1. Stem Cell Therapy

Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy

Tighter Controls on Stem Cell Grant Budgets Hits Quorum Bump

Posted on by


SAN FRANCISCO – A move to tighten
budget controls on grants from the $3 billion California stem cell
agency stalled Monday, but it appears that the plan is headed for
ultimate approval.

The proposal was up for consideration
by the agency's directors' Science Subcommittee, which could not act
on it after it lost its quorum.
Members of the panel generally favored
the stronger budget controls, but had questions about the specifics
of implementing the plan during closed-door reviews of grant
applications. The proposal is likely to be altered to respond to
those concerns. It would then either come back to the Science
Subcommittee or go to the full board.
The plan would make it clear to
recipients of large grants that approval of an application by the
agency's governing board does not provide a carte blanche to
researchers. Ellen Feigal, senior vice president for research and
development, said it can be “extremely difficult” for CIRM staff
to deal with budget problems in grants following board approval.
The committee also approved a plan to
speed the application process on its next disease team round, which
is aimed at driving research into the clinic. The concept proposal
for that round is scheduled to come before directors later this
month. The round will be limited to “more mature stage” research
that is close to a clinical trial, if not in one. Feigal said 10 to
15 applications are expected.
Another proposal to add more millions
to CIRM's strategic partnership program was also approved.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/EqLIk55mLu4/tighter-controls-on-stem-cell-grant.html

UCD's Knoepfler's 'Somewhat Provocative Paper' on iPS

Posted on by


UC Davis researcher Paul Knoepfler is
the rare stem cell scientist who blogs about his work as well as
writing about issues in the field.

Over the weekend, he posted an item on
what he described as a “somewhat provocative paper” published by his lab in
“Stem Cells and Development.”  He said the paper argued
that iPS cells “are very similar in some ways to cancer cells.”
Most of his item deals with the
technical details and background of the research. But at the end of
this item, Knoepfler wrote,

“So what does this mean in the big
picture? 

“I believe that iPS cells and cancer
cells are, while not the same, close enough to be called siblings. As
such, the clinical use of iPS cells should wait for a lot more study.
Even if scientists do not use iPS cells themselves for transplants,
but instead use differentiated derivatives of iPS cells, the risk of
patients getting malignant cancers cannot be ignored. 

“At the same time, the studies
suggest possible ways to make iPS cells safer and support the notion
of reprogramming cancer cells as an innovative new cancer therapy. 

“Stay tuned in the next few days for
part 2 where I will discuss what this paper went through in terms of
review, etc. to get published. It wasn’t a popular story for some
folks.”

The UC Davis press release on the
research, which was financed by the California stem cell agency and the NIH,  was picked up by several online sites, including Redorbit,
Medicalexpress and geekosystem.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/eNPFE1TC2TI/ucds-knoepflers-somewhat-provocative.html

Researcher Alert: California Stem Cell Agency Tightening Budget Oversight on Grants

Posted on by


Some of California's top stem cell
researchers are going to have to sharpen their spreadsheets if they
want to win money from the state's $3 billion stem cell agency.

The agency is moving to beef up
scrutiny of the high-profile, big-ticket grant applications
that it will consider during the next several years. The effort may well extend to all grant programs. The move also makes
it clear to researchers that the CIRM staff is in the driver's seat
when it comes to budgeting on research projects.
The plan was laid out this week in a memo to directors of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) by Ellen Feigal, the agency's senior vice
president for research and development. She said,

“Increasing the importance of
budgetary review will encourage applicants to propose rigorous,
realistic and vetted budgets, and will further our mission to be good
stewards of taxpayer dollars. These additions will not significantly
increase the workload burden on GWG members (grant reviewers) and
explicitly acknowledge that program goals, scientific plans, accurate budgeting and prudent spending are inextricably linked.”

The proposal comes before the CIRM
directors' Science Subcommittee next Monday and would alter the
closed-door grant review process in the following manner, according
to Feigal's memo.

