not already been reported. But it reaches an important audience of opinion and policy makers. It will also likely set the tone for other national coverage of the agency as other media read the piece.
And that is not good news for the agency.
The Page One headline said “Struggling Science Experiment.” The third paragraph of the article said:
“The initiative has been tainted by accusations that those who pushed hardest for the money stand to benefit from it the most. Advocates question the pell-mell pace organizers have set to get the program up and running; they worry that in their haste, program leaders are taking too many shortcuts, leaving the initiative vulnerable to being taken advantage of by private profiteers and unscrupulous scientists.”
The piece contained little that has not already been reported. But it reaches an important audience of opinion and policy makers. It will also likely set the tone for other national coverage of the agency as other media read the piece.
About $90 million in First Round Grants
California's stem cell agency is preparing to ladle out something in the neighborhood of $90 million in grants in the first cycle of what some call the stem cell gold rush.
Based on “conceptual blueprints” prepared by CIRM, most of the money –roughly $60 million – will go for grants for “centers of excellence.” Another $20 million or so will aim at creating 'intellectual infrastructure.” Up to $10 million is slated for seed grants.
Barred from consideration during the first cycle of grants are large “individual initiated” proposals as well as proposals from commercial firms and proposals for clinical research. Those apparently will be considered after standards for research, conflict of interest and intellectual property are developed.
The outline of the first cycle of grants is “evolutionary,” according CIRM documents. What that seems to means is that all of this information is subject to change without notice and probably is already out-of-date. The timetable for proposals is not available but CIRM officials have said they want to distribute some cash by May.
In fact, the document on which this article is based is no longer available on the CIRM site. It was removed with no explanation posted on the web site nor was it replaced with more recent information.
That said, here is a summary of the various categories:
Centers of excellence: Annual grants of $5-$7 million each, including costs of leasing. Bidders are expected to be consortium of institutions or a team of scientists at a single institution.
Intellectual infrastructure: Grants aimed at training post-docs, medical students, young faculty “to populate the field of stem cell research with excellent scientists and physicians.”
Seed grants: Individual grants of about $50,000 to $150,000 for new or established scientists so they can “gather preliminary data on a new idea.” These grants are also aimed at “scientists established in a field other than stem cell research who have promising ideas that, subject to documentation, would justify refocusing their efforts in the stem cell research field.”
If you are interested in receiving the full document, which is a one-page PDF file, please email us at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
---------
Comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog are welcome and will be published. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Based on “conceptual blueprints” prepared by CIRM, most of the money –roughly $60 million – will go for grants for “centers of excellence.” Another $20 million or so will aim at creating 'intellectual infrastructure.” Up to $10 million is slated for seed grants.
Barred from consideration during the first cycle of grants are large “individual initiated” proposals as well as proposals from commercial firms and proposals for clinical research. Those apparently will be considered after standards for research, conflict of interest and intellectual property are developed.
The outline of the first cycle of grants is “evolutionary,” according CIRM documents. What that seems to means is that all of this information is subject to change without notice and probably is already out-of-date. The timetable for proposals is not available but CIRM officials have said they want to distribute some cash by May.
In fact, the document on which this article is based is no longer available on the CIRM site. It was removed with no explanation posted on the web site nor was it replaced with more recent information.
That said, here is a summary of the various categories:
Centers of excellence: Annual grants of $5-$7 million each, including costs of leasing. Bidders are expected to be consortium of institutions or a team of scientists at a single institution.
Intellectual infrastructure: Grants aimed at training post-docs, medical students, young faculty “to populate the field of stem cell research with excellent scientists and physicians.”
Seed grants: Individual grants of about $50,000 to $150,000 for new or established scientists so they can “gather preliminary data on a new idea.” These grants are also aimed at “scientists established in a field other than stem cell research who have promising ideas that, subject to documentation, would justify refocusing their efforts in the stem cell research field.”
If you are interested in receiving the full document, which is a one-page PDF file, please email us at djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
---------
Comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog are welcome and will be published. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Facilities Meeting on Feb. 22
The search subcommittee of the Scientific and Medical Research Facilities Working Group Sunday scheduled a meeting for Feb. 22 to discuss criteria and processes for selecting members of the full facilities working group.
Also on the agenda is “consideration of cost effectiveness for facilities grants including discussion of prototype development, renovation of existing facilities and specialized facilities.”
The meeting will be at 9 a.m. at UCLA with teleconference locations at UC Davis, Stanford and the Burnham Institute in La Jolla.
The full agenda should be available at the CIRM website.
Also on the agenda is “consideration of cost effectiveness for facilities grants including discussion of prototype development, renovation of existing facilities and specialized facilities.”
The meeting will be at 9 a.m. at UCLA with teleconference locations at UC Davis, Stanford and the Burnham Institute in La Jolla.
The full agenda should be available at the CIRM website.
Finding a Focus
Stuart Spencer, the San Francisco search firm hired to help fill “one of the highest-profile leadership positions now being advertised in the scientific world,” may have a little trouble focusing on the task.
That's because it is also bidding to become the search firm to find the new CEO at Hewlett-Packard.
To give you some idea of the magnitude of difference, the Wall Street Journal last week had several front page stories (more inside) on the HP vacancy. It had none on the California stem cell agency.
The HP position is also likely to pay something in the range of $5 to $10 million annually. The CIRM position is more like $500,000 or less. Stuart Spencer is being paid $150,000, plus expenses, for its job with the state of California. No word on the size of the HP contract.
That's because it is also bidding to become the search firm to find the new CEO at Hewlett-Packard.
To give you some idea of the magnitude of difference, the Wall Street Journal last week had several front page stories (more inside) on the HP vacancy. It had none on the California stem cell agency.
The HP position is also likely to pay something in the range of $5 to $10 million annually. The CIRM position is more like $500,000 or less. Stuart Spencer is being paid $150,000, plus expenses, for its job with the state of California. No word on the size of the HP contract.
Stuart Spencer reports that it has 300 "consultants" who are available to find execs. It also reports that it "conducted nearly 4,000 assignments" last year.
Writer Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle came up with the description of the CIRM chief's position as the “one of the highest profile....”
Just Call Him Scoop
Reporter Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle seems to have beaten his rivals at other California newspapers with a story that Zach W. Hall of the University of Southern California is the leading candidate to become the interim executive of the California stem cell agency.
Hall – the potential big cheese for CIRM, not the writer – is currently the medical research dean at USC. The Chronicle's report describes him as “a veteran neuroscientist, medical-school administrator and biotech entrepreneur.”
Also in the running is cell biologist Melissa Carpenter, a principal investigator at the Robarts Research Institute in London, Ontario.
According to writer Hall, Dean Hall was one four scientific founders and the former chief executive of a Massachusetts company called EnVivo Pharmaceuticals. It was created in 2001 to develop new treatments for diseases of the nervous system.
“The company apparently has no projects involving stem cell research,” Hall reported.
The Chronicle also quoted colleagues of the 67-year-old Hall as describing him as a “gifted administrator.”
“Hall was recruited to California from Harvard in 1976 to join the faculty at UCSF, where he was head of neurobiology and chair of the physiology department. From 1994 to 1997, Hall took a leave from UCSF to serve as director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a part of the NIH.
“He returned to full-time duty at UCSF and became vice chancellor for research in 1998. Hall helped direct the gargantuan planning effort that went into UCSF's Mission Bay campus, a 43-acre project along San Francisco's southern bay shore. Mission Bay is one of several possible locations around the state for the new stem cell institute's headquarters,” the Chronicle said.
Writer Hall said that the dean is not expected to be selected as the permanent chief of the agency. It was not clear whether there was any relationship between the writer and the dean but unlikely.
Hall – the potential big cheese for CIRM, not the writer – is currently the medical research dean at USC. The Chronicle's report describes him as “a veteran neuroscientist, medical-school administrator and biotech entrepreneur.”
Also in the running is cell biologist Melissa Carpenter, a principal investigator at the Robarts Research Institute in London, Ontario.
According to writer Hall, Dean Hall was one four scientific founders and the former chief executive of a Massachusetts company called EnVivo Pharmaceuticals. It was created in 2001 to develop new treatments for diseases of the nervous system.
“The company apparently has no projects involving stem cell research,” Hall reported.
The Chronicle also quoted colleagues of the 67-year-old Hall as describing him as a “gifted administrator.”
“Hall was recruited to California from Harvard in 1976 to join the faculty at UCSF, where he was head of neurobiology and chair of the physiology department. From 1994 to 1997, Hall took a leave from UCSF to serve as director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a part of the NIH.
“He returned to full-time duty at UCSF and became vice chancellor for research in 1998. Hall helped direct the gargantuan planning effort that went into UCSF's Mission Bay campus, a 43-acre project along San Francisco's southern bay shore. Mission Bay is one of several possible locations around the state for the new stem cell institute's headquarters,” the Chronicle said.
Writer Hall said that the dean is not expected to be selected as the permanent chief of the agency. It was not clear whether there was any relationship between the writer and the dean but unlikely.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Tough CIRM Application Disappears
California's stem cell agency has dropped its probing and perhaps invasive job application form from its web site. Instead the institute now posts a standard state employment application document.
The disappearance of the application form came after the California Stem Cell Report on Feb. 1 wrote about the nature of the inquiries on the original application. The change on the CIRM web site also occurred after the California Stem Cell Report began to query the appointing authorities, from the governor to UC chancellors, about whether they had asked appointees to the Oversight Committee the same questions posed in the application for CIRM employees.
The original application form vanished from the CIRM web site by Feb. 9, the last time it was checked by the California Stem Cell Report, and was replaced by a plain vanilla form.
In response to an inquiry about the change, Fiona Hutton, a spokeswoman for CIRM, said, “As was discussed at the last ICOC meeting, the initial employment application was taken directly from the Governor's web site. In terms of getting up to speed quickly, the Institute staff utilized the Governor's existing application as a foundation to start from. The application has been edited as you pointed out.”
