Big Bucks Giveaways and CIRM Integrity

Handing out hundreds of millions of dollars behind closed doors naturally leads to concerns about fairness and conflicts of interest.

Especially when it becomes personal, such as when a scientist's career and the economic well-being of his family, his business or his employer may be at stake.

It is even more complicated when those who make the de facto decisions (the scientific reviewers) are competitors in the field, albeit from a different state, and when their economic and professional interests are cloaked by secrecy.

Then couple all that to a public agency with $3 billion to hand out for research in a controversial area of science. The agency itself has its own important needs and responsibilities. Above all, it must maintain public trust and its own integrity. It must have candor from its reviewers and protect them from unwarranted attacks and retribution from disgruntled applicants. It must somehow provide the reviewers with the incentive to come to the Golden State and work hard to hand out tons of cash that they will not have a chance to compete for. Beyond that, the agency must maintain the confidence of applicants and potential applicants. They must feel that they are being treated fairly regardless of the final outcome on their bids for the golden ring.

No small challenge. But one that faces the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine.

CIRM's 29 directors will wrestle with the task once again on Thursday in San Diego. They constitute the body that has the legal authority to make the grants. However, scientific reviewers, during closed door sessions, have already scored each grant and made their decisions on funding, which are presented to CIRM directors. The CIRM board almost never overturns a positive or negative decision by reviewers.

But state law permits any person to appear before directors and make a pitch, including rejected grant applicants. When that first occurred last January, it made some directors more than uneasy. It happened again in June. In an effort to bring order to the process, CIRM staff has come up with a plan to deal with requests for reconsideration of negative application reviews.

The proposed "policy regarding extraordinary petitions" for "special consideration" calls for them to be submitted to CIRM at least five days before the directors meeting at which the application will be considered for funding. The policy declares that the petitions should only be submitted under "extraordinary circumstances" and be limited to no more than three pages. They will be posted on the CIRM website. Material may be cut from the public versions to "protect personal, proprietary or confidential" information.

The staff will evaluate the petitions and be prepared to make a recommendation to the board of directors. However, the evaluations will only be presented if requested by a director.

The policy is slightly modified from the plan offered at last month's directors meeting. CIRM President Alan Trounson then described the proposal as a method for handling "extraordinary requests for reconsideration," declaring,

"What we don't want to do is have a raft of complaints that might topple continuously into the press, which would be very damaging, I think, for the reviewers."

CIRM's outside counsel, James Harrison of Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, of San Leandro, Ca., said,

"We have tried to develop a policy that strikes a balance between the right of applicants to communicate with the board and the necessity for thorough, fair, and thoughtful consideration of applications."

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., had his own perspective:

"It is a way to bring order to the chaos of people who decide to, in fact, lobby the board, which ...people are entitled to do."

CIRM Director Sherry Lansing, a former Hollywood studio executive, told Simpson his was an "incredibly clear" summary.

This week's proposed policy has its flaws. It does not make clear what "extraordinary circumstances" justify an appeal, a word that CIRM does not want to use to describe the petitions. Applicants certainly will ask for a definition of "extraordinary circumstances" from CIRM before filing a petition. The proposed policy also appears to allow considerable fiddling with the public version of the petition, permitting material to be censored on the basis of overly broad, undefined terms such as "personal" and "confidential." The proposed policy additionally does not specify that the petitions must be posted publicly before the CIRM directors meeting.

Both CIRM management and board members have acknowledged the review process is not perfect. The proposed policy is a good first step in beginning improvements that will both help CIRM with its mission and protect the organization's integrity as well.

CIRM Spending Plans, More Details on Biotech Loans and Delegated Underwriting,

Directors of California's $3 billion stem cell research agency meet this Thursday to finish up work on its faculty grant program, deal with a proposed $500 million biotech loan program and act on a new plan to handle requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants.

The board will also discuss just how much cash is currently available for grants. A CIRM document shows that currently the agency has committed $1 billion through June 2009 and only has $1.9 billion left to give away. Its plan now calls for the research funding effort to continue through the first half of 2017.

The CIRM document also appears to project a $510 million "profit" from its biotech loan plan. CIRM plans to plow back the "profit" into more grants or loans. The agency has said defaults could be as high as 50 percent in the loan program. It has yet to lay out in a straightforward manner how it can generate "profits" of $510 million with default rates of that magnitude.

The CIRM board will also discuss the "business review" plan for the biotech loan program. It proposes contracting with delegated underwriters, mentioning their use by Fannie Mae. The business review plan cites the Fannie Mae delegated underwriting system for multi-family housing as a success as compared to "recent problems" with the single-family program.

Not provided in the business review plan are details about how the underwriters would be selected(other than issuing an RFP), how they would be paid and what provisions would be in place to avoid conflicts-of-interest in what is a tiny financial world.

The compensation plan is important because if it gives an underwriter major incentives for qualifying businesses for loans, it could also be encouraging lax financial standards.

The biotech loan policy can be found here. Missing is background material on "loan portfolio policies."

Also on the agenda for San Diego are names for CIRM funded labs, a petition to designate a "covered stem cell line" as acceptably derived and a project to consolidate nonprofit and for-profit IP regulations. Discussion of the $210 million disease team RFA is also scheduled, a session not to be missed by those who plan to vie for the cash.

As of this writing, three days prior to the directors meeting, background material is available on their agenda on five of the 13 substantive, public items to be discussed.

Coinciding with the meeting is the first ever Stem Cell Awareness Day. In a news release, CIRM President Alan Trounson said the day, which involves his old employer, Monash University, in Australia, is designed to "inform a broad audience of patients, clinicians, students and the general public about some of the many advances in the field that California is helping to accelerate through CIRM funding.”

The day will include a Webcast from the CIRM meeting location in San Diego involving juvenile diabetes presentation but not of the directors meeting itself. A live, interactive online Q&A is scheduled for the afternoon with California research scientists taking questions.

CIRM will preview its new Web site offline at the directors meeting. The new site is expected to be available to the public in October. Other events are scheduled in California, including ground-breaking at UC Davis on its new stem cell lab, which is partially funded by CIRM, and the launch of a new, stem cell Web site at Stanford.

You can find a full rundown on the day's events here along with instructions on how to log on for the Internet activities.

CIRM Grant Review: Questions About Fairness, Conflicts and Accuracy

Here is the text of article by yours truly concerning questions about fairness in the CIRM grant review process that ran Sept. 18, 2008, in BioWorld Perspectives.
Following this item, you can find related posts, including the text of responses we received from businesses that we queried and links to related CIRM and other documents.

CIRM Grant Controversy Continues with Publication of Biotech Company Names

By David Jensen

BioWorld Perspectives Contributing Writer

Editor's note: David Jensen publishes the California Stem Cell Report and has written nearly 2,000 items on the California stem cell agency since 2005. Jensen's Perspective last month, "Red Flags Remain in Plan to Help Biotechs," dealt with the controversy surrounding CIRM.