• “To assist GWG review,
appropriate expertise on budget and financial matters (e.g., this
could be in the form of a specialist reviewer, or can also be
assigned to a GWG reviewer with the appropriate background and
expertise), will review applications for sound budgeting and provide
comments or questions to the GWG for consideration by the reviewers
before the reviewer’s final scores are entered.
• “If the financial/budgetary
matter potentially directly impacts on the design or feasibility of
conducting the project, the GWG may consider this issue in the
scoring; otherwise, budgetary and financial issues and questions will
not contribute to the scientific score.
• “As appropriate, review summaries
sent to the ICOC (the CIRM governing board) will identify scientific
as well as budget or other issues. To the extent endorsed by the
GWG, the review summaries will also identify potential resolution
should the ICOC approve a given award with budget issues.
• “CIRM officers should be provided
explicit discretion to consider the budget comments, as well as
budget or other issues. To the extent endorsed by the GWG, the
review summaries will also identify potential resolution should the
ICOC approve a given award with budget issues.”

Feigal's memo clearly indicates that
CIRM staff has experienced push-back from recalcitrant researchers
when efforts have been made to bring costs under control. She noted that
the agency's staff examines a research project's budget during the
“prefunding” review that follows board approval. However, Feigal
said, at that stage, “It is often challenging to make substantive
changes to the budget, based on appropriateness of study activities
and costs, given the ICOC approval at a given budget amount.”
The agency has already examined some
budgets prior to board approval. One grant review in a $200
million-plus round this summer, for example, declared that costs to
prepare regulation packages had “overlap” and were “excessive,”
along with costs dealing with manufacturing and per patient expenses.
That was for a high-scoring application by Antoni Ribas of UCLA, and
he was not alone.
In her memo, Feigal listed other cases
of budgetary shortcomings in recent applications:,

• “Budget does not align with the
program deliverables and milestones. For example, the budget
includes activities not relevant to project objective(s) or that are
out of scope.
•”Budget does not contain adequate
expenses for known costs. For example, an applicant may budget
$100,000 for a GMP manufacturing run of a biologic in which it is
generally accepted knowledge that the actual expenses are typically
much greater.
•“Budget item significantly exceeds
a known cost or seems excessive without adequate justification. For
example, an applicant may propose a surgical expense of $100,000 per
patient for a procedure with Medicare reimbursement set at $15,000.
•“Cost allocations are not done
properly. For example, an applicant is developing the same
therapeutic candidate for 3 indications, and is applying for CIRM
funding for 1 of the 3, but is charging CIRM for the cost of the
entire manufacturing run.”

Initially, the budgetary review would
be used in disease team, early translational, strategic partnership
rounds, and any new rounds “as deemed appropriate.” Feigal said,
however, that “all applications for CIRM awards should be
carefully examined for budgetary appropriateness.”
Our take: This seems to be a
well-advised move, albeit one that is not likely to find favor with
researchers accustomed to loose oversight. It moves budgetary review
to an earlier stage and gives the CIRM directors a chance to weigh in
on those matters prior to approval of grants, instead of creating a
sense of entitlement on the part of recipients that may pop up
following board approval of their applications. Indeed, the plan
makes such good sense that it raises the question why it was not in
place years ago.
A final note: Feigal's memo is an
excellent example of the type of information that clarifies issues
and helps CIRM directors make the best possible decisions. It
provides some history, good evidence for a change and an explanation
of benefits. Additionally, the memo is timely, having been posted on
the CIRM website sufficiently in advance of next week's meeting to give affected parties and others time to comment
and make constructive suggestions. The memo is also far superior to
the Power Point presentations that are often submitted to the board
minus any nuanced, written discussion of the issue at hand.
Next week's meeting will be based in
San Francisco but also has teleconference locations in Irvine (2), La
Jolla, Stanford, Pleasanton, Oakland and Los Angeles where the public
and researchers can participate. The specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/30DY8fml4zE/researcher-alert-california-stem-cell.html

Stem Cell Orthodoxy and Peer Review

Posted on by


Going against the grain can be
difficult as UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler learned
again in connection with his research that dealt with similarities
between cancer and iPS cells.

His “unsettling” findings troubled
some scientists who reviewed his paper prior to its publication in
September in Stem Cells and Development. (See here and here.)
As many readers know, iPS or
reprogrammed adult cells are currently a hot research avenue in stem
cell research because they avoid many of the ticklish ethical and
political problems connected with human embryonic stem cells.
Knoepfler shared his thoughts on the
publication and peer review process on his blog last week. He wrote,

“Not surprisingly...there are certain
members of the stem cell field who would rather focus away from the
ideas that iPS cells are similar in some respects to cancer.”