The Feb. 1 item on this web site about the now retired job application said in part:
“California's stem cell agency wants to know. Can somebody that you associated with impugn your character, even unfairly? That is one of the very personal questions that must be answered by job applicants to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
“Might your income or investments present an “appearance” of a conflict of interest? Yes or no. Have you written a letter-to-the-editor on “any particular controversial issue?” Yes or no. Is there anything in your background that could embarrass us? Yes or no. Please explain is the request if you respond in the affirmative.”
Our conclusion was that these questions should be asked, in one form or another, by CIRM of all applicants, ranging from clerks to president. The reason being is that genuinely big money is at stake. And there is a history of successful temptation in other big money venues.
The questions on the application form, however, raised other questions about whether appointees to the Oversight Committee faced the same interrogation. So we addressed the appropriate appointing powers. But some statewide constitutional officers, including the governor, seem terribly timid about making themselves available to public inquiries via email. The email addresses of some of their press offices, which, in theory, would be the most accessible, are virtually impossible to find. If a reporter is part of the Capitoil press contingent, those email addresses are undoubtedly accessible. But if you are a reporter for the Imperial Valley Press, for example, forget about ever sending an email to the governor's press office. You may never find the address.
An exception was the website and office of the state treasurer, Phil Angelides, whose public spokesman, Dan Newman, responded quickly and professionally. The UC campuses were also generally accessible.
Based on the responses to our query, it appears that none of the appointees to the Oversight Committee have been asked the type of questions that CIRM wanted to ask its potential employees with two possible exceptions, including perhaps the governor.
Here is the question that we posed on Feb. 2 to all the appointing entities: “Were the appointees to the oversight committee asked the questions contained in the application prior to their appointment? (We) plan to publish an item on your response next week. Please send it to us by 3 p.m. PST Wednesday Feb. 9. The other appointing powers for the committee are also being asked the same question.”
Here are the responses by office.
Governor – Did not respond. The application form that Hutton mentioned could not be downloaded at the time of this writing, which may have something to do with our Internet link.
Lt. Gov.-- “The Lieutenant Governor did not ask the questions on that list of prospective CIRM candidates and no one provided him with a list of recommended questions. We took the step of providing each potential candidate with a Form 700 (state economic disclosure form) so they could see just what they would need to declare. We also advised them that they should be prepared to recuse themselves from any votes concerning matters that might pose a potential conflict. Dr. Richard Murphy suggested in the interview that subcommittees that screen grant applications should be staffed by people from other states to minimize conflicts. The Lieutenant Governor liked that idea,” said Stephen Green, a spokesman for Bustamante.
Treasurer – “We had those we were considering fill out our standard State Treasurer's Office appointee application, so, no, we didn't use the application that the CIRM is using,” Dan Newman said. The treasurer's application (sent by email) is close to what CIRM had, which is not unexpected considering the sensitive nature of the billions of dollars of investments handled by the treasuer's office. The questions on the treasurer's form include whether the applicant has been involved in an “appearance” of a conflict of interest, has written letters-to-the-editor on controversial subjects and whether the applicant has anything in his or her background that could reflect negatively on the treasurer and more along those lines. (Send us an email if you would like to us to send you the entire application, which is not available online.)
Controller --.Did not respond.
Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, now out office – Could not be reached.
Assembly Speaker – Did not respond.
UC Chancellors – Lisa Lapin, assistant vice chancellor at UC Davis answered first. Her response then became the response of all the chancellors. (For newsgatherers, that is one of the perils of asking questions with a long lead time for response. Everybody's response is easily coordinated, ducks can be aligned, candidness is lost and so forth. But if they aren't given a long lead time for a response, our public information officers often yip like wounded coyotes.)
Here is the UC answer:
“Because the five ICOC members appointed from the UC medical schools are, by virtue of their UC positions, (public officials under the Political Reform Act, they had already filled out state disclosure forms listing their economic interests (Form 700), even before their appointment to the ICOC. Before announcing our appointments, UC reviewed with each member the interests listed on their form and discussed with them the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and of recusing themselves from decisions in which they have a personal financial interest, as required by law.
“The CIRM employment application form was just recently posted to CIRM's website. It is not something we had seen prior to the appointment of the University'ss ICC representatives. UC Davis Medical School Dean and Vice Chancellor of our health system, Claire Pomeroy, our appointee, has not subsequently been asked by Institute staff to respond to the questions listed on the CIRM application form.”
-------
Your comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog are welcome and will be posted. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com.
The disappearance of the application form came after the California Stem Cell Report on Feb. 1 wrote about the nature of the inquiries on the original application. The change on the CIRM web site also occurred after the California Stem Cell Report began to query the appointing authorities, from the governor to UC chancellors, about whether they had asked appointees to the Oversight Committee the same questions posed in the application for CIRM employees.
The original application form vanished from the CIRM web site by Feb. 9, the last time it was checked by the California Stem Cell Report, and was replaced by a plain vanilla form.
In response to an inquiry about the change, Fiona Hutton, a spokeswoman for CIRM, said, “As was discussed at the last ICOC meeting, the initial employment application was taken directly from the Governor's web site. In terms of getting up to speed quickly, the Institute staff utilized the Governor's existing application as a foundation to start from. The application has been edited as you pointed out.”
The Feb. 1 item on this web site about the now retired job application said in part:
“California's stem cell agency wants to know. Can somebody that you associated with impugn your character, even unfairly? That is one of the very personal questions that must be answered by job applicants to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
“Might your income or investments present an “appearance” of a conflict of interest? Yes or no. Have you written a letter-to-the-editor on “any particular controversial issue?” Yes or no. Is there anything in your background that could embarrass us? Yes or no. Please explain is the request if you respond in the affirmative.”
Our conclusion was that these questions should be asked, in one form or another, by CIRM of all applicants, ranging from clerks to president. The reason being is that genuinely big money is at stake. And there is a history of successful temptation in other big money venues.
The questions on the application form, however, raised other questions about whether appointees to the Oversight Committee faced the same interrogation. So we addressed the appropriate appointing powers. But some statewide constitutional officers, including the governor, seem terribly timid about making themselves available to public inquiries via email. The email addresses of some of their press offices, which, in theory, would be the most accessible, are virtually impossible to find. If a reporter is part of the Capitoil press contingent, those email addresses are undoubtedly accessible. But if you are a reporter for the Imperial Valley Press, for example, forget about ever sending an email to the governor's press office. You may never find the address.
An exception was the website and office of the state treasurer, Phil Angelides, whose public spokesman, Dan Newman, responded quickly and professionally. The UC campuses were also generally accessible.
Based on the responses to our query, it appears that none of the appointees to the Oversight Committee have been asked the type of questions that CIRM wanted to ask its potential employees with two possible exceptions, including perhaps the governor.
Here is the question that we posed on Feb. 2 to all the appointing entities: “Were the appointees to the oversight committee asked the questions contained in the application prior to their appointment? (We) plan to publish an item on your response next week. Please send it to us by 3 p.m. PST Wednesday Feb. 9. The other appointing powers for the committee are also being asked the same question.”
Here are the responses by office.
Governor – Did not respond. The application form that Hutton mentioned could not be downloaded at the time of this writing, which may have something to do with our Internet link.
Lt. Gov.-- “The Lieutenant Governor did not ask the questions on that list of prospective CIRM candidates and no one provided him with a list of recommended questions. We took the step of providing each potential candidate with a Form 700 (state economic disclosure form) so they could see just what they would need to declare. We also advised them that they should be prepared to recuse themselves from any votes concerning matters that might pose a potential conflict. Dr. Richard Murphy suggested in the interview that subcommittees that screen grant applications should be staffed by people from other states to minimize conflicts. The Lieutenant Governor liked that idea,” said Stephen Green, a spokesman for Bustamante.
Treasurer – “We had those we were considering fill out our standard State Treasurer's Office appointee application, so, no, we didn't use the application that the CIRM is using,” Dan Newman said. The treasurer's application (sent by email) is close to what CIRM had, which is not unexpected considering the sensitive nature of the billions of dollars of investments handled by the treasuer's office. The questions on the treasurer's form include whether the applicant has been involved in an “appearance” of a conflict of interest, has written letters-to-the-editor on controversial subjects and whether the applicant has anything in his or her background that could reflect negatively on the treasurer and more along those lines. (Send us an email if you would like to us to send you the entire application, which is not available online.)
Controller --.Did not respond.
Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, now out office – Could not be reached.
Assembly Speaker – Did not respond.
UC Chancellors – Lisa Lapin, assistant vice chancellor at UC Davis answered first. Her response then became the response of all the chancellors. (For newsgatherers, that is one of the perils of asking questions with a long lead time for response. Everybody's response is easily coordinated, ducks can be aligned, candidness is lost and so forth. But if they aren't given a long lead time for a response, our public information officers often yip like wounded coyotes.)
Here is the UC answer:
“Because the five ICOC members appointed from the UC medical schools are, by virtue of their UC positions, (public officials under the Political Reform Act, they had already filled out state disclosure forms listing their economic interests (Form 700), even before their appointment to the ICOC. Before announcing our appointments, UC reviewed with each member the interests listed on their form and discussed with them the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and of recusing themselves from decisions in which they have a personal financial interest, as required by law.
“The CIRM employment application form was just recently posted to CIRM's website. It is not something we had seen prior to the appointment of the University'ss ICC representatives. UC Davis Medical School Dean and Vice Chancellor of our health system, Claire Pomeroy, our appointee, has not subsequently been asked by Institute staff to respond to the questions listed on the CIRM application form.”
-------
Your comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog are welcome and will be posted. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Reaction to Chiron-Wareham Link Piece
The California Stem Cell Report asked both CIRM and Wareham Development for responses to the item posted earlier this week concerning links that Wareham say its has with Chiron, one of whose founders is vice chairman of the oversight committee.