Questions are being raised about the fairness, conflicts of interest and even the accuracy involved in the grant review process of California's $3 billion state stem cell research program, the San Francisco-based California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).
While nearly all of the rejected applicants remain silent, a handful of stem cell companies have publicly discussed their concerns.
Complaints About CIRM Add up in 2008
One California stem cell company, Advanced Cell Technology Inc., of Los Angeles, has complained about a financial conflict of interest on the part of one unnamed reviewer. Others have complained about inaccuracies in reviews, the failure to provide an opportunity to rebut reviewers and the lack of a grant resubmission process like the National Institutes of Health. Privately, more complaints are aired about reviewer conflicts and a tilt at CIRM toward funding "big guns," well-established senior scientists.
Last month, Alan Trounson, president of CIRM, told the agency's directors that "large numbers" of rejected applicants have contacted the agency concerning reconsideration of their rejected applications or related issues. But when asked more recently for specifics, a spokesman for the agency minimized the number, saying it amounts to no more than 10 on any round of grants.
CIRM acknowledges its review process is not perfect. It is working on a formal procedure for requests for reconsideration, which will come before directors on Sept. 24 or 25. But basically, CIRM sees no fatal flaws in the making of its grants, which now total $614 million over three years. When CIRM's review process came under fire last month, Trounson told directors, "Scientists, like other people, kind of believe [if] they live in California [they] should get a grant, [that] CIRM was set up to give them grants."
The agency first had to deal with public complaints from a rejected applicant last January. Questions of fairness surfaced more visibly later in the year, the first time that businesses have been permitted to apply for CIRM cash.
Out of the 18 applications from the private sector only one business, Novocell Inc., of San Diego, has received a grant. In the case of Novocell, it amounted to $50,000 to help plan for a much larger disease team grant.
Watchdog Publishes Names of Biotechs That Likely Applied for Grants
Until recently, the names of the rejected business applicants were unknown. CIRM's policy is to withhold the identities of all rejected applicants. But last month, Consumer Watchdog, of Santa Monica, Calif., a nonprofit group that has followed CIRM for nearly three years, disclosed on its website the names of the 18 businesses that filed letters of intent (LOI) to apply for grants.
The list reads like a Who's Who of California biotech companies. According to John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's stem cell project director, firms that filed an LOI to apply for the Disease Team Planning Grant were: Advanced Cell Technology; BioCardia Inc., of South San Francisco; DNAmicroarray Inc., of San Diego; Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation, of San Diego; International Stem Cell Corp., of Oceanside; Novocell; Panorama Research Inc., of Mountain View; RegeneMed Inc., of San Diego; StemCyte Inc., of Covina; and Stemedica Cell Technologies Inc., of San Diego.
The companies that filed an LOI to apply for New Cell Lines Grant were: Advanced Cell Technology; BioTime Inc., of Alameda; California Institute of Molecular Medicine, of Ventura; Cascade Life Sciences Inc., of San Diego; DNAmicroarray; Gene Security Network Inc., of Redwood City; International Stem Cell.; Raven Biotechnologies Inc., of South San Francisco; RegeneMed; the Supercentenarian Research Foundation, of Inglewood; VistaGen Therapeutics Inc., of South San Francisco; and WaferGen Biosystems Inc., of Fremont.
Simpson noted that some companies earlier had "groused" about their treatment. And he asked, "Did the companies get a fair shake or not?"
We queried all 18 concerning the grant reviews. Fifteen did not respond to the questions. One said it was satisfied, one said anonymously it was quite dissatisfied, and one was withholding judgment until the next round of grants. At least three additional companies, however, have publicly told CIRM directors that they have issues with the agency's review process.
Alan Lewis, CEO of Novocell, responded to our query, saying he was pleased with the process. Lewis said his company has "developed a relationship with CIRM" and tried to help it in formulating the grant process. He noted that "very few" industry representatives often attend CIRM meetings.
At the August meeting of CIRM directors, Steven Kessler, a scientific director at Advanced Cell Technology, said that his company had filed information that one of the reviewers had a financial conflict of interest as the result of ties to another company. Kessler did not identify the individual or spell out the exact nature of the conflict. He told directors that he was told by the agency "the way CIRM interprets its own conflict of interest policy, the example I gave you was not a conflict of interest."
Kessler also cited the low success rate of business applications as "clear evidence of bias."
At the same meeting, William Adams, chief financial officer of International Stem Cell, indicated that CIRM directors were excessively worried about "ticking off" scientific grant reviewers with public criticism of the quality of their reviews.
At the June directors meeting, Kenneth J. Woolcott, chief business officer of Cascade LifeSciences, commented on the process but did not seek an appeal, having been told none was available. Shortly after Woolcott left the meeting, a reconsideration letter from an applicant from a nonprofit was read by a director, resulting in the approval of that grant.
Woolcott was not pleased when he learned about the situation. He then sought reconsideration of the Cascade application, alleging that its review included factual errors involving a "fundamental oversight." He also said reviewers did not adhere to the published review criteria. CIRM rejected Cascade's request. (See links below for more information.)
In response to our query, another California company researcher, who asked for anonymity, said reviewers' comments on his application were "ridiculously incomplete" and "misinformed." "You can tell when people really didn't read it," this scientist said.
Leading to Positives for Future Stem Cell Grants?
Consumer Watchdog's Simpson said that the publication of the names of rejected businesses has had a healthy impact. (In fact, BioWorld Today reported last month that the biotech industry is poised to receive more CIRM funding in the future.)
"I'm not advocating that anybody be required to divulge proprietary information, but the application process needs to be more transparent," he said.
"My publishing the names of the applicants has enabled them to communicate with one another, compare notes and figure out how to voice what appear to be very legitimate concerns about the grant-making process.
"I'm by no means a big fan of the biotech industry, but I think this is a case where awards have been tilted toward academia. There ought to be a level playing field."
Interested in reading more? Here are some links to documents relating to the California stem cell agency and complaints about fairness in its grant review process:

• Consumer Watchdog Identifies Businesses Rejected for CIRM Grants
  
• CIRM's August Proposal for a Reconsideration Procedure (this draft is likely to be modified before CIRM's meeting later this month)
  
• Transcript of August 13, 2008, CIRM Meeting
  
• Cascade LifeSciences Seeks Reconsideration
  
• Text of Cascade's Reconsideration Letter
  
• CIRM Response to Cascade Complaints
  
• Transcript of June 26, 2008, CIRM Meeting Involving Cascade

Text of Responses From CIRM Applicants

For the piece in BioWorld Perspective on the CIRM grant process, we queried 18 companies identified by Consumer Watchdog as filing letters of intent to apply for grants.

Three responded directly to the questions, one off the record. A fourth also responded but said it was wrapped up in other business and could not answer the questions at this time.

Here are the questions we asked and the responses from the two companies that responded on the record.

1. Was your company satisfied with the fairness of the CIRM grant review process and the accuracy of reviewer comments? If not, why not?

2. Do you have suggestions for improving the process and improving CIRM's engagement with industry?

3. Does your firm have plans to apply for a CIRM grant in the foreseeable future?

4. Are there any other comments you would like to make on this subject?

Alan Lewis, CEO Novocell,
Question one:

"Yes we were and have developed a relationship with CIRM whereby we participate in their meetings and have tried to help them during the formulation of the grant process."

Question two:

"I believe it is up to the industry to participate actively in meetings to share their issues and concerns. there are often very few industry representatives at such meetings."

Question three:

"Yes---we will submit a disease-focused grant(diabetes) and we have also submitted 2 tool grants. We intend to collaborate with academic scientists to take advantage of the skills and experience of stem cell scientists in California. The disease grant will allow all grant participants to help create a cell therapy for insulin requiring diabetics using human embryonic stem cells as the source. This program will benefit greatly by academics who are leaders in diabetes research translation synergizing with the Novocell development effort to create this first-in-class product."

Question four:

"Since funding of stem cell research is very difficult---both government and venture capitalists have avoided this space--the CIRM funding is incredibly important to ensure this important research is both funded and encouraged to develop innovative products not being pursued elsewhere. Patients around the world will be the beneficiaries of these transforming products."

Dawn Applegate, President RegeneMed

"CIRM seems to be responding to the issue (meetings of Sept 12). We will hold our evaluation until the next round of funding results. The numbers speak for the last round: 50 and 59 applicants, 13 and 10 from industry, 16 and 22 awards, on a percentage basis with academics and industry being treated equally, industry should have received 7-8 of the total 38 awards; the question is were the applications equally competitive."

Our thanks to those who responded. A public dialog is healthy and can help meet the needs of all interested parties, including CIRM.

Text of Kessler's Conflict-of-Interest Comments

Steven Kessler, a research director with Advanced Cell Technology Inc., of Los Angeles, last month raised a question about a conflict of interest on the part of one unnamed CIRM scientific grant reviewer.