Knoepfler, whose research was financed
in part by the California stem cell agency, wrote,

“Once we had a manuscript together
comparing iPS cells to cancer cells, we sent it to several high
profile journals without much luck. We thought that the fact that our
data indicated that iPS cells are similar to cancer cells might make
reviewers and editors excited. We thought that the paper was novel
and thought provoking in a number of ways. At the same time I
realized the theme of the paper would be controversial. 

“I would say two general things about
the review process at the two journals that turned down the paper.
First, the reviewers at these journals were enormously helpful with
their suggestions and helped us improve the paper substantially.
Second, they were clearly very uncomfortable with the notion that iPS
cells are related in some ways to cancer so unsettled in fact that I
believe it influenced their reviews.”

At one journal, a reviewer said the
findings were either “not sufficiently novel” or “trivial.”
“Little useful insights” said another. And a third said, “many
unsettling results....”
Knoepfler commented on this blog,

“Yeah, it may be unsettling that iPS
cells share traits with cancer cells, but if that is the reality,
isn’t it important that people know that and think about it, talk
about it, and address the issue with eyes open?”

Knoepfler's item and similar comments
from other researchers that can found elsewhere on the Internet
indirectly raise questions about the California stem cell agency's process
of peer review of applications for hundreds of millions of dollars in
funding, especially in the wake of this summer's unprecedented rash of appeals of decisions by grant reviewers.
The key question is whether the agency's closed-door process reinforces orthodoxy or, in fact, is all but controlled by what
amounts to scientific conventional wisdom. Obviously, no researcher
likes to see a paper rejected or a grant denied. But the record
number of appeals at CIRM and other private complaints could well indicate
that potentially profitable proposals are receiving a less than
welcome reception behind closed doors from agency reviewers.
The agency's board itself is
hard-pressed to make such determinations. It is hamstrung by
procedures that do not permit it to expand an application directly –
only a staff-written summary. Names of applicants and institutions
are censored, although the board is required by law to discuss in
public most aspects of a research proposal. Exceptions are permitted for proprietary information. Additionally, a handful of the 29 members of the governing board do participate in the reviews, which come before final action by the board. 
Currently the agency is pushing hard to
commercialize stem cell research and fulfill at least some of the
promises to voters that were made in 2004. To do that, the agency may
well have to step outside of the normal comfort zone of the good
burghers of stem cell science.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/LITB6cXS-ZM/stem-cell-orthodoxy-and-peer-review.html

$700,000 Blue-ribbon Study of CIRM All But Finished

Posted on by


The $700,000 study of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency is nearly concluded and is expected to be
released sometime in November.

A draft of the report has been sent out
for “peer review” and no additional public meetings are
scheduled, according to a spokeswoman for the Institute of
Medicine(IOM), which is conducting the study. The IOM did not respond
to questions from the California Stem Cell Report about the number of peer reviewers or how they were selected.
The study began last year under a contract with the stem cell agency, which commissioned the effort, in
part, because agency directors hoped the findings by the blue-ribbon
panel would bolster efforts to win voter approval of another multi-billion dollar state bond issue. More recently the agency has
explored the possibility of private financing to continue operations.
The agency is expected to run out of
funds for new awards in 2017. It currently has something in the
neighborhood of $700 million for awards that is not already committed
in one fashion or another.
Christine Stencel, senior media
relations officer for the IOM, said in an email,

“There will be no
further information-gathering meetings. The committee members have
finished drafting their report and it is now undergoing peer review.
Reviewers are anonymous to study staff and committee members; they
will be listed in the front matter of the report when it’s finished
and released.”

She said the stem
cell agency will not be given an opportunity to comment further.
Stencel said,

“Sponsors are not
treated as peer reviewers; that is, they’re not afforded an
opportunity to comment on IOM draft reports prior to public release.
IOM is aiming for a public release in November (the exact time frame
will hinge on the duration of the peer review, which is influenced by
people’s schedules and adherence to deadlines). IOM is looking at
options for how best to hold this release, whether there will be an
event of some sort. Once plans are set, they’ll be noted on the
project web pages and IOM will alert the various stakeholders and
interested parties of the plans. The study is moving along and we’re
looking forward to the report’s debut in the not too distant
future.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Fortune Magazine on California Stem Cell Agency: Warm, Personal and Favorable

Posted on by


California's $3 billion stem cell
research effort today garnered a handsome dollop of favorable
national news coverage– a lengthy piece in Fortune magazine that
spoke of looming stem cell cures and the leading role of the state
stem cell agency.