Here is the comment from Tim Gallen, a spokesman for Wareham:
“Wareham has been one of Chiron’s landlords since the company was founded. So, in the past, Chiron leased research space from Wareham and still does -- along with 27 other research companies in Emeryville, Berkeley and Richmond. But, as 'financial links' go, we both know that a common lease is hardly the kind of relationship I believe Mr. Klein was addressing in his remarks to San Diego journalist, Terri Somers.”
The agency has not replied to our inquiry. However, it posted on its web site either late Monday, Feb. 7, or today, Feb. 8, a press release dated Feb. 3. The item said:
“The lessor(Wareham) does not have any interest in firms or agencies competing for grants to be awarded by the Institute. The Institute staff worked through the State Department of General Services (“DGS”) and the State Controller’s Office to audit available office space and ultimately select the Horton Street location(in Emeryville).”
Here is the comment from Tim Gallen, a spokesman for Wareham:
“Wareham has been one of Chiron’s landlords since the company was founded. So, in the past, Chiron leased research space from Wareham and still does -- along with 27 other research companies in Emeryville, Berkeley and Richmond. But, as 'financial links' go, we both know that a common lease is hardly the kind of relationship I believe Mr. Klein was addressing in his remarks to San Diego journalist, Terri Somers.”
The agency has not replied to our inquiry. However, it posted on its web site either late Monday, Feb. 7, or today, Feb. 8, a press release dated Feb. 3. The item said:
“The lessor(Wareham) does not have any interest in firms or agencies competing for grants to be awarded by the Institute. The Institute staff worked through the State Department of General Services (“DGS”) and the State Controller’s Office to audit available office space and ultimately select the Horton Street location(in Emeryville).”
CIRM Web Site Developments
CIRM's web site is changing. The information is about the same as two days ago, but it does have a press release dated Feb. 3 that was not there on the afternoon of Feb. 7.
The press release contains information that was widely reported in the media on Feb. 4 although with a few more details, depending on what you read.
The changes in the site seem to make it conform to the format and graphics of most California state web sites. It now includes a mug shot of Arnold and a link to his page, for example.
The next step, we hope, is to provide background information packets well in advance of meetings as is the practice of most local and state government bodies in California.
The press release contains information that was widely reported in the media on Feb. 4 although with a few more details, depending on what you read.
The changes in the site seem to make it conform to the format and graphics of most California state web sites. It now includes a mug shot of Arnold and a link to his page, for example.
The next step, we hope, is to provide background information packets well in advance of meetings as is the practice of most local and state government bodies in California.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Legislative hearings scheduled for March 2
California State Sen. Deborah Ortiz today scheduled a hearing to look into the California stem cell agency, covering everything from conflicts-of-interest to intellectual property rights.
The three-way "informational hearing" will include members from both the Senate and Assembly Health Committee as well as the newly created Senate Subcommittee on Stem Cell Research Oversight.
The hearing will be held on March 2, from 1:30 – 5:00, in Room 4203 of the State Capitol.
The Democratic senator's office said topics of the hearing will include:
"Policies and standards to ensure diversity in Prop. 71 appointments, hiring, and contracting;
"Treatment of intellectual property rights arising from research funded by the ICOC(the oversight committee);
"Application of open meeting laws and standards to ICOC working groups and subcommittee;
"Adoption of conflict of interest and economic disclosure standards for members of the ICOC and its working groups;
"Development of standards to protect research subjects and donors; and
"Prop. 71 auditing and public accountability functions."
Persons interested in testifying should contact the senator's aide at the following email address: Peter.Hansel@sen.ca.gov.
The three-way "informational hearing" will include members from both the Senate and Assembly Health Committee as well as the newly created Senate Subcommittee on Stem Cell Research Oversight.
The hearing will be held on March 2, from 1:30 – 5:00, in Room 4203 of the State Capitol.
The Democratic senator's office said topics of the hearing will include:
"Policies and standards to ensure diversity in Prop. 71 appointments, hiring, and contracting;
"Treatment of intellectual property rights arising from research funded by the ICOC(the oversight committee);
"Application of open meeting laws and standards to ICOC working groups and subcommittee;
"Adoption of conflict of interest and economic disclosure standards for members of the ICOC and its working groups;
"Development of standards to protect research subjects and donors; and
"Prop. 71 auditing and public accountability functions."
Persons interested in testifying should contact the senator's aide at the following email address: Peter.Hansel@sen.ca.gov.
The Bee Stings CIRM
“Rife with questionable entanglements” is how The Sacramento Bee describes California's new stem cell agency.
The language was contained in an unsigned editorial in The Bee on Sunday. That means it represents the institutional opinion of that newspaper's ownership.
The Bee's editorial was strong. It remarked on the new standards at the NIH and said California's agency should learn from the controversies that have unsettled the NIH.
The Bee was not happy with the conduct of CIRM so far. It said that at the meeting of the oversight committee last week, “comittee member Leon Thal asked if members themselves could apply for grants. To everyone's amazement, the oversight committee started to entertain this idea. After journalists started raising questions, committee members quickly re-adjourned and put the kibosh on granting grants to themselves.”
“If the committee wants to retain a semblance of credibility, it needs to set ethics standards that are as strong, if not stronger, than those of the NIH,” The Bee declared.
One thing to keep in mind about newspaper editorials is that surveys show that they are read by a small segment of readers, as opposed to the percentage who read the front page. That said, politicians and other community leaders often think newspaper editorials are meaningful.
(My apologies to The Bee and the readers of this blog for the headline on this item. I could not help myself.)
The language was contained in an unsigned editorial in The Bee on Sunday. That means it represents the institutional opinion of that newspaper's ownership.
The Bee's editorial was strong. It remarked on the new standards at the NIH and said California's agency should learn from the controversies that have unsettled the NIH.
The Bee was not happy with the conduct of CIRM so far. It said that at the meeting of the oversight committee last week, “comittee member Leon Thal asked if members themselves could apply for grants. To everyone's amazement, the oversight committee started to entertain this idea. After journalists started raising questions, committee members quickly re-adjourned and put the kibosh on granting grants to themselves.”
“If the committee wants to retain a semblance of credibility, it needs to set ethics standards that are as strong, if not stronger, than those of the NIH,” The Bee declared.
One thing to keep in mind about newspaper editorials is that surveys show that they are read by a small segment of readers, as opposed to the percentage who read the front page. That said, politicians and other community leaders often think newspaper editorials are meaningful.
(My apologies to The Bee and the readers of this blog for the headline on this item. I could not help myself.)
Sunday, February 06, 2005
CIRM Landlord Says It Linked to Chiron
The California stem cell agency's new landlord, Wareham Development, says it has links to Chiron Corp., one of whose founders is vice chairman of the state stem cell agency, Ed Penhoet.
The relationship to Chiron is touted on Wareham's web site and was discovered as part of research by the California Stem Cell Report.
Wareham's web site, on its "about" page, says, “Our history of fostering the newer, smaller, incubating company is exemplified in our relationship with Chiron Corporation, which began in the 1980s when we became one of Chiron's first landlords.”
Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, said last week, however, that Wareham “is not connected to him, to any committee member or to any entity that might benefit from the stem cell grant money,” according to a report by Terri Somers in the San Diego Union Tribune.
Penhoet sits on Chiron's board and owns more than $1 million in Chiron stock, according to filings with the state.
While the statement on Wareham's site appears to indicate there is some sort of current financial link between it and Chiron, that could be marketing rhetoric based on past landlord-tenant relationships.
Nonetheless it seems likely that top management at Chiron, which is based in Emeryville, and Wareham, located across the bay in San Rafael, have an ongoing connection, given the Internet display of their history.
CIRM announced its decision last week to move into a Wareham site this coming Friday in Emeryville in the East Bay area of San Francisco. For the first seven months, CIRM will pay no rent on the lease of 7,416 square feet of office space. After that it will pay market rates on a month-to-month basis, according to a report by Judy Silber in the Contra Costa Times. Another report in the San Diego Union Tribune says, however, the rates will be below market. Furniture and building improvements will be also provided free, according to the San Diego Transcript (no link available).
The decision to house the agency temporarily in Emeryville does not mean that Wareham or Emeryville will have an edge in the tussle for the permanent headquarters, according to CIRM officials.
However, inertia can always play a factor in relocation decisions. It is time-consuming and expensive to move. Beyond that, Wareham has a track record with state agencies and should be comfortable in dealing with CIRM officials and with the state's legal requirements regarding office space.
The suitors for CIRM are waging an energetic courtship. San Diego is considering a $5 million pool to help with the “moving, housing and other costs” to bring stem cell super stars to its area, according to a report by Somers in the San Diego Union Tribune. Increasing the density of top researchers presumably would make the area more attractive as a headquarters location as well.
Something along those lines is likely to be offered by other competitors, given the extreme housing costs in California, which are among the highest in the nation. In fact, San Diego was recently ranked as one of the most least affordable places in the nation to buy a home. The Bay Area is not much better.
Klein and other CIRM directors have made it clear they are expecting major incentives from cities seeking the headquarters, which will house up to 50 employees. Likely to play a significant role as well are the preferences of the top candidates for the CEO position at CIRM (see the previous item on this blog called "CEO Reality" Jan. 27). Selection of that person is also underway as well.
So far the following areas have been mentioned in the media as potential locations for the headquarters: San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Los Angeles, Sacramento, the Central Valley and Riverside County.
The agency is working rapidly to decide on the location. It had plans to issue an RFP this week and make a selection next month.
Cities are keeping the details of their bids confidential lest they tip off competitors. But some information has emerged.
Here is a look at what has surfaced.