Kessler also addressed the issue of reviewer bias and proposed restrictions on the length of an appeal letter.

Here is the text of his remarks at the August CIRM directors meeting, including comments from CIRM Chairman Robert Klein.

Kessler:

"It's my understanding that for the new cell lines awards, that there were 58 proposals overall, that 12 came from for-profit organizations, none of those were recommended for funding, compared to presumably 18 of 38 from not-for-profit organizations. To me, that's clear evidence of bias.

"I've had – we formally appealed this on June 26th. The appeal -- I was the PI on one of them -- was two and a half pages describing for CIRM what a conflict of interest is from a business perspective, and another seven and a half pages specifically rebutting point by point all the reviewers' criticisms. I don't see how we can do this (in less length). We can certainly condense the letter, but what we did was cite the reviewers' comments and what our proposal actually stated that factually contradicted that. It would be more difficult, I think, for the board to understand what actually took place if we didn't do it in that type of a sequence.

"But just to come back to the conflict of interest issues, I've had discussions with CIRM staff just this week following up, citing CIRM's own conflict of interest policy to them on specific issues. One issue was:...If a grant reviewer has a financial relationship with company 'X,'...that is, he's receiving funding from that organization or he's expecting royalty income from some company by virtue of having licensed technology to that company. And that reviewer is sitting in on reviews from other for-profit organizations, companies 'A,' 'B' or 'C' and doesn't recommend those for funding. To us, from a business perspective, that's a conflict of interest.

"This is a bit different from the situation in academia where people quibble about technicalities on papers.... For-profit organizations...invest millions of dollars building up their patent estate because they won't proceed down the development path, which incurs...tens of millions of dollars in expenses, unless they have a clear patent path. So it is really a serious issue if...somebody, some reviewer with conflicts -- and we cited numerous instances (and) in our view there's no reason to recite those right now – where...a reviewer would have every incentive to help impede the competition for the company that he has a relationship with."

Klein:

"Well, I very much appreciate those comments. We do have an existing separate policy for conflicts. We treat them very seriously. We have a separate policy in place for re-review in the event of conflicts. And the staff does a thoughtful analysis. They have gone through and found a conflict in a particular -- potential -- even if they find a potential for a conflict, they look at potentially re-reviewing it. They're trying to err on the side of equity and justice here."

Kessler:

"I realize that. And I was told that the way CIRM interprets its own conflict of interest policy, the example I gave you was not a conflict of interest. So -- "

Klein:

"Okay. So we'll have the opportunity between now and the next session to look at that as well, but we appreciate your comments. Thank you very much."

A "Certain Skew" Among CIRM Reviewers

Jeff Sheehy is a patient advocate member of the CIRM board of directors and a communications director at UC San Francisco. He has served as a CIRM director since its inception and has taken part in the closed-door review of hundreds of grant applications as a member of the CIRM grant review group.

When a public appeal was made to directors last January by one applicant who received a negative review, Sheehy made an interesting comment on the review process.

Here is part of what he had to say,

"It's been my observation within the context of the working group that clinical work is not reviewed (in) the same way as basic science, that we have a certain skew towards basic science in our review process. I talked to one of the reviewers. He says it's almost the nature of the beast....One of the comments that was made is that...that they're on something, but they're not doing anything particularly innovative. But these incremental states are what happens, according to the reviewer I was talking to, who was the expert on translational research, (and that) is what typically find in a clinical program.

"If we look at the new faculty awards and if were to actually have separated out the basic scientists and the clinical scientists, there's a vast gap in the scores except for one exception. And this is because clinical science is not reviewed as highly within the context of how we do our work as basic science. Basic science is new science by definition. Clinical science is incremental steps. I think it's interesting that everyone seems to kind of just gloss over this novel blood collection technique for umbilical cord. This is the kind of things that are important for moving the science forward. This a little thing, but it actually is a very big thing."

You can find additional comments in the transcript of the meeting.

Links to CIRM Grant Review Process

Here are some links to documents relating to the California stem cell agency and complaints about fairness in its grant review process.

Consumer Watchdog Identifies Businesses Rejected for CIRM Grants

CIRM's August Proposal for a Reconsideration Procedure (this is likely to be modified for CIRM's September meeting)

Transcript of August CIRM Meeting

Cascade LifeSciences Seeks Reconsideration

Text of Cascade's Reconsideration Letter

CIRM Response to Cascade

Transcript of June CIRM Meeting Involving Cascade

Transcript of the January CIRM directors meeting, which heard the first public appeal of a scientific review. Search on the term "luben," which is the misspelling of the name of Bertram Lubin, president of Childrens Hospital Oakland Research Institute, who appeared before the directors seeking reconsideration.

Nature magazine article April 30, 2008, in which Lubin comments on CIRM

California Stem Cell Report account of part of the January meeting involving the Lubin appeal.

Advocate Reed Says No Need for Independent Look at CIRM

On Sept. 5, 2008, we carried an item dealing with a proposal for an examination of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine by a bipartisan state department charged with improving government operations.

We said that corporations pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or more for independent assessments of their operations and that CIRM should welcome the opportunity to have a similar study performed for free. The springboard for our comments was an item written by patient advocate Don Reed on his blog, stemcellbattles.com. Reed has responded to our item. Here is what he sent us.

"Several days ago David Jensen printed a thoughtful article inquiring why I was encouraging people to write to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ( State Capitol Building, Sacramento, CA 95814), urging him to veto Senate Bill 1565.
 
"The reason is simple. If people like our stem cell program as it is (I do), they should defend it. The Governor will be deciding in the next few days whether to accept SB 1565, or veto it.  This is the only chance we have of preventing SB 1565 from becoming law.
 
"SB 1565 could completely restructure California’s stem cell research program, as well as removing our state’s official preference for embryonic stem cell research.
 
"The article criticized advocates like myself who are allegedly “blind to blemishes… (and who) regard any evaluation or analysis of the effort as destructive.”
 
"I don't see it that way. As someone who attends and participates in most of the meetings of the stem cell program, I see a constant and vigorous process of adjustment and correction.  The CIRM has had (by my count) four in-depth official audits; the California Court system has examined our (California’s) structure.  Evaluation and analysis is ongoing, and the public is involved in every step of the way. That’s good; it’s democratic; it’s necessary.
 
"What I do object to is throwing out something magnificent after the decision has been made.  California fought for our stem cell program, debated over it, and voted.
 
"Why did we have to use the initiative process?
 
"Practicality!
 
"I fought for three years trying to pass the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act—and California ended up with only $1.5 million a year for that program. It is a good program, spending $12 million, but bringing in more than $50 million dollars in matching grants, new money for the economy—but it is so little, compared to the need.
 
"As a grass roots organizer I helped with Senator Deborah Ortiz’s groundbreaking legislation. She did a terrific job, gaining permission for the (then) controversial new medical procedure. To me, she will always be the Mother of California stem cell research. But those bills came with no money. It took a real fight to get a lousy hundred thousand bucks to run a committee, and no research money whatsoever.
 
"I remember a group of advocates meeting with Senator Barbara Boxer, a true friend of research, and she told us: “What you need is billions of dollars, and we can’t get that for you in Sacramento.” 
 
"So Sacramento couldn’t raise the money to fund the research. Washington dropped the ball for political reasons.
 
"But California came through.
 
"Embryonic stem cell research offers hope for cure not only for my paralyzed son, but also for Sarah Palin’s boy who has Down’s Syndrome, and for millions more who suffer with incurable illness or injury.  
 
"SB 1565 would remove California’s official preference for embryonic stem cell research, which was the reason we passed the program in the first place. Unfortunately the new Republican platform calls a complete ban on embryonic stem cell research, both public and private, criminalizing it completely. SB 1565 is co-authored by Senator George Runner, a long-time opponent of embryonic stem cell research, and if that bill passes, it could provide ammunition to the opponents of the research.
 