The article led the Fortune web page online at one point this morning and
likely will be read by tens of thousands of persons, although it was not the cover story on the print product. 
Written by a former senior editor of
the magazine, Jeffrey O'Brien of Mill Valley, Ca., the piece was warm
and personal. He began with the story of his 95-year-old
grandmother and her health issues, ranging from arthritis to macular
degeneration. And he wrote,

“The citizens of California have
spoken. If my grandmother and I had the power to get the rest of the
country to follow, we would.”

O'Brien also discussed the science and
finances of the stem cell business. He said,

“To be clear, the earliest stem cell
therapies are almost certainly years from distribution. But so much
progress has been made at venerable research institutions that it now
seems possible to honestly discuss the possibility of a new medical
paradigm emerging within a generation. Working primarily with rodents
in preclinical trials, MDs and Ph.D.s are making the paralyzed walk
and the impotent virile. A stem cell therapy for two types of macular
degeneration recently restored the vision of two women. Once they
were blind. Now they see!

“Some experts assert that AMD could
be eradicated within a decade. Other scientists are heralding a
drug-free fix for HIV/AIDS. Various forms of cancer, Parkinson's,
diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and ALS have already been eradicated
in mice. If such work translates to humans, it will represent the
type of platform advancement that comes along in medicine only once
in a lifetime or two. The effect on the economy would be substantial.
Champions of stem cell research say it would be on the order of the
Internet or even the transistor.”

O'Brien continued,

“The obstacles along the road from
lab rat to human patients are many, of course, but the biggest by far
is money. With the dramatic events in the lab, you might think that a
gold rush would be under way. That's far from true. Long time
horizons, regulatory hurdles, huge R&D costs, public sentiment,
and political headwinds have all scared financiers. Wall Street isn't
interested in financing this particular dream. Most stem cell
companies that have dared go public are trading down 90% or more from
their IPOs. Sand Hill Road is AWOL. The National Venture Capital
Association doesn't even have a category to track stem cell
investments.”

As for the California stem cell agency
itself, the article contained remarks from its Chairman J.T.Thomas,
President Alan Trounson and former chairman Robert Klein about the origins and progress of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).
O'Brien wrote, 

“The $1.7 billion awarded so far has made one obvious mark on the state: a dozen gleaming research institutions. CIRM has proved adept at getting billionaires to donate funds to the cause.”

O'Brien interviewed a several
prominent businessmen who have contributed tens of millions of
dollars to stem cell research “about the prospects of a legitimate industry emerging.” One was “bond genius” Bill Gross, who has
contributed to UC Irvine. Gross replied.

“Goodness, you're talking to the
wrong guy. Our donation had nothing to do with business.”

Eli Broad, another big stem cell donor,
said pretty much the same thing. And Andy Grove, the former chairman
of Intel, was “surprisingly full of doom and gloom.” O'Brien
wrote,

“For close to two hours, Grove argues
passionately about how the FDA is enabling predatory offshore
industries by impeding progress and the many reasons financiers want
no part of stem cells. "VCs aren't interested because it's a
shitty business," he says. Big Pharma? Forget it. CIRM? "There
are gleaming fucking buildings everywhere. That wasn't necessary."
When I press him to be constructive, he wearily offers one possible
solution. Rather than courting billionaires to put their names on
buildings, we need a system of targeted philanthropy in which the 99%
can sponsor the individual stem cell lines that matter to them.”

O'Brien said, however,

“It was clear during our talk that
Grove wants an economic model for stem cell research and development
to emerge, even if he's not willing to bet money on its happening.
And that puts him in good company.”

While the Fortune article has its
negative points about stem cell research, it is about as laudatory as
it is going to get at this point for the California stem cell agency.
The piece recognizes and even celebrates much of the work of the
agency. The article clearly details the void in financing
for commercialization of stem cell research, bolstering support for
efforts like those in California. Importantly, it also helps to push
the activities of the stem cell agency more fully into the national
discussion of stem cell research and its future. That should pay off
again and again in future news coverage and also benefit the stem
cell agency as it explores the possibility of additional funding –
either private or public – after the cash for new awards runs out
in 2017.