San Francisco – The package focuses on Townsend Center, a building at 650 Townsend St. owned by Bernard Osher, according to a report by Daniel S. Levine in the San Francisco Business Times. He said Osher contributed $250,000 to the Yes on Prop. 71 campaign. California State Sens. Carole Migden, Don Perata and Jackie Speier and U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein support either the Bay Area or San Francisco, according to Levine.
San Diego – Few details of the San Diego proposal have emerged except for the $5 million fund plan.
Sacramento – The city is offering 15,000 square feet of space at no charge for a certain period in a building on the Sacramento River in Old Sacramento, close to the state Capitol, according to a report by Dale Kasler in The Sacramento Bee. Discounted rates would apply thereafter. The building at One Capitol Mall is controlled by the Tsakopoulos family, which is very well connected in Democratic politics.
Little has been reported about bids by other areas.
-------
Comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog are welcome. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com.
The relationship to Chiron is touted on Wareham's web site and was discovered as part of research by the California Stem Cell Report.
Wareham's web site, on its "about" page, says, “Our history of fostering the newer, smaller, incubating company is exemplified in our relationship with Chiron Corporation, which began in the 1980s when we became one of Chiron's first landlords.”
Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, said last week, however, that Wareham “is not connected to him, to any committee member or to any entity that might benefit from the stem cell grant money,” according to a report by Terri Somers in the San Diego Union Tribune.
Penhoet sits on Chiron's board and owns more than $1 million in Chiron stock, according to filings with the state.
While the statement on Wareham's site appears to indicate there is some sort of current financial link between it and Chiron, that could be marketing rhetoric based on past landlord-tenant relationships.
Nonetheless it seems likely that top management at Chiron, which is based in Emeryville, and Wareham, located across the bay in San Rafael, have an ongoing connection, given the Internet display of their history.
CIRM announced its decision last week to move into a Wareham site this coming Friday in Emeryville in the East Bay area of San Francisco. For the first seven months, CIRM will pay no rent on the lease of 7,416 square feet of office space. After that it will pay market rates on a month-to-month basis, according to a report by Judy Silber in the Contra Costa Times. Another report in the San Diego Union Tribune says, however, the rates will be below market. Furniture and building improvements will be also provided free, according to the San Diego Transcript (no link available).
The decision to house the agency temporarily in Emeryville does not mean that Wareham or Emeryville will have an edge in the tussle for the permanent headquarters, according to CIRM officials.
However, inertia can always play a factor in relocation decisions. It is time-consuming and expensive to move. Beyond that, Wareham has a track record with state agencies and should be comfortable in dealing with CIRM officials and with the state's legal requirements regarding office space.
The suitors for CIRM are waging an energetic courtship. San Diego is considering a $5 million pool to help with the “moving, housing and other costs” to bring stem cell super stars to its area, according to a report by Somers in the San Diego Union Tribune. Increasing the density of top researchers presumably would make the area more attractive as a headquarters location as well.
Something along those lines is likely to be offered by other competitors, given the extreme housing costs in California, which are among the highest in the nation. In fact, San Diego was recently ranked as one of the most least affordable places in the nation to buy a home. The Bay Area is not much better.
Klein and other CIRM directors have made it clear they are expecting major incentives from cities seeking the headquarters, which will house up to 50 employees. Likely to play a significant role as well are the preferences of the top candidates for the CEO position at CIRM (see the previous item on this blog called "CEO Reality" Jan. 27). Selection of that person is also underway as well.
So far the following areas have been mentioned in the media as potential locations for the headquarters: San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Los Angeles, Sacramento, the Central Valley and Riverside County.
The agency is working rapidly to decide on the location. It had plans to issue an RFP this week and make a selection next month.
Cities are keeping the details of their bids confidential lest they tip off competitors. But some information has emerged.
Here is a look at what has surfaced.
San Francisco – The package focuses on Townsend Center, a building at 650 Townsend St. owned by Bernard Osher, according to a report by Daniel S. Levine in the San Francisco Business Times. He said Osher contributed $250,000 to the Yes on Prop. 71 campaign. California State Sens. Carole Migden, Don Perata and Jackie Speier and U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein support either the Bay Area or San Francisco, according to Levine.
San Diego – Few details of the San Diego proposal have emerged except for the $5 million fund plan.
Sacramento – The city is offering 15,000 square feet of space at no charge for a certain period in a building on the Sacramento River in Old Sacramento, close to the state Capitol, according to a report by Dale Kasler in The Sacramento Bee. Discounted rates would apply thereafter. The building at One Capitol Mall is controlled by the Tsakopoulos family, which is very well connected in Democratic politics.
Little has been reported about bids by other areas.
-------
Comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog are welcome. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Coming Up
The contest for the HQ location of the California stem cell agency is on a fast track with a host of competitors offering big incentives. Look for a roundup on the situation in Monday's California Stem Cell Report.
Readers Write
Nuns and Ham-handed Questions
This comment comes from Jeff Raimundo, longtime political consultant in Sacramento:
"I have to disagree with you in part about your take on "bags of swag."
"Clearly, (Robert) Klein himself would have trouble getting past CIRM's
"'Might your income or investments present an 'appearance' of a
conflict of interest? Yes or no. Is there anything in your background
that could embarrass us? Yes or no.' -- Ya think!?
"If Klein can answer those questions in the negative, what applicant is going to think any differently? Those are the kinds of questions I think ARE entirely appropriate for later interviews, for the reasons you outlined. At the front end, however, they are imprecise, ham-handed and hypocritical.
"CIRM has great promise and probably should be excused for early
glitches on its maiden voyage. But such a public display of
holier-than-thou attitude by bosses who can't pass the test themselves
sets CIRM up as a too-easy target for critics."
The following comes from retired historian Tom Hall of Berkeley:
"The Bags of Swag is a nice piece that raises all kinds of interesting
questions about the realism of public expectations. Abe Lincoln would
never been elected president if he had to submit to such a test prior to
being nominated. The only ones who could pass the test are cloistered
nuns, and I'm not so sure they could."
Send your comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com
This comment comes from Jeff Raimundo, longtime political consultant in Sacramento:
"I have to disagree with you in part about your take on "bags of swag."
"Clearly, (Robert) Klein himself would have trouble getting past CIRM's
"'Might your income or investments present an 'appearance' of a
conflict of interest? Yes or no. Is there anything in your background
that could embarrass us? Yes or no.' -- Ya think!?
"If Klein can answer those questions in the negative, what applicant is going to think any differently? Those are the kinds of questions I think ARE entirely appropriate for later interviews, for the reasons you outlined. At the front end, however, they are imprecise, ham-handed and hypocritical.
"CIRM has great promise and probably should be excused for early
glitches on its maiden voyage. But such a public display of
holier-than-thou attitude by bosses who can't pass the test themselves
sets CIRM up as a too-easy target for critics."
The following comes from retired historian Tom Hall of Berkeley:
"The Bags of Swag is a nice piece that raises all kinds of interesting
questions about the realism of public expectations. Abe Lincoln would
never been elected president if he had to submit to such a test prior to
being nominated. The only ones who could pass the test are cloistered
nuns, and I'm not so sure they could."
Send your comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Cannonade Leveled at CIRM
The Center for Genetics-and-Society has launched a sweeping broadside at the California stem cell agency. We haven't had a chance to read it all yet but will have more on it later. It is sure to be an item of interest at the Oversight Committee meeting today. Below is a quick summary from the center. You can see all that the center has to say by going to its website. The center's charges allege:
"Inadequate conflict of interest rules for members of the ICOC and the three working groups established by Proposition 71.
"Unjustified exemptions of the three working groups from state rules on open meetings, conflict of interest, and public reporting.
"Troubling overlaps and conflicts among CIRM, the California Research and Cures Coalition, the debts of the "Yes on 71" campaign, ICOC Chair Robert Klein's business operations, and his personal finances."
"Inadequate conflict of interest rules for members of the ICOC and the three working groups established by Proposition 71.
"Unjustified exemptions of the three working groups from state rules on open meetings, conflict of interest, and public reporting.
"Troubling overlaps and conflicts among CIRM, the California Research and Cures Coalition, the debts of the "Yes on 71" campaign, ICOC Chair Robert Klein's business operations, and his personal finances."
CIRM Sayings: Cowboys and Hell to Pay
What are people saying about the California stem cell agency? Here are a few quotes that seem of current interest. If you have any offerings for this intermittent feature on this blog, please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
"If the money is spent and there aren't effective treatments that result, I think there will be hell to pay."Joan Samuelson, CIRM oversight committee member, as quoted on MSNBC Jan. 21, 2005
"They (other states) are putting proposals together to retain people. It may cost more because all of a sudden these scientists are being competed for." Arnold Kriegstein, director of UCSF stem-cell research program, as quoted in the San Francisco Business Times Jan. 28, 2005, article by Daniel S. Levine
"We're going to have to do the science. We can't have cowboys out there doing things, especially when it comes to patients." Dr. David Kessler, oversight committee member, dean of the UCSF medical school and former head of the FDA, as quoted Jan. 21, 2005, MSBNC.
“I pledge to serve the interests of California citizens, its patients and its taxpayers. In doing so, I am committed to transparency in process, public oversight and accountability, and the highest ethical and medical standards possible.” Robert Klein, chairman of the oversight committee, in a statement issued Dec. 13, 2004.
"If the money is spent and there aren't effective treatments that result, I think there will be hell to pay."Joan Samuelson, CIRM oversight committee member, as quoted on MSNBC Jan. 21, 2005
"They (other states) are putting proposals together to retain people. It may cost more because all of a sudden these scientists are being competed for." Arnold Kriegstein, director of UCSF stem-cell research program, as quoted in the San Francisco Business Times Jan. 28, 2005, article by Daniel S. Levine
"We're going to have to do the science. We can't have cowboys out there doing things, especially when it comes to patients." Dr. David Kessler, oversight committee member, dean of the UCSF medical school and former head of the FDA, as quoted Jan. 21, 2005, MSBNC.