"And the program itself? The California structure--with decisions made by patient advocates and experts-- was designed specifically to keep the focus on the quest for cure. No one wanted it to become a self-serving bureaucracy, rambling around in search of reasons to justify its existence, making endless speeches and not actually doing a lot.
 
"We wanted intelligent action, and we got it.
 
"So of course we are going to defend it. Can someone point me to a better program, anywhere in the world?
 
"If so, let me know. In the meantime, I think we should protect what we won.
 
"Anybody that cares about stem cell research should write Governor Schwarzenegger today. (tip: on the outside of the envelope, put VETO S.B. 1565, that helps them."

Biotech Loan Proposal: Questions About Affordable Access

The proposal to create a massive biotech lending program – funded by the state of California – came under additional scrutiny at last month's meeting of the board of directors of the state's stem cell agency.

One director and an outside observer raised questions about the strength of the commitment to provide affordable access to any therapies resulting from the program, which could run $500 million or so. That figure and larger ones have been voiced by CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, who originated the loan plan concept. However, directors have yet to determine actual size of the program.. Klein also in August mentioned loans as large as $30 million but again directors have not yet set loan size ranges.

Those issues could likely come up at Saturday's meeting of the CIRM Finance Subcommittee.

In August, CIRM Director Duane Roth, chairman of the Biotech Loan Task Force, reviewed the program for his fellow directors, According to the transcript, he said the loans will target "funding gaps " where "there's virtually no alternative capital available to invest."

Roth, chairman and CEO of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp., said,

"These are very, very open terms that no bank or no venture capitalist would offer....But that's part of fulfilling our mission, to fund those things that are very difficult and make it easy."

CIRM Director Jeff Sheehy, a communications director at UC San Francisco, raised questions about the strength of the "covenants" in the biotech proposal to provide affordable access to therapies.

He said,

"These are reasonable things to ask from industry if they're going to get our money."

Other directors, including Vice Chairman Ed Penhoet, assured Sheehy the commitment is genuine.

Penhoet, co-founder of Chiron, said the "covenants are real." He added,

"I certainly don't take what's in front of us here in the loan policy as (something) we're soft on."

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., also raised a cautionary note, based on CIRM letters to the Legislature concerning a measure (SB1565) aimed at ensuring affordable access. He noted that CIRM has repeatedly referred to the need for "flexibility" in requiring affordable access.

He said,

"The plea for flexibility comes across to me as, well, when push comes to shove, we're going to cave and give in to biotech."

Biotech Loan Information

Here are some links to information related to the CIRM biotech loan proposal.

Transcript of the Aug. 13, 2008, meeting of the CIRM board of directors.

Biotech loan policy document for Aug. 13, 2008, directors meeting.

Biotech terms and policy May 6, 2008, version

PriceWaterhouseCoopers report-(three parts)
Benchmarking analysis
Loan financial model
Loan model scenarios

Transcripts of the Biotech Loan Task Force

Transcript of Finance Subcommittee June 19, 2008, which dealt with size of loans and possible conflicts of interest

Agendas of the Biotech Loan Task Force
The agendas have links to additional documents dealing with the plan.

A Theatrical Trounson Appearance in San Francisco

"A sharp and generous comedy, for our times, on roller skates," it's been called. So what does it have to do with the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

The answer: The author of the play is Kylie Trounson(see photo), daughter of Alan Trounson, who presides over the Golden State's research effort.

The play, "The Man with the September Face," will premiere in the United States at the Boxcar Playhouse in San Francisco for one night Friday at 7 p.m. A reception will follow the staged reading.

One Australian writer said this about the play,

"The decadent but vacuous nature of the Eighties aesthetic is a rich platform for investigating our existential artist, Jesse, languishing in a suburban intellectual and political wasteland. In synch with the Berlin Wall, he finally crumbles. "

Kylie Trounson is a playwright, actor and teaches drama and acting.

If I were a CIRM staffer, I would be sure to attend this event. It would be the politic thing to do.

Biotech Loan Plan Up Again on Saturday

Followers of the biotech loan proposal from the California stem cell agency will have a another chance later this week to make suggestions and hear the latest permutations in the $500 million or so effort.

The CIRM directors' Finance Subcommittee canceled last week's hearing and rescheduled it for this Saturday. The agenda remains the same as we discussed earlier. And there is still no further explanation of the cryptic topics on the agenda.

As we mentioned previously, if you have something at stake in biotech loan program, now is the time to weigh in. It is likely to come up later this month at the directors' meeting, but that is a less propitious venue for making an impact. Teleconference locations are available in Northern and Southern California.

Whale Shark Nursery

The California Stem Cell Report is now being produced from Bahia de Los Angeles, a lovely, large bay in Baja California on the Sea of Cortez. The area is remote. It only gained regular electricity last year. Previously the village of perhaps 800 persons received electrical power from a huge, throbbing diesel generator that was shut off every night at 10. The town then went completely dark. Satellite phone and Internet service came in several years ago as a result of a special Mexican government program to help isolated communities. Cellular service does not exist. Currently the only Internet link – a rather slow one -- is via an Internet cafe, which requires a dinghy ride to shore and a one-mile walk in 100 degree heat.

As for those whale sharks, during this time of year, juvenile whale sharks swim slowly on the surface of the water in the southern part of the bay, feeding on creatures that they filter through their huge mouths. About 25-feet long, they are oblivious to people and boats and have no known natural enemies. As the water cools, the youngsters leave the bay and migrate to parts unknown where they reportedly grow to 50 feet or more.

Doing the Public's Business in Public

Consumer Watchdog's John Simpson usually spends his days tracking events at the California stem cell agency, but recently he attended a meeting of the Interstate Alliance on Stem Cell Research.

That group is even less well known than CIRM, which sometimes worries that its name does not tell the full story of a $3 billion California human embryonic stem cell research effort.(see item below)

The IASCR, as the alliance is known, indirectly grew out of Prop. 71, the ballot measure that created CIRM in 2004. The research effort in California spawned similar ones by other states, raising concerns about scientific and bureaucratic chaos in research standards.

Thinkers at the National Academy of Sciences and elsewhere decided that something must be done to keep everybody on sort of the same track. Otherwise research would be impaired. Thus the IASCR came about.

Earlier this week, Simpson participated in two days of meetings by the IASCR in Baltimore and reports that the meeting seemed to be a success. The group decided to develop a model form for states to use in helping to certify that stem cells have been ethically derived.

Simpson writes on his organization's blog that it was a good decision, one that was debated and decided in public. That is significant since Simpson a couple of years ago was kicked out of a meeting of the group in Irvine, Ca., despite an earlier invitation to attend.

The current openness of the IASCR is healthy, Simpson writes, and adds credibility to the organization and the entire stem cell research effort. We agree.

The CIRM Name Game; USC Goes First

The University of Southern California has become the first California institution to break ground on a stem cell research facility that is partially financed with some of the state's $3 billion in stem cell research funds.

Rattling around in the background is an extremely low profile discussion of naming protocols for structures financed by CIRM, including a comment from one CIRM director that she hates the term CIRM.

In case you missed the USC event, it occurred Sept. 4 with considerable institutional ballyhoo, but also some media coverage. The Los Angeles Times, which rarely writes about CIRM affairs despite being the largest newspaper in the state, recorded the ceremonies along with some television coverage, based on what can be found at the USC web site.

CIRM Chairman Robert Klein and CIRM President Alan Trounson were on hand (see USC photo above with Klein in tan suit and Trounson on far right) to heft two finely polished shovels. But the man of the hour was Eli Broad (the white-haired man next to the woman), whose foundation popped for $30 million for the facility, which will cost a total of $80 million. California taxpayers, via CIRM, added $27 million. USC said the remainder will come from other individuals and foundations.