“I pledge to serve the interests of California citizens, its patients and its taxpayers. In doing so, I am committed to transparency in process, public oversight and accountability, and the highest ethical and medical standards possible.” Robert Klein, chairman of the oversight committee, in a statement issued Dec. 13, 2004.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Prop. 71 Campaign Spends nearly $35 million
The Los Angeles Times has reported on last fall's campaign spending. Here is what reporter Dan Morain had to say about the California stem cell measure:
"Promoters of Proposition 71, which authorized the state to sell $3 billion in bonds to fund stem cell research, spent $34.7 million.The Yes On 71 campaign reported a debt of almost $6.5 million.
"In the final days before the November election, venture capitalist John Doerr and his wife, Ann Doerr, lent the campaign a combined $1 million, as did Robert Klein, who since has been named chairman of the board overseeing the initiative's implementation.
"Altogether, Klein, a Palo Alto developer, gave or lent the campaign $2.1 million and spent an additional $200,000 on other state campaigns, placing him among the biggest individual spenders on state politics in 2004.
"A campaign spokeswoman said backers of the stem cell initiative intend to raise money to pay off the Doerrs, various vendors who worked for the campaign and possibly Klein — raising the possibility that entities and individuals seeking stem cell research money could make donations that would help Klein recoup some of the $1 million loan."
"Promoters of Proposition 71, which authorized the state to sell $3 billion in bonds to fund stem cell research, spent $34.7 million.The Yes On 71 campaign reported a debt of almost $6.5 million.
"In the final days before the November election, venture capitalist John Doerr and his wife, Ann Doerr, lent the campaign a combined $1 million, as did Robert Klein, who since has been named chairman of the board overseeing the initiative's implementation.
"Altogether, Klein, a Palo Alto developer, gave or lent the campaign $2.1 million and spent an additional $200,000 on other state campaigns, placing him among the biggest individual spenders on state politics in 2004.
"A campaign spokeswoman said backers of the stem cell initiative intend to raise money to pay off the Doerrs, various vendors who worked for the campaign and possibly Klein — raising the possibility that entities and individuals seeking stem cell research money could make donations that would help Klein recoup some of the $1 million loan."
Hiring and Appearances, Integrity and Bags of Swag
California's stem cell agency wants to know. Can somebody that you associated with impugn your character, even unfairly? That is one of the very personal questions that must be answered by job applicants to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
Might your income or investments present an “appearance” of a conflict of interest? Yes or no. Have you written a letter-to-the-editor on “any particular controversial issue?” Yes or no. Is there anything in your background that could embarrass us? Yes or no.
Please explain is the request if you respond in the affirmative.
The inquiries are part of the job application form on CIRM's web site. All are also on the same form for applicants for position of interim CEO of the agency.
The questions seem to be testimony to how seriously CIRM takes the concerns about conflicts of interest, accountability and integrity. They are tough questions, ones that would make many of us uncomfortable. They go way beyond inquiries that this writer dealt with in 1975 when he worked for the governor of California, who also happened to be the sponsor of the state's first and only major economic disclosure law. But that was before Enron and Worldcom, Irangate and Monicagate.
Some might regard the inquiries on the CIRM application as a personal invasion. Nonetheless, they are certainly legitimate questions to be asked of aspirants for top positions at the agency, which is likely to be subjected to excruciatingly close scrutiny by its foes. If you are doing the hiring for such jobs, you need to know the very worst about the people you are considering. One recent spectacular failure to do so came in the Bush administration with the former police commissioner from New York.
On the other hand, one must ask whether such questions discourage good candidates? The answer? Yes, they do. It is currently a major problem and an unfortunate reality that pervades all of public life. But, if you have bones in the closet, you or your agency's enemies are going to drag them into scandalous public view.
Should these employment questions apply as well to lower level employees, such as clerks? I am sad to say, yes. It is a terrible imposition to ask a $25,000-a-year or so employee to face such inquiries. But there is ample history of low level employees leaking sensitive information when properly primed by those seeking the information.
Little doubt exists that some not-so-ethical private sector folks are likely to tempt both the big and little cheeses at CIRM with large bags of swag for information. Extremely valuable intellectual property will be housed at the stem cell agency, including trade secrets and confidential research. The stakes are huge. CIRM will be giving away $300 million a year. But that is nothing compared to what the ultimate profits might be on a successful stem cell venture.
The questions on the application are a good first step at ensuring CIRM's integrity. The new agency is already under fire concerning conflicts of interest, an issue that CIRM will have to live with because it will never go away, given the nature of the law that created it.
That said, putting the questions on the application is not enough. The written responses must be buttressed by probing interviews with applicants by several persons. All too often, the formalities of applications become overwhelmed by a boss who wants a particular person, often with good reason.
One might also ask whether members of the oversight committee faced identical questions prior to their appointments. It is doubtful. You could argue that nearly all of them come from positions with high public visibility and have publicly known and respected track records. Thus they are safe appointments. However, that is what President Bush also thought about a certain police commissioner.
As for you readers out there, we would like to know whether you would answer these questions. If not, why not? Please send your replies to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com. We will publish at least portions of the responses.
Here are some additional samples of the actual questions from the application form, which can be found at this site. Look for it at the very bottom of the page.
“Do you own real property, personal property, financial holdings or receive income from any source which might present a potential conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest with your requested appointment?
“Have you been publicly identified, in person or by organizational members, with a particularly controversial national, state or local issue?
“Have you ever submitted oral or written views to any government authority or the news media, on any particular controversial issue other than in an official government capacity?
“Have you ever had any association with any person or group or business venture which could be used, even unfairly, to impugn or question your character and qualifications for the requested appointment?
“Do you know anyone who might take any steps, overtly or covertly, to oppose your appointment?
“Is there anything in your background which if made known to the general public through your appointment would cause an embarrassment to you and/or the administration?”
Might your income or investments present an “appearance” of a conflict of interest? Yes or no. Have you written a letter-to-the-editor on “any particular controversial issue?” Yes or no. Is there anything in your background that could embarrass us? Yes or no.
Please explain is the request if you respond in the affirmative.
The inquiries are part of the job application form on CIRM's web site. All are also on the same form for applicants for position of interim CEO of the agency.
The questions seem to be testimony to how seriously CIRM takes the concerns about conflicts of interest, accountability and integrity. They are tough questions, ones that would make many of us uncomfortable. They go way beyond inquiries that this writer dealt with in 1975 when he worked for the governor of California, who also happened to be the sponsor of the state's first and only major economic disclosure law. But that was before Enron and Worldcom, Irangate and Monicagate.
Some might regard the inquiries on the CIRM application as a personal invasion. Nonetheless, they are certainly legitimate questions to be asked of aspirants for top positions at the agency, which is likely to be subjected to excruciatingly close scrutiny by its foes. If you are doing the hiring for such jobs, you need to know the very worst about the people you are considering. One recent spectacular failure to do so came in the Bush administration with the former police commissioner from New York.
On the other hand, one must ask whether such questions discourage good candidates? The answer? Yes, they do. It is currently a major problem and an unfortunate reality that pervades all of public life. But, if you have bones in the closet, you or your agency's enemies are going to drag them into scandalous public view.
Should these employment questions apply as well to lower level employees, such as clerks? I am sad to say, yes. It is a terrible imposition to ask a $25,000-a-year or so employee to face such inquiries. But there is ample history of low level employees leaking sensitive information when properly primed by those seeking the information.
Little doubt exists that some not-so-ethical private sector folks are likely to tempt both the big and little cheeses at CIRM with large bags of swag for information. Extremely valuable intellectual property will be housed at the stem cell agency, including trade secrets and confidential research. The stakes are huge. CIRM will be giving away $300 million a year. But that is nothing compared to what the ultimate profits might be on a successful stem cell venture.
The questions on the application are a good first step at ensuring CIRM's integrity. The new agency is already under fire concerning conflicts of interest, an issue that CIRM will have to live with because it will never go away, given the nature of the law that created it.
That said, putting the questions on the application is not enough. The written responses must be buttressed by probing interviews with applicants by several persons. All too often, the formalities of applications become overwhelmed by a boss who wants a particular person, often with good reason.
One might also ask whether members of the oversight committee faced identical questions prior to their appointments. It is doubtful. You could argue that nearly all of them come from positions with high public visibility and have publicly known and respected track records. Thus they are safe appointments. However, that is what President Bush also thought about a certain police commissioner.
As for you readers out there, we would like to know whether you would answer these questions. If not, why not? Please send your replies to djensen@californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com. We will publish at least portions of the responses.
Here are some additional samples of the actual questions from the application form, which can be found at this site. Look for it at the very bottom of the page.
“Do you own real property, personal property, financial holdings or receive income from any source which might present a potential conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest with your requested appointment?
“Have you been publicly identified, in person or by organizational members, with a particularly controversial national, state or local issue?
“Have you ever submitted oral or written views to any government authority or the news media, on any particular controversial issue other than in an official government capacity?
“Have you ever had any association with any person or group or business venture which could be used, even unfairly, to impugn or question your character and qualifications for the requested appointment?
“Do you know anyone who might take any steps, overtly or covertly, to oppose your appointment?
“Is there anything in your background which if made known to the general public through your appointment would cause an embarrassment to you and/or the administration?”
Monday, January 31, 2005
Temp Wanted
Perhaps we missed it, but the California stem cell agency wants to hire only an interim president at this point, rather than a permanent CEO.
The temp should be willing to serve for six to 12 months. Of course, that person will be considered for the permanent position as well.
You can find details on the job specs, which should start within six weeks, on the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine web site here. You can file your application online if you like.
The temp should be willing to serve for six to 12 months. Of course, that person will be considered for the permanent position as well.
You can find details on the job specs, which should start within six weeks, on the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine web site here. You can file your application online if you like.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Basic Information Misssing
Nearly another month has passed since the last meeting of the Oversight Committee for CIRM, and we still see grossly inadequate material available in advance of the latest round of meetings.
This week both a subcommittee and the full oversight committee are meeting. Yet only the sketchiest material is available on the CIRM's website. The issues that the committees plan to discuss are basic and important. They include the strategy for awarding grants, development of conflict of interest policy and consideration of qualifications for candidates for president.
Perhaps we are incorrect, but certainly members of the committees will be presented with written reports and background information at the actual meeting. Minutes from previous meetings are scheduled to be approved. Yet none of this available online. No plans have been announced to provide it to persons attending the teleconference sessions at remote locations.
CIRM would do well to follow, as much as possible, the example of California's state and local legislative bodies. In many cases, they cannot legally act on measures until they have been available to the public for several weeks. Without such access, CIRM functions in partial obscurity.
CIRM is still very much a fledgling organization, and due some forbearance. But making information available in advance of the meetings is easily done. It is also basic to the accountability and openness that should be the hallmark of the stem cell agency.
---
Comments on the conduct of CIRM and the failings of this blog are welcome. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
This week both a subcommittee and the full oversight committee are meeting. Yet only the sketchiest material is available on the CIRM's website. The issues that the committees plan to discuss are basic and important. They include the strategy for awarding grants, development of conflict of interest policy and consideration of qualifications for candidates for president.
Perhaps we are incorrect, but certainly members of the committees will be presented with written reports and background information at the actual meeting. Minutes from previous meetings are scheduled to be approved. Yet none of this available online. No plans have been announced to provide it to persons attending the teleconference sessions at remote locations.
CIRM would do well to follow, as much as possible, the example of California's state and local legislative bodies. In many cases, they cannot legally act on measures until they have been available to the public for several weeks. Without such access, CIRM functions in partial obscurity.
CIRM is still very much a fledgling organization, and due some forbearance. But making information available in advance of the meetings is easily done. It is also basic to the accountability and openness that should be the hallmark of the stem cell agency.
---
Comments on the conduct of CIRM and the failings of this blog are welcome. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
New Links Added
We have added some new links from this blog to other sites that have information on stem cell issues, dealing with both policy and science matters.
Some folks have wondered whether we endorse sites just because this page carries links to them. The answer is no. We link to sites because they seem interesting or useful. But we encourage you to visit them.
Here are the latest links that have been added: The Regenerative Medicine Society, Today's Stem Cell Research, Law Under the Microscope.
Some folks have wondered whether we endorse sites just because this page carries links to them. The answer is no. We link to sites because they seem interesting or useful. But we encourage you to visit them.
Here are the latest links that have been added: The Regenerative Medicine Society, Today's Stem Cell Research, Law Under the Microscope.
Plot Afoot in San Diego
According to Terri Somers of the San Diego Union Tribune: "San Diego's business community is plotting how it might offer millions to subsidize scientists to move to Torrey Pines Mesa, the center of the region's stem cell effort. " Read her article here.
The Readers Write
(Please send your comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. )
Interest and Conflicts Examined
The following was received from the "Old Country Lawyer" in Temecula CA:
"I took the time to read Proposition 71 in some detail a few days ago and have concluded that it is not as bad as I had first thought, at least as regard to potential conflicts. It contains provisions regarding conflict of interest that seem to comport with the general law, in that it both requires disclosure and would prohibit a committee member from voting on matters in which he had a direct financial interest. But the language is a tad equivocal. It says:
'c) Assets and income of public officials which may be materiallyaffected by their official actions should be disclosed and inappropriate circumstances the officials should be disqualified fromacting in order that conflicts of interest may be avoided.'
"Note the use of the term, 'appropriate circumstances.' What does that mean? To me, it says that the writers have foreseen circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a member to vote regardless of his interest. It could be that it is a reference to university employees who are also voting members, but that situation has been directly addressed and excluded from the conflict laws.
"The act also purports to exempt a member from the conflict laws if he votes on a matter of financial interest to one of his competitors. And, in an interesting provision, the meaning of which is obscure, it limits the effect of the conflict of interest laws only to situations where the member not only had an interest, but also actually voted on the issue. I wonder why they thought this necessary? I suspect it may have to do with the requirement of liberal interpretation set forth in the Government Code.
"A liberal interpretation of the financial interest definitions in the Government Code would probably preclude a member acting on any aspect of a competitor's grant, but the various members may find themselves discussing in private session various scientific aspects of either their own or a competitor's grant anyway. Thus, it may be that they are seeing this as acceptable as long as the member does not actually vote on the matter.
"At any rate, the intent behind all this is not very clear, and when such an act attempts to overrule general law provisions on matters as important as the conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act, I suspect the courts might view such attempts with a jaundiced eye. I certainly would. But this is not to say that I think the act would be subject to complete disapproval because of such ambiguities. There is a saving clause that would maintain the basic provisions of the act if any part of it were to be found improper, and in that case the conflicts portion would then be governed strictly by the general law. Either way, it would probably be OK.
"I do not see any great conspiracy behind any of this, but rather an attempt to shape the potentially unique circumstances of scientific inquiry into the cracks of the often arcane conflict laws. They may have succeeded. Then, again, perhaps they did not. Ain't the law fun?"
Interest and Conflicts Examined
The following was received from the "Old Country Lawyer" in Temecula CA:
"I took the time to read Proposition 71 in some detail a few days ago and have concluded that it is not as bad as I had first thought, at least as regard to potential conflicts. It contains provisions regarding conflict of interest that seem to comport with the general law, in that it both requires disclosure and would prohibit a committee member from voting on matters in which he had a direct financial interest. But the language is a tad equivocal. It says:
'c) Assets and income of public officials which may be materiallyaffected by their official actions should be disclosed and inappropriate circumstances the officials should be disqualified fromacting in order that conflicts of interest may be avoided.'
"Note the use of the term, 'appropriate circumstances.' What does that mean? To me, it says that the writers have foreseen circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a member to vote regardless of his interest. It could be that it is a reference to university employees who are also voting members, but that situation has been directly addressed and excluded from the conflict laws.
"The act also purports to exempt a member from the conflict laws if he votes on a matter of financial interest to one of his competitors. And, in an interesting provision, the meaning of which is obscure, it limits the effect of the conflict of interest laws only to situations where the member not only had an interest, but also actually voted on the issue. I wonder why they thought this necessary? I suspect it may have to do with the requirement of liberal interpretation set forth in the Government Code.
"A liberal interpretation of the financial interest definitions in the Government Code would probably preclude a member acting on any aspect of a competitor's grant, but the various members may find themselves discussing in private session various scientific aspects of either their own or a competitor's grant anyway. Thus, it may be that they are seeing this as acceptable as long as the member does not actually vote on the matter.
"At any rate, the intent behind all this is not very clear, and when such an act attempts to overrule general law provisions on matters as important as the conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act, I suspect the courts might view such attempts with a jaundiced eye. I certainly would. But this is not to say that I think the act would be subject to complete disapproval because of such ambiguities. There is a saving clause that would maintain the basic provisions of the act if any part of it were to be found improper, and in that case the conflicts portion would then be governed strictly by the general law. Either way, it would probably be OK.
"I do not see any great conspiracy behind any of this, but rather an attempt to shape the potentially unique circumstances of scientific inquiry into the cracks of the often arcane conflict laws. They may have succeeded. Then, again, perhaps they did not. Ain't the law fun?"
Saturday, January 29, 2005
New Legislative Subcommittee For CIRM
Everybody is friendly about all this, but Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, is making it clear that concerns about accountability on the part of CIRM will be heard.
She has created a special subcommittee to air issues involving CIRM. She called it a "larger forum" than the CIRM's own oversight committee.
Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed Ortiz about the matter. His brief article said hearings were likely late February or early March as Ortiz presses her CIRM accountability legislation. As for CIRM's reaction. Hall reported the following:
"'We certainly welcome her interest, ' said a spokeswoman for (CIRM chairman Robert) Klein. 'We obviously look forward to working collaboratively with her.'"
For more on this subject see, the "hammer" item on this blog, filed Jan. 23.
She has created a special subcommittee to air issues involving CIRM. She called it a "larger forum" than the CIRM's own oversight committee.
Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed Ortiz about the matter. His brief article said hearings were likely late February or early March as Ortiz presses her CIRM accountability legislation. As for CIRM's reaction. Hall reported the following:
"'We certainly welcome her interest, ' said a spokeswoman for (CIRM chairman Robert) Klein. 'We obviously look forward to working collaboratively with her.'"
For more on this subject see, the "hammer" item on this blog, filed Jan. 23.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Rich Guys Redux
Wall St. Journal columnist David Wessel, who wrote the “rich guys” piece about Robert Klein, revisited the subject on the Journal's website. This time he ran comments from a number of readers.
Here are the remarks of two:
Susan Daniels: “Pray tell me this: How does what Messrs. Klein and Reiner did differ from Texas oilmen buying (legally, of course, through campaign contributions) the right to set US energy policy, differ from timber interests buying (legally, of course, through campaign contributions) the right to set forestry policy? I could go on and on. I guess the only difference is that what Messrs. Klein and Reiner did wasn't under the table and might actually benefit more than the richest one-tenth of one percent of the population. If you hadn't focused only on liberal rich guys with causes and while ignoring rich conservative rich guys with causes, it might have had more credibility. Washington is a cesspool and both parties are to blame -- but that doesn't mean you should write a column that would make any rational person assume you are an idiot.”
Wessel's response: “I think The Wall Street Journal has done a pretty darn good job of covering the influence of money in politics -- of all kinds of political coloration."