The 80,000-square-foot structure will be formally called the Eli and Edythe Broad CIRM Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, but it is impossible to tell right now how it will be referred to on a regular basis by its users.

CIRM has more than a casual interest in the naming of buildings it helps to finance. The stem cell agency requires that institutions secure the agency's approval. Don Gibbons, chief communications officer, told CIRM directors that the USC name will not be official until the directors approve it at their meeting later this month. The naming protocol is also of substantial interest to the institutions that want to recognize individuals or foundations that make hefty contributions, including ones that exceed CIRM funding.

Last month, Gibbons discussed the phrasing used by USC and also language proposed by UC Davis. UCD plans to use "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" as a subscript on the name of its stem cell research lab.

On a straw vote last month, directors indicated that they favored both methods, but not before a brief discussion of whether CIRM is a "very good brand" or whether the "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" is better. The question seemed to revolve around whether the public would understand that both names indicated that cash came from the California stem cell agency.

CIRM Director Joan Samuelson said the CIRM abbreviation had bothered her for a long time.She said,

"I hate the brand CIRM...It sounds like sperm."

She said CIRM "means absolutely nothing to the public," which is financing the stem cell effort.

"CIRM just doesn't mean anything," Samuelson said, suggesting it would be "lovely" to name buildings after people who are suffering.

Our take: The public does not know what CIRM is, nor does it know what the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is. High profile public recognition is not likely to occur short of a huge scandal or an incredible research breakthrough. The difficulty with both expressions is that neither says stem cell research. That is the main reason we initially refer in our items to the California stem cell agency. No confusion there.

Neptune's Follies

The California Stem Cell Report will be dark for a week or so as we begin another multi-day ocean passage in the Sea of Cortez. However, rather than sailing/motoring for 78 consecutive hours as we did previously, we will be dropping the hook overnight at remote anchorages along the eastern shore of Baja California. We have been requested by one reader to post a photo of our current location, which is in the mining town of Santa Rosalia. The image is of the 9-boat marina, which has seen better days. The docks feel like trampolines. Cockroaches play in the marina shower, scampering across your feet. The temperature is 100 degrees, and no air conditioning exists in our sailboat, which is located in the foreground with two black masts. The small outboard boats, also in the foreground, are used by workers at night to fish for squid, which they sell to a processing plant owned by the Moonies of South Korea.

CIRM Announces $60 Million Translational Grant Round

The California stem cell agency this week posted its request for applications for a $60 million grant round dubbed the Early Translational Research Awards.

CIRM is proposing to split $60 million among 10 recipients, who are required to make a three-year effort.

CIRM said the awards, which are open to both business and nonprofits, "are designed to move promising basic research in stem cell science toward the clinic."

It said,

"These awards will support two categories of projects including research that:  1) results in a development candidate that meets an unmet medical need; or 2) addresses a significant bottleneck in the translation of stem cell biology that hinders advancement of effective, novel cell therapies to the clinic."

Letters of intent are required by Oct. 15, applications Nov. 20. Funding may come in the summer of 2009.

Fresh Comment

Larry Ebert has posted a comment on the "Outside Look" item.

A Partial Case for a Deep Outside Look at CIRM

California patient advocate Don Reed has embarked on a letter-writing campaign to have the governor of the state veto legislation aimed at ensuring affordable access to taxpayer-financed stem cell therapies.

Of course, Reed, a longtime and effective advocate for stem cell research, does not see the legislation that way. In an appeal on his blog to the patient advocate community, he warns that SB1565 "intends to restructure" the board of directors of the $3 billion California stem cell research effort. With all due respect to Reed, he has overstated the case in a way that does not necessarily well-serve the best interests of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

His assertion is based on the measure's request for a study of CIRM by the state's bipartisan Little Hoover Commission. Even if the commission performs the study and recommends structural changes, their enactment is remote. They would have surmount a huge barrier, including possible alterations in the state Constitution. That would require a two-thirds vote in both house of the legislature and a vote of the people.

Reed's latest outpouring against the legislation embodies in some ways the deep-seated concerns among some stem cell advocates that somehow CIRM could be thwarted. Many supporters of the state research effort are wary of any public scrutiny of the agency. They are blind to blemishes. They regard any evaluation or analysis of the effort as destructive. The true believers also sometimes seem to be bent on funding hESC research regardless of whether the state of California benefits significantly from the expenditure of $6 billion in public funds, including interest.

Prop. 71 created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The ballot measure was not hammered out in a public process. It was written behind closed doors with no public input. It was put before the people because someone ponied up $1 million-plus to gather the necessary signatures to place it on the ballot. The initiative placed representatives of the beneficiaries of the $3 billion in grants in control of the rules for giving away the money, a built-in conflict-of-interest that naturally raises concerns. Prop. 71 also created difficulties that have repeatedly hampered CIRM's operations, including an unusual quorum arrangement that forced directors last month to fill out their panel by picking a member from the audience. All of which is legal under Prop. 71. And then there is the dual executive arrangement that helped to create unhealthy management tension early on.

All public agencies need and deserve outside scrutiny. It is one of the basic principles of American government and is embodied in the concept of checks and balances amid the three branches of government. CIRM operates largely without those checks. For all practical purposes, it is free from fiddling by the executive or legislative branches of California government.

CIRM is an extraordinary experiment, unprecedented in California history. Some believe it could serve as a model for successfully tackling other difficult social problems. It is important that it be successful, fulfilling its mission efficiently and in a manner that recognizes its first responsibility is to the public – not the scientific community, not patient advocates and not industry. They are all exceedingly important constituencies, but CIRM is first a public endeavor. If CIRM is perceived to be under the control of those groups, its credibility will be damaged. Public trust can be mercurial. It can easily vanish overnight, and the whole field of hESC research can become besmirched.

Corporations regularly pay hundreds of thousands of dollars – if not millions – to outside consultants to analyze and critique their operations as they strive to remain efficient and competitive. The Little Hoover Commission will basically do the same job for free for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. CIRM should welcome the commission and use the opportunity to build support for making some of the difficult changes that could make it more successful in its mission.

Big Money Issues Come Up Next Week at CIRM

A key panel of directors of the California stem cell agency next week will tackle three hefty financial topics, ranging from its proposed $500 million biotech loan program to the amount of money available for grants and loans.

No details of what is to be considered are yet available on the CIRM website for the Sept. 12 meeting of the Finance Subcommittee. But here is the text of the three items to be considered: "Consideration of portfolio policies for CIRM Loan Program," "Consideration of business review processes for CIRM Loan Program" and "Informational presentation on CIRM program budget and funds available for research grants and loans."

The meeting will take place at CIRM headquarters in San Francisco with teleconference locations in Menlo Park, La Jolla, Irvine and Berkeley.

If you have any interest in the biotech loan program, this is a meeting that you should attend at any of the locations(addresses on the agenda). Comments and suggestions can be made at the teleconference locations. If you have specific recommendations, send a letter as soon as possible to CIRM, explaining them and their rationale in detail.

The latest discussion of the biotech loan program can be found in the transcript of the August directors meeting.

California Lawmakers Make Stem Cell History

Another first has been scored in the brief history of California's unique and unprecedented, $3 billion stem cell research effort.

For the first time, California lawmakers have passed legislation that would affect the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, a tiny state agency that functions largely outside of the control of both the governor and the state Legislature. CIRM was deliberately created that way through an initiative measure passed by voters in 2004. No lawmakers or other elected officials had a say in its contents.

The complex proposal, Prop. 71, set an extremely high bar against tinkering in its operations by the legislature. The ballot measure required a 70 percent vote of both houses to pass legislation that would affect CIRM – a super, supermajority vote that does not exist for any other bill. Even the state budget requires only a two-thirds vote. That hurdle has been so difficult to clear that California is now deadlocked in a record-setting, two-month long budget crisis.

Nonetheless, lawmakers last week sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill – SB1565 – by Sens. Sheila Kuehl(see photo), D-Santa Monica, and George Runner, R-Antelope Valley, designed to ensure affordable access to stem cell therapies developed as a result of state funding. The bill was opposed by CIRM, industry and some patient advocates. They complained about its lack of flexibility, economic impediments and a change that would make it easier to fund research that was not based on human embryonic stem cells.

Kuehl said the bill is needed because Prop. 71 "lacks any provisions" to ensure that poor and uninsured Californians will be able to receive state-funded therapies at "the best available prices." She is joined by a raft of supporters included health access groups, retired persons, nurses and others.

The governor has until Sept. 30 to act on the bill. Otherwise it will go into effect without his signature. He could veto it. An override of the veto would seem remote even though the bill passed overwhelmingly. No negative votes were recorded until the measure hit the Assembly and then only a handful. It finally went to the governor after the Senate on Aug. 29 concurred, 37-1, in Assembly amendments.

Schwarzenegger has been a good friend of the stem cell agency and has garnered considerable favorable publicity touting it as a model for a way to get things done. Our bet is that he will veto the bill, but we could be wrong.

(Editor's note: The governor has pledged to veto any bill that comes his way until the budget crisis is resolved. However, he has breached that promise several times already. But his pledge could be good political cover for a veto if he chooses to use it. That also assumes no budget will be in place by Sept. 30.)

The Hunt for Stem Cell Gold

The California stem cell agency next week will provide tips to scientists and others prospecting for some of the $3 billion in research funding that the state is handing out.

Two days of briefings are planned – one in San Francisco on Sept. 11 and the other in San Diego on Sept. 12.

The sessions are targeted at private businesses but are likely to be useful for academicians as well. CIRM says it will "discuss ways to increase chances of successfully submitting a grant to CIRM." It will also discuss the agency's intellectual property regulations and explain them for private sector attorneys, executives and scientists.

These are must-attend meetings if you want to be serious about securing a CIRM grant.

Fresh Comment

Alice Wexler has posted a comment on the "CIRM Hopes" item.

Hook Down

Well not exactly. The anchor is still in its roller, but we have come to rest in a rickety marina about midway up the Sea of Cortez in a community called Santa Rosalia. The town has some fame as the site of an iron church reportedly designed by Gustave Eiffel of Eiffel Tower fame. It was constructed for an exposition in France in the 1880s and then dismantled and ultimately shipped to Baja California, where a French company was conducting copper mining operations. Some skeptics contend that the church may not have been designed by Eiffel, but those folks dare not show their face here.

We will be posting some fresh stuff on California stem cell matters after we work our way through nearly 150 emails and other related news.

Hoisting Anchor

As many of you know, the California Stem Cell Report is produced from a sailboat that cruises the west coast of Mexico. Sometimes, such as today, we actually get to sail. We are departing Mazatlan for a multi-day passage north into the Sea of Cortez. Until we reach our next port, we will not have any further posts. Look for some fresh stuff in about a week or so. We would like to be more definite, but sailing is a pursuit that depends on many conditions totally out of our control.

Fallout From Disclosure of the CIRM 18

Alan Trounson, president of the California stem cell agency, has sent a letter concerning disclosure of the names of 18 companies who expressed an interest in applying for grants from the $3 billion research program.

Trounson wrote the letter to the companies after Consumer Watchdog revealed the names that CIRM had attempted to keep confidential as part of its pseudo policy of secrecy. Pseudo because CIRM chooses to keep some names secret and reveal others. And many of its public grant review summaries contain enough information that any reasonably well-informed person can determine the identity of the applicant should he or she want to make the effort.

In his letter, Trounson expressed regret about the disclosure and said that CIRM has issued a "reminder" concerning its confidentiality policies.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog, published a copy of Trounson's letter on Tuesday. Simpson commented:

"From what I've heard, representatives of companies on the list are talking with each other about why it was only one of the 18 companies, Novocell, received an award. They're comparing notes about the grant review process and how they feel it was biased against for-profit entities.

"There's a good chance they will work together as a group and take their concerns to the stem cell oversight committee, possibly as early as its September meeting.

"See what happens when a little light shines in?"

SB1565: CIRM Hopes Now Rest with Arnold

The California stem cell agency will be looking to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to gallop to its rescue and veto legislation aimed at ensuring affordable access to state-financed stem cell therapies.

The bill cleared the Assembly on Monday, 64-7, and now is only one step away from hitting the governor's desk. It will only take Senate concurrence in Assembly amendments to send the measure, SB1565 by Sens. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and George Runner, R-Antelope Valley, to the governor.

So far the governor has not taken a position on the legislation, although he has been a friend indeed to the stem cell research program. A couple of years ago when CIRM was in financial straits, he loaned it $150 million, which has since been repaid with the state bond funds that finance CIRM's efforts. On more than one occasion, he has cited CIRM as evidence of doing good, both economically and scientifically.

CIRM and industry groups object to Kuehl's bill because it would lock into state law requirements that the agency contends would hamstring it in connection with negotiations with biotech companies. CIRM also objects to a provision that would lower a barrier to the funding of non-embryonic stem cell research.

Reporter Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times wrote about the provision last month, noting that it was inserted at the request of the conservative Runner, who opposes to human embryonic stem cell research.

Leuty quoted Jeff Sheehy, a member of the CIRM board of directors, as saying,

"We may be handing a political victory to people opposed to human embryonic stem cell research that hasn’t been earned and that isn’t supported by the science."

The issue, however, is of little notice in the Capitol, where lawmakers and the governor are embroiled in a nearly two-month stalemate that has become the California budget crisis. The governor has ordered the layoff of 10,000 state employees and seeks to cut the pay of 200,000 state employees to the federal minimum hourly wage of $6.55 until a budget is passed. The spending measure is being blocked by Republicans, who can do so because it requires a two-thirds vote.

One could speculate that the CIRM legislation could get caught in that battle. Schwarzenegger needs some Republican votes for a budget. Perhaps he could generate a couple by signing the legislation, arguing that he is acting to support stem cell research that does not destroy human life.

The possibility may be remote but stranger things have been done under the dome. And lawmakers and the governor are desperate to find a solution to the budget crisis.

Fresh Comment

"Anonymous" has posted a comment on the "CIRM Bans California Stem Cell Report" item.

Consumer Watchdog: Some CIRM Directors Missing Work and Should Resign

Five directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency have missed 60 percent or more of its board meetings this year, the Consumer Watchdog group reported today, declaring that there is "no excuse for flagrant absenteeism."

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Santa Monica, Ca., group, said directors who cannot attend meetings should resign.

Simpson disclosed the attendance performance in a news release after doing an analysis of meeting records since 2006 of the board of directors, which is known as the ICOC.

Here is key paragraph on this year's attendance, which includes names, affiliation and designated slot occupied on the board.

"The worst attendance records for the five meetings this year, according to ICOC minutes, are: Marsha Chandler, executive vice president and chief operating officer, Salk Institute, an executive from a California Research Institute (20 percent); Jonathan Shestack, founder & vice president, Cure Autism Now, patient advocate mental health (20 percent); Tina S. Nova, president and CEO of Genoptix, executive officer of a commercial life science entity (40 percent) and Marcy Feit, president and CEO Valley Care Health Systems, patient advocate Type II Diabetes, (40 percent)."

Also absent from 100 percent of meetings this year is John Reed of the Burnham Institute, who has recused himself during a state investigation into conflict of interest violations involving Reed's attempt to influence CIRM staff on a grant application.