Joel West: “You (Wessel) were way too easy on the threat that rich activists pose to our democracy. Ballot box initiatives and California mass media politics have had their risks all along. But Messrs. Reiner and Klein have perfected a system that transfers control of taxpayer money away from elected officials to unelected, self-perpetuating bureaucracies.“In particular, Mr. Reiner has been using state tax revenues to run an unprecedented propaganda campaign to create a permanent consensus that state-supported preschool is an inalienable right. State law (plus an activist press) governs how public officials can use public money to lobby the public -- but Mr. Reiner (and now Mr. Klein) are exempt.“Part of the blame lies, however, with the big city media that endorsed the anti-Bush stem cell initiative despite its fatal flaws (documented in a commentary by Francis Fukuyama in the Wall Street Journal on October 25). And our governor showed his "girly man" side by running to the front of Mr. Klein's parade rather than pushing for essential accountability reforms.”
Wessel did not respond to West's comment.
Here are the remarks of two:
Susan Daniels: “Pray tell me this: How does what Messrs. Klein and Reiner did differ from Texas oilmen buying (legally, of course, through campaign contributions) the right to set US energy policy, differ from timber interests buying (legally, of course, through campaign contributions) the right to set forestry policy? I could go on and on. I guess the only difference is that what Messrs. Klein and Reiner did wasn't under the table and might actually benefit more than the richest one-tenth of one percent of the population. If you hadn't focused only on liberal rich guys with causes and while ignoring rich conservative rich guys with causes, it might have had more credibility. Washington is a cesspool and both parties are to blame -- but that doesn't mean you should write a column that would make any rational person assume you are an idiot.”
Wessel's response: “I think The Wall Street Journal has done a pretty darn good job of covering the influence of money in politics -- of all kinds of political coloration."
Joel West: “You (Wessel) were way too easy on the threat that rich activists pose to our democracy. Ballot box initiatives and California mass media politics have had their risks all along. But Messrs. Reiner and Klein have perfected a system that transfers control of taxpayer money away from elected officials to unelected, self-perpetuating bureaucracies.“In particular, Mr. Reiner has been using state tax revenues to run an unprecedented propaganda campaign to create a permanent consensus that state-supported preschool is an inalienable right. State law (plus an activist press) governs how public officials can use public money to lobby the public -- but Mr. Reiner (and now Mr. Klein) are exempt.“Part of the blame lies, however, with the big city media that endorsed the anti-Bush stem cell initiative despite its fatal flaws (documented in a commentary by Francis Fukuyama in the Wall Street Journal on October 25). And our governor showed his "girly man" side by running to the front of Mr. Klein's parade rather than pushing for essential accountability reforms.”
Wessel did not respond to West's comment.
Near-term Commercialism
Reporter Amy Tsao for Business Week Online wrote about the contaminated stem cell issue this week. Here is part of what she had to say:
“The finding is already fueling frustration among academic researchers in the U.S. And it is likely to accelerate efforts by states to fund their own stem-cell initiatives on the model of California's Proposition 71, as well as programs at privately backed companies. 'We need to look at approaches that are not within the boundaries of federal funding,' says David Scadden, co-director of the Stem Cell Institute at Harvard.
“There's nothing wrong with state-funded or private programs, of course. In fact, they may go a long way to offset the federal government's underwhelming commitment to this important field. Still, many of these efforts are likely to be focused on near-term commercial development, not on basic science. And no matter how you slice it, it's unfortunate that U.S. laboratories backed by the most prestigious federal grants will be placed at a disadvantage, vis-a-vis other researchers.”
“The finding is already fueling frustration among academic researchers in the U.S. And it is likely to accelerate efforts by states to fund their own stem-cell initiatives on the model of California's Proposition 71, as well as programs at privately backed companies. 'We need to look at approaches that are not within the boundaries of federal funding,' says David Scadden, co-director of the Stem Cell Institute at Harvard.
“There's nothing wrong with state-funded or private programs, of course. In fact, they may go a long way to offset the federal government's underwhelming commitment to this important field. Still, many of these efforts are likely to be focused on near-term commercial development, not on basic science. And no matter how you slice it, it's unfortunate that U.S. laboratories backed by the most prestigious federal grants will be placed at a disadvantage, vis-a-vis other researchers.”
Thursday, January 27, 2005
CIRM's New HQ? The CEO reality
Want to know the likely location of the new, permanent headquarters of the California Insitute of Regenerative Medicine? Ask the new president?
San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles – all are battling for the 15,000-square foot facility with 50 employees. Tiny in corporate space terms, but meaningful is the word.
Incentives are being bandied about. Free rent and the like. But is San Diego going to come up with a package similar to that provided to the Chargers football team? Not likely. The city fathers in San Diego put their cash where they think it is important – football -- not stem cells.
The whole competition is probably moot. A study some time ago on corporate location decisions determined that the key factor is where the chief executive wants to live. And that person is the yet to be selected. You can bet that Robert Klein, chairman of CIRM, will want to hold out the location of CIRM's permanent headquarters as a recruitment tool for the CEO that he is seeking.
Of course, if Klein really wants to be in total control of the agency, he may deem that it is necessary for the headquarters to be very close to his real estate operations in Palo Alto, which makes a lot of sense anyway.
Any sensible CEO would choose a location in the San Diego area. The weather is much better as are living conditions, compared to the Bay Area. Forget Los Angeles totally. Regarding Sacramento (where I used to live), what can you say about a city known as the Big Tomato?
As for the temporary headquarters, Klein should select a site close to his firm in Palo Alto. Given that he is the engine on all this, there is no point in the interim offices being any distance from his normal location. He can't lease his own space to the institute. It would look bad. So rent something in San Mateo, Redwood City or other nearby location for a starter. Actually, given the nature of the institute, Klein should find a public-minded enterprise to provide the interim space free – let's say the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland.
Here are links to stories on HQ location issue: San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union Tribune, The Associated Press. The Los Angeles Times and The Sacramento Bee web sites show no staff stories on the latest on the HQ process. If you know of other sites with stories on the matter, please send them along to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
-------
Send your comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. We publish almost anything.
San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles – all are battling for the 15,000-square foot facility with 50 employees. Tiny in corporate space terms, but meaningful is the word.
Incentives are being bandied about. Free rent and the like. But is San Diego going to come up with a package similar to that provided to the Chargers football team? Not likely. The city fathers in San Diego put their cash where they think it is important – football -- not stem cells.
The whole competition is probably moot. A study some time ago on corporate location decisions determined that the key factor is where the chief executive wants to live. And that person is the yet to be selected. You can bet that Robert Klein, chairman of CIRM, will want to hold out the location of CIRM's permanent headquarters as a recruitment tool for the CEO that he is seeking.
Of course, if Klein really wants to be in total control of the agency, he may deem that it is necessary for the headquarters to be very close to his real estate operations in Palo Alto, which makes a lot of sense anyway.
Any sensible CEO would choose a location in the San Diego area. The weather is much better as are living conditions, compared to the Bay Area. Forget Los Angeles totally. Regarding Sacramento (where I used to live), what can you say about a city known as the Big Tomato?
As for the temporary headquarters, Klein should select a site close to his firm in Palo Alto. Given that he is the engine on all this, there is no point in the interim offices being any distance from his normal location. He can't lease his own space to the institute. It would look bad. So rent something in San Mateo, Redwood City or other nearby location for a starter. Actually, given the nature of the institute, Klein should find a public-minded enterprise to provide the interim space free – let's say the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland.
Here are links to stories on HQ location issue: San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union Tribune, The Associated Press. The Los Angeles Times and The Sacramento Bee web sites show no staff stories on the latest on the HQ process. If you know of other sites with stories on the matter, please send them along to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
-------
Send your comments on CIRM or the failings of this blog to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. We publish almost anything.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Solitary Update on Presidential Search
If you want to know what the presidential search committee did Monday, you won't read about it the major California newspapers.
We may be wrong, but it appears the Silicon Valley Business Journal -- Reporter Timothy Roberts -- was alone with a report on the committee.
The lead of his story said: "The committee searching for a president for the state's stem cell initiative acted today to limit a potential conflict of interest. The presidential search committee of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine voted unanimously to prohibit board members from voting on the candidates who work at institutions with which the board member is affiliated. "
We may be wrong, but it appears the Silicon Valley Business Journal -- Reporter Timothy Roberts -- was alone with a report on the committee.
The lead of his story said: "The committee searching for a president for the state's stem cell initiative acted today to limit a potential conflict of interest. The presidential search committee of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine voted unanimously to prohibit board members from voting on the candidates who work at institutions with which the board member is affiliated. "
The Readers Write
We would be pleased to publish comments on the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine or the failings of this blog. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Reader Tom Hall, a retired historian living in Berkeley, CA, weighed in with some thoughts
triggered by the “rich guys” column in the Wall St. Journal:
“Wessel worries about who these rich-guys-turned-heads-of-state are actually accountable to. He should be concerned, but I am surprised that he doesn't take the next step. Prop. 71 has simply made explicit what was always latent in Hiram Johnson's initiative and referendum reforms. And I don't mean the sorry situation where the rich have subverted reforms that were intended to free government from the control of railroad tycoons. Rather, Prop. 71 has simply exposed what was always wrong with the initiative and referendum: They are a terrible blow struck against representative democracy and its system of accountability. We can always vote out the rascals in Sacramento; but how do we get rid of the Reiners and Kleins of Hollywood and Palo Alto? I think it is time we junk Hiram Johnson's misguided reforms and insist that the legislature do what it is supposed to do: legislate. Certainly there will be times of gridlock. But they don't last forever and more importantly they are a normal part of the messy business that is democracy.
“I also don't think that it is a good idea to hand the keys of government over to self-appointed advocacy groups. That is another of Prop. 71 little wrinkles. The new law gives certain advocacy groups -- some of whom consist of families of people with degenerative diseases -- a formal role in the making and administration of policy. Klein's defense of this aspect of the proposition is a nice bit of 21st century cynicism. 'Scientists sometimes back very good ideas, but not the best ideas, because they are put forth by colleagues in other universities,' he argues. 'Patient advocates are committed to push the frontiers of knowledge.'