CIRM has been plagued since its inception by attendance and quorum problems, making it difficult to complete its official business. Part of the problem exists because of Prop. 71 language that requires a two-thirds quorum instead a simple majority of the 29-member board. Simpson said his analysis understates the attendance problem because a member is marked present if he or she attends only part of a session. On occasion, some directors seem to be fleeing for the exits in the waning hours of two-day meetings as they try catch planes, we have observed. Simpson wrote:

"At this month’s ICOC meeting Chairman Bob Klein was urging members to act quickly because the board would lose a quorum in 25 minutes. That’s no way to make substantive decisions affecting a $6 billion (including interest) program."

Simpson said,

"Patients hoping for stem cell cures rightly expect 100 percent commitment by board members.  If they can’t do that, the fair thing for everyone is to step aside."

Here is Simpson's complete attendance tally by member or alternate beginning in 2006:

"Ricardo Azziz — 14 of 14 — 100 percent
"David Baltimore — 10 of 10 — 100 percent
"Robert Birgeneau — 16 of 18 — 89 percent
"Keith L. Black — 2 of 2 — 100 percent
"Floyd Bloom — 6  of 6 — 100 percent
"David Brenner — 11 of 11 — 100 percent
"Susan Bryant — 17 of 18 — 94 percent
"Marsha Chandler — 3 of 7 — 43 percent
"Marcy Feit — 12 of 18 — 67 percent
"Michael Friedman — 15 of 18 — 83 percent
"Leeza Gibbons — 5 of 6 — 83 percent
"Michael Goldberg — 13 of 18 — 72 percent
"Brian E. Henderson — 14 of 15 — 93 percent
"Edward Holmes — 4 of 6 — 67 percent
"David Kessler — 10 of 13 — 77 percent
"Robert Klein — 18 of 18 — 100 percent
"Sherry Lansing — 16 of 18 — 89 percent
"Gerald Levey — 11 of 18 — 61 percent
"Ted Love — 15 of 18 — 83 percent
"Richard Murphy — 5 of 10 — 50 percent
"Tina Nova — 10 of 18 — 56 percent
"Ed Penhoet — 16 of 18 — 89 percent

"Philip Pizzo — 17 of 18 --- 94 percent
"Claire Pomeroy — 17 of 18 — 94 percent
"Francisco Prieto — 15 of 18 — 83 percent
"John Reed — 9 of 18 — 50 percent (Recused himself during ethics probe)
"Duane Roth — 16 of 16 — 100 percent
"Joan Samuelson — 12 of 18 — 67 percent
"David Serrano Sewell — 15 of 18 — 83 percent
"Jeff Sheehy — 15 of 18 — 83 percent
"Jonathan Shestack — 5 of 18 — 28 percent
"Oswald Steward — 16 of 18 — 89 percent
"Leon Thal — 6 of 6 — 100 percent
"Janet Wright — 15 of 15 — 100 percent."

CIRM's Secret 18 Disclosed

The Consumer Watchdog group today pulled away a bit of the veil of pseudo-secrecy that surrounds much of the grant process at California's $3 billion stem cell agency.

CIRM – most of the time – refuses to disclose the names of enterprises or individuals seeking its taxpayer-financed largess, unless they have actually won some CIRM cash. However, the agency chooses to identify applicants when it is convenient for CIRM purposes, as was the case in the mammoth lab grant program earlier this year.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., has long contended that good government practices demand the release of the names of those who seek funding from the state of California.

Today on his blog, he disclosed the names of 18 companies that were looking for grants from CIRM. Only one, Novocell, eventually received a grant, despite oft-expressed desires by some CIRM directors that California companies should receive the benefit of state financing.

Simpson noted that some rejected business applicants have complained about CIRM's review process, contending that it "is skewed towards academic science." Some CIRM directors have also questioned the approach of its scientific reviewers, saying that they may overlook worthwhile efforts that are heavily focused on bringing cures into the hospital. Simpson suggested that the companies he identified might want to get together and talk.

Simpson said the names were drawn from a document "used for internal CIRM vetting processes" involving letters of intent, which are required in order to apply for a grant. Simpson wrote:

"Here's the list of firms which filed an LOI (letters of intent) to apply for the Disease Team Planning Grant:  Advanced Cell Technology, Alameda; BioCardia Inc., South San Francisco; DNAmicroarray Inc., San Diego; Genomics Institue of Novartis Research Foundation, San Diego; International Stem Cell Corp., Oceanside, Novocell, San Diego; Panorama Research Inc., Mountain View; RegeneMed Inc., San Diego; StemCyte Inc., Covina; and Stemedica Cell Technologies, San Diego.

"Here are the companies that filed an LOI to apply for New Cell Lines Grant:  Advanced Cell Technology, Alameda; BioTime, Inc., Emeryville; California Institute of Molecular Medicine, Ventura; Cascade Life Sciences Inc, San Diego; DNAmicroarray Inc., San Diego; Gene Security Network, Portola Valley; International Stem Cell Corp., Oceanside, Raven Biotechnologies Inc., South San Francisco; RegeneMed Inc., San Diego; Supercentenarian Research Foundation, Inglewood; VistaGen Therapeutics Inc., South San Francisco and WaferGen Biosystems, Fremont."

A 'Booster Rocket' For Research in the 'Big Tomato'

The headline talks about the "dark side" of stem cells, but the piece was a bit of good news for the University of California, Davis, and particularly one man there who just won $2.2 million from the California stem cell agency.

Reporter Carrie Peyton Dahlberg of The Sacramento Bee reported this week about Paul Knoepfler(pictured), a scientist who recently received a faculty award grant from CIRM that he calls a "booster rocket" that will nearly double the budget of his lab.

Dahlberg wrote:

"His target is a gene that causes tumors – and that can transform adult skin cells into versatile stem cells similar to those in embryos."

She said his hope is to make potential stem cell therapies safer. Knoepfler was quoted as saying,

"I'm very optimistic. I don't think the hurdles we're facing are insurmountable."

Dalhberg also quoted Meri Firpo of the University of Minnesota and Joseph Wu of Stanford, commenting favorable on Knoepfler's work.

The Bee piece triggered one reader remark on its website that expressed appreciation for an objective report. The anonymous commentator said it was one of the few articles that have addressed the cancer risk involved in stem cell therapies.

UC Davis has received $38 million from CIRM during the last three years. The dean of its medical school, Claire Pomeroy, is listed as one of the 100 most powerful persons in Sacramento (along with Gov. Schwarzenegger) by Sacramento magazine. Pomeroy is also one of the 29 directors of the state stem cell agency.

Interestingly, she is not quoted either in The Bee article or the press release from UC Davis on Knoepfler. We assume that is the result of her own choice. Probably a good position to take considering the conflict of interest issues surrounding all the many academic and research executives who sit on the CIRM board and whose employers have benefited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars handed out by CIRM.

(Editor's note: For those of you unfamiliar with California geography, Davis is just west of Sacramento, where the UC Davis medical school is actually located. Sacramento is sometimes known as the Big Tomato because of the vast amounts of tomatoes that are grown in the area. In years past, the Sacramento River would run red in the summer from tomato waste from processing plants.)

Stemcellbattles.com Is Offline; Webmaster Hospitalized

We received the following from patient advocate Don Reed of Hayward, Ca.

"Karen Miner’s and my weblog, www.stemcellbattles.com, is down.

"Webmaster Karen(pictured) is in hospital, recovering from bladder augmentation surgery. The operation was done in hopes of freeing her from many problems of a personal nature, related to her spinal cord injury of fourteen years.

"We are in hopes she will recover fully, but for the foreseeable future, our small column, www.stemcellbattles.com, will not go forward. Karen was the webmaster; now her health will not permit her to carry on this unpaid chore.

"Selfishly, I am devastated.

"Not only did Karen’s webmastery give me a voice, but she and I have worked closely together for more than ten years. She is a part of everything I have done in research advocacy. Co-chair of Californians for Cures, Karen worked hard on the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act, Senator Deborah Ortiz’s stem cell laws, Bob Klein’s magnificent and unparalleled Proposition 71, and the four years continual defense of it afterward, in the unending attacks the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has endured; always, Karen was there.