“Here I am not so concerned with Klein's unsupported assertion of scientific culpability. Nor am I exercised by his naive belief that 'patient advocates' are free from self-interest or that they have some monopoly over scientific wisdom. Rather I am worried about the implications of formally investing advocacy groups with public power. These are men and women with no professional credentials. They are vetted by no professional group.Yet under Prop 71 they will have a direct role in making scientific policy and influencing the course of research.
“Are we to expect new initiatives that would, for instance, give families of autistic children
the formal power to pass on educational policy? Or how about a new law that would give the state Chamber of Commerce official authority over the budgets of all public regulatory agencies.
“Prop. 71 doesn't just create parallel governments, it invests private groups with public power in ways that weakens representative democracy. It is reminiscent of the worst aspects of Franklin Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration and the corporate fascism of Italy and Germany that were its contemporaries.
“Wessel ends his little piece predicting that 'if the research proves fruitful, no one will
whine about accountability.' He may be right. But success won't resolve questions about how far Klein's method of conducting the public's business threatens representative democracy. No one complained when the Italian fascists made the trains run on time. Look where that got us.”
Tom, thanks for your comments.
Reader Tom Hall, a retired historian living in Berkeley, CA, weighed in with some thoughts
triggered by the “rich guys” column in the Wall St. Journal:
“Wessel worries about who these rich-guys-turned-heads-of-state are actually accountable to. He should be concerned, but I am surprised that he doesn't take the next step. Prop. 71 has simply made explicit what was always latent in Hiram Johnson's initiative and referendum reforms. And I don't mean the sorry situation where the rich have subverted reforms that were intended to free government from the control of railroad tycoons. Rather, Prop. 71 has simply exposed what was always wrong with the initiative and referendum: They are a terrible blow struck against representative democracy and its system of accountability. We can always vote out the rascals in Sacramento; but how do we get rid of the Reiners and Kleins of Hollywood and Palo Alto? I think it is time we junk Hiram Johnson's misguided reforms and insist that the legislature do what it is supposed to do: legislate. Certainly there will be times of gridlock. But they don't last forever and more importantly they are a normal part of the messy business that is democracy.
“I also don't think that it is a good idea to hand the keys of government over to self-appointed advocacy groups. That is another of Prop. 71 little wrinkles. The new law gives certain advocacy groups -- some of whom consist of families of people with degenerative diseases -- a formal role in the making and administration of policy. Klein's defense of this aspect of the proposition is a nice bit of 21st century cynicism. 'Scientists sometimes back very good ideas, but not the best ideas, because they are put forth by colleagues in other universities,' he argues. 'Patient advocates are committed to push the frontiers of knowledge.'
“Here I am not so concerned with Klein's unsupported assertion of scientific culpability. Nor am I exercised by his naive belief that 'patient advocates' are free from self-interest or that they have some monopoly over scientific wisdom. Rather I am worried about the implications of formally investing advocacy groups with public power. These are men and women with no professional credentials. They are vetted by no professional group.Yet under Prop 71 they will have a direct role in making scientific policy and influencing the course of research.
“Are we to expect new initiatives that would, for instance, give families of autistic children
the formal power to pass on educational policy? Or how about a new law that would give the state Chamber of Commerce official authority over the budgets of all public regulatory agencies.
“Prop. 71 doesn't just create parallel governments, it invests private groups with public power in ways that weakens representative democracy. It is reminiscent of the worst aspects of Franklin Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration and the corporate fascism of Italy and Germany that were its contemporaries.
“Wessel ends his little piece predicting that 'if the research proves fruitful, no one will
whine about accountability.' He may be right. But success won't resolve questions about how far Klein's method of conducting the public's business threatens representative democracy. No one complained when the Italian fascists made the trains run on time. Look where that got us.”
Tom, thanks for your comments.
Monday, January 24, 2005
LA Times to CIRM Cynics: Stand Aside!
The Los Angeles Times was quick to weigh in with an editorial on the significance of the contaminated stem cell issue in California.
Writing in today's edition, the Times said that the disclosure of the bad stem cells "shows why California's $3-billion stem cell research program — approved by ballot measure last fall — has to start delivering dollars to scientists.
"Its progress must not be hindered by interest groups that would like to prohibit it from issuing any grants unless discussions are conducted in public."
Writing in today's edition, the Times said that the disclosure of the bad stem cells "shows why California's $3-billion stem cell research program — approved by ballot measure last fall — has to start delivering dollars to scientists.
"Its progress must not be hindered by interest groups that would like to prohibit it from issuing any grants unless discussions are conducted in public."
CIRM Presidential Speculation
Timothy Roberts writes in the Silicon Valley Business Journal that two names "are being tossed around" as candidates for presidency of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
They are David Kessler, the former commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration who is now dean of the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine, and Richard Atkinson, former president of the UC system. Roberts said they could not be reached for comment.
The report comes as the presidential search committee meets today.
They are David Kessler, the former commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration who is now dean of the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine, and Richard Atkinson, former president of the UC system. Roberts said they could not be reached for comment.
The report comes as the presidential search committee meets today.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
The Senator's Hammer
California's new stem cell agency has a hefty legislative hammer hanging over it, one that is not likely to fall statutorily but one that could serve as a tool to arouse the public, perhaps as early as March.
The state legislation is aimed at ensuring full disclosure of financial and other interests, open meetings of governing and working groups “to the fullest extent possible” and tough patient protection standards.
California State Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, introduced the measure although she was a strong supporter of Proposition 71.
She said Proposition 71 “fills a critical void” and “offers immense promise for developing new medical therapies.” But she added, “If we falter in any way or allow any level of cynicism or doubt to step in, we will lose a great opportunity in history.”
Despite her support for the initiative, Ortiz said it is “glaringly short in providing key protections to the public's pocketbook.”
She wants the state to take steps to ensure a “fair financial return” to California on its investment in the agency. The economic disclosure requirements in the proposition are not “good enough.” The agency's working groups are exempt from state open meeting laws, creating a situation rife with the potential for abuse, according to the senator. And she wants patient protections reinstated that the initiative pre-empted.
The initiative may be nearly impossible to modify by legislative action this year, but Ortiz says she is willing to try. Her press aide, Hallye Jordan, told the California Stem Cell Report that hearings on the senator's bill could come as early as March. Jordan also said Ortiz is considering asking the state auditor to examine at the institute at some point.
Given the difficulties in actually turning her proposal into law, Ortiz' bill seems to serve primarily as a device to be sure her views are given very serious consideration by the new agency.
It would be awkward for agency officials to stand before a legislative hearing chaired by Ortiz and say they are against measures to protect the public and patients. Nonetheless, that is increasinglyclose to the position they find themselves as one news report after another contains criticism of their alleged lack of accountability and purported conflicts of interest.
Late last week, for instance, came word that four members of the oversight committee failed to file economic disclosure statements by the deadline required by law. The 2 million subscribers of the Wall St. Journal were told that the agency is run by a “rich guy” who lacks accountability. (See items below.)
The stem cell institute, in some ways, positioned itself early on as something of a Sister Teresa of the bureacracy – curing the sick and helping the lame. But public's faith in government is limited. Good reputations can vanish overnight in the wake of even a mini-scandal.
All of which means that Sen. Ortiz' concern that that the agency could fritter away a great opportunity deserves serious thought.
For more on Ortiz' thoughts, see the piece she wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle and information on the legislation on her website.
--------
We would glad to publish your thoughts on the stem cell agency or the failings of this blog. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
The state legislation is aimed at ensuring full disclosure of financial and other interests, open meetings of governing and working groups “to the fullest extent possible” and tough patient protection standards.
California State Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, introduced the measure although she was a strong supporter of Proposition 71.
She said Proposition 71 “fills a critical void” and “offers immense promise for developing new medical therapies.” But she added, “If we falter in any way or allow any level of cynicism or doubt to step in, we will lose a great opportunity in history.”
Despite her support for the initiative, Ortiz said it is “glaringly short in providing key protections to the public's pocketbook.”
She wants the state to take steps to ensure a “fair financial return” to California on its investment in the agency. The economic disclosure requirements in the proposition are not “good enough.” The agency's working groups are exempt from state open meeting laws, creating a situation rife with the potential for abuse, according to the senator. And she wants patient protections reinstated that the initiative pre-empted.
The initiative may be nearly impossible to modify by legislative action this year, but Ortiz says she is willing to try. Her press aide, Hallye Jordan, told the California Stem Cell Report that hearings on the senator's bill could come as early as March. Jordan also said Ortiz is considering asking the state auditor to examine at the institute at some point.
Given the difficulties in actually turning her proposal into law, Ortiz' bill seems to serve primarily as a device to be sure her views are given very serious consideration by the new agency.
It would be awkward for agency officials to stand before a legislative hearing chaired by Ortiz and say they are against measures to protect the public and patients. Nonetheless, that is increasinglyclose to the position they find themselves as one news report after another contains criticism of their alleged lack of accountability and purported conflicts of interest.
Late last week, for instance, came word that four members of the oversight committee failed to file economic disclosure statements by the deadline required by law. The 2 million subscribers of the Wall St. Journal were told that the agency is run by a “rich guy” who lacks accountability. (See items below.)
The stem cell institute, in some ways, positioned itself early on as something of a Sister Teresa of the bureacracy – curing the sick and helping the lame. But public's faith in government is limited. Good reputations can vanish overnight in the wake of even a mini-scandal.
All of which means that Sen. Ortiz' concern that that the agency could fritter away a great opportunity deserves serious thought.
For more on Ortiz' thoughts, see the piece she wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle and information on the legislation on her website.
--------
We would glad to publish your thoughts on the stem cell agency or the failings of this blog. Please send them to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)