"Paralyzed in body but never in spirit, Karen Miner is a constant source of inspiration to me and all who have the blessing of knowing her.

"Anyone wishing to send Karen a get-well-soon email may send it me at: diverdonreed@pacbell.net. I will print them out and take them to her in the hospital.

"Don’t send anything electronically complicated or fancy, no e-cards, please. I don’t know how to work that stuff. Thanks.

"Don C. Reed
"Co-chair, Californians for Cures"

Changes in the California Stem Cell Report

We have made a few changes on this page that we hope will be useful to readers. For those of you hunting for a site feed (formerly at the very bottom of this web page), it can now be found at the top just to the left. We have moved the "Links" listings to place them above the archives of recent headlines. And we have added a "related content" gizmo at the end of each item. It is a device that will take you automatically to content that its creators think is connected to the subject of the posting on this report. It seems moderately useful although like most automated search engines it turns up irrelevant information as well. Your comments are welcome along with suggestions for additional changes and improvements. You post them by clicking on "comments" or you can send them to me directly: djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.

Fresh Comment

"Jim" has posted a comment on the "blog ban comment" item. Jim's item links to a Vadlo cartoon involving stem cell research and "Science" magazine.

Minimal News Coverage on CIRM Faculty Grants

News coverage of this week's $59 million in grants from the California stem cell agency was light today.

Most of the stories were heavily focused on the local impact of the grants. All appeared to have been written from the CIRM news release as opposed to actual coverage of the directors meeting.

Here is a listing of the stories we turned up.

Sacramento Bee

San Diego Union-Tribune, story by Terri Somers

San Francisco Chronicle, story by David Perlman

San Jose Business Journal

The Associated Press


Here is a listing of the news releases from recipient institutions.

Stanford

UC Irvine

University of California, statewide

UC San Diego

UC San Francisco

UCLA put out a news release that has not surfaced on its stem cell web site. You may be able to find it in the next day or two by going to the UCLA stem cell home home page.

Correction

The correct number of applications for the most recent round of CIRM faculty award grants is 54. The initial CIRM news release on the subject incorrectly the number as 55, which is actually the number of letters of intent. CIRM has corrected the figure in its news release.

The Perils of Prop. 71: CIRM's Search for a Vote

Crafty. Ingenious. Resourceful. And dubious.

All of which describe the events Tuesday night at the meeting of the directors of the California stem cell agency.

As John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., put it, the board "essentially drafted a member from the audience" in order to achieve a quorum and to be able to act officially.

Simpson, a regular and longtime observer of CIRM, wrote on his organization's blog,

"Assembling a quorum for the 29-member ICOC is never easy. It's comprised largely of high-powered academic and industry representatives. Moreover, Prop. 71 requires a super-majority. A quorum is 19 members."

Tuesday night, board officials had expected the necessary number but for a variety of reasons, the panel was short.

Simpson continued,

"Then as the board broke for dinner, Jacob E. Levin, Director of Research Development at UC Irvine, who was in the audience, asked Board Executive Director Melissa King what was necessary to serve as an alternate member.

"His boss, board member Dr. Susan Bryant, was one of those who was unable to attend. Under the ICOC's rules, board members from universities and research institutions may appoint alternates if they can't make it. The designate must be an executive of the university or institution.

"The lawyers determined Levin met the requirements, staff caught up with Dr. Bryant by phone, who agreed Levin could be her designate and after dinner the board got down to business. Chairman Bob Klein noted that Levin had been present for all the agenda items that had been discussed."

In years of covering hundreds, perhaps thousands, of California governmental hearings, I have never seen anything quite like this. State lawmakers have occasionally been locked in their legislative chambers until their leadership gets a desired vote. Some lawmakers have been dragooned from their homes to come in for a vote. But nothing quite like the CIRM maneuver on Tuesday.

It is one more example of the pitfalls of Prop. 71 and the perils of writing laws by initiative. The board of directors of CIRM is too large to run efficiently and the quorum requirements too high. Other problems exist as well, including a dual executive situation and built-in conflicts of interest. All of which are virtually impossible to change. That's because Prop. 71 altered the California State Constitution to require a 70 percent vote of the Legislature and the signature of the governor to amend the measure. The super, super-majority vote requirement is unprecedented and unique. It makes CIRM nearly immune from tinkering by lawmakers. But it also prevents changes that would enhance CIRM's mission and fix problems that arise when laws are put together in private by special interests.

$59 Million Bonanza For California Stem Cell Researchers

Twenty-three California scientists hit it big today when the California stem cell agency awarded them grants that totaled as much as $3.2 million each.

In all, directors of the agency gave away $59 million in its second round of Faculty Awards, which are designed to support "young" researchers and develop more talent in the area of human embryonic stem cell research,.

The grants will support the recipients for as long as five years. They come at a time when competition for grants at the federal level is increasingly competitive. In a news release, CIRM Chairman Robert Klein noted that the average age of a researcher receiving his first grant from the National Institutes of Health is 43. Presumably, today's CIRM recipients are younger, but the agency did not specify their average age in its news release, which contains the names of the recipients and their institutions.

Grant reviewers decided 20 grants were unequivocally worth funding. Directors added three more from the second tier of applications, which reviewers say are worth approving if funds are available. Nine more grants remain in that category and will be considered at next month's directors meeting. A final vote will also be held then on the 22 applications not recommended for funding by reviewers. Fifty-four applications were received.

Today's grants come on top of a similar round approved last December. CIRM gave away $54 million then to 22 scientists. However, that round was tainted by conflict of interest violations by some CIRM directors, that caused the agency to reject 10 applications. Directors then decided to go ahead with another round of Faculty Award grants.

Initially CIRM budgeted $41 million for 14 recipients in the latest round of Faculty Awards. CIRM did not explain the rationale for increasing the program in its news release today.

(Editor's note: This item originally contained a sentence noting that CIRM's original press release said there were 55 applications although internally the numbers totalled 54. We queried CIRM about the matter. CIRM said that 55 was a mistake and that only 54 applications were received.)

A Tardy CIRM Posting on New Grant Reconsideration Policies

Only hours before its directors meet today, the California stem cell agency has posted its proposed policy for handling requests for reconsideration of negative recommendations from reviewers on grant applications.

The proposal is an attempt to deal with a problem that has dogged CIRM since last January when an unhappy applicant asked the board to approve its grant despite a negative decision by reviewers.

The board was clearly uncomfortable with the attempt, both in terms of fairness to other applicants and because of the disruption of its normal procedures. The issue surfaced once again in June, leading to more extended public discussion of the appeal or reconsideration process. CIRM allows "appeals" only in the case of conflicts of interest on the part of reviewers. However, reviewers do not have to publicly disclose their economic or professional interests.

The proposed procedure requires the applicant to file a request for reconsideration five days prior to a directors meeting. CIRM's president will then evaluate it and make a finding on whether it has merit. The proposal is unclear on whether it means calendar days or business days.

The reconsideration requests, which CIRM calls "extraordinary petitions," will be posted on the CIRM website. Presumably the president's findings will be as well, although that is not specified.

The policy does not appear to eliminate an applicant's ability to appear publicly before the board to seek reconsideration. However, with a negative decision from reviewers and a "no merit" finding from the president, a disgruntled applicant is not likely to find a receptive audience.

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that this important proposal, which affects hundreds of scientists in California, has been posted at the very last minute. It deals with an issue that affects CIRM's credibility and the credibility of its reviewers. It is virtually impossible for those affected by this plan to comment intelligently to the board in a timely fashion.

Presumably, they could send an email with their comments at this late hour – if they are aware of the details of the proposal. It is our sense, however, that few scientists spend much time scouring the depths of the CIRM website, which does not even put a notice of its directors meetings on its home page.

For a look at previous items on this issue, search on the label "reconsideration" or "grant appeals."