(The story is in the Oct. 8, 2012, edition of Fortune.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

October CIRM Board Meeting Moved to Burlingame

Posted on by


The location of the October meeting of
the governing board of the California stem cell agency has been
changed from Irvine to Burlingame, near San Francisco International
Airport, in an effort to save travel costs.  

CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas said the
one-day meeting is being moved because the session will require the
attendance of a large number of CIRM staffers who are based in the
agency's San Francisco headquarters. They will be involved in
presentations involving the agency's new strategic partnership fund and other matters.
The date of the meeting remains
unchanged – Oct. 25. Look for posting of the agenda on the CIRM web
site on Oct. 15. The site of the meeting is the Hilton Bayfront
Hotel, 600 Airport Blvd.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

CIRM Sponsoring Online Session with FDA on Thursday

Posted on by


One of the lesser known activities of
the California stem cell agency is webinars that put researchers
together with the folks who make the federal decisions about whether
stem cell research will be turned into therapies.

One of those sessions is coming up on Thursday, and it is not too late for scientists and other interested
parties to get on board.
Writing on the stem cell agency's blog,
Cynthia Schaffer, CIRM's contract administrator and compliance officer
had this to say today about the webinars.

“The FDA very graciously donates
their time to speak on these webinars because they too have pledged
to maintain an active dialogue with the industry and provide
education on their regulatory expectations for product development in
the regenerative medicine field. CIRM science officer Kevin
Whittlesey recently
wrote a paper with Celia Witten of the FDA about the role of the
FDA in reaching out to regenerative medicine community, including
webinars such as these. 

“In that paper they point out that
the communication goes both ways:

“'Appropriate regulation requires a
strong understanding of the latest scientific developments to meet
current and future regulatory needs and challenges.'

“So the FDA benefits by learning from
the other speakers in the webinar – what is the current state of
the technology, what are investigator’s current thoughts on best
practices and the latest research findings, etc. They also learn what
the industry is facing by listening to the questions asked and the
discussion of the challenges during the Q&A sessions. A group of
FDA employees attend each of these CIRM sponsored webinars, and the
wide variety of other workshops and meetings that CIRM hosts
throughout the year.”  

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly identified Cynthia Schaffer as Cynthia Adams.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Reproducing Research Results: Removing a Scientific Roadblock

Posted on by


The California stem cell agency faces
no easy task in trying to translate basic research findings into
something that can be used to treat patients and be sold commercially.

Even clinical trials, which only begin
long after the basic research is done and which involve more ordinary
therapeutic treatments than stem cells, fail at an astonishing rate.
Only one out of five that enter the clinical trial gauntlet
successfully finish the second stage, according to industry data
cited last spring by Pat Olson, executive director of scientific activities at the stem cell agency. And
then come even more challenges.
But at a much earlier stage of
research there is the “problem of irreproducible results,” in the
words of writer Monya Baker of the journal Nature. Baker last month reported on
moves by a firm called Science Exchange in Palo Alto, Ca., to
do something to ease the problem and speed up preclinical research.
The effort is called the Reproducibility Initiative and also involves
PLOS and figshare, an open science Internet project.
Elizabeth Iorns
Science Exchange Photo
Science Exchange is headed by Elizabeth
Iorns, a scientist and co-founder of the firm. She wrote about  test-tube-to-clinic translation issues in a recent article in New
Scientist that was headlined, “Is medical science built on shaky
foundations?”
Iorns said,

“One goal of scientific publication
is to share results in enough detail to allow other research teams to
reproduce them and build on them. However, many recent reports have
raised the alarm that a shocking amount of the published literature
in fields ranging from cancer biology to psychology is not
reproducible.”

Iorns cited studies in Nature that
reported that Bayer cannot “replicate about two-thirds of published
studies identifying possible drug targets” and that Amgen failed at
even a higher rate. It could not “replicate 47 of 53 highly
promising results they examined.”
The California Stem Cell Report earlier
this week asked Iorns for her thoughts on the implications for the
California stem cell agency, whose motto is "Turning stem cells into cures." Here is the full text of her response.

“First, I think it is important to
accept that there is a crisis affecting preclinical research. Recent
studies estimate that 70% of preclinical research cannot be
reproduced. This is the research that should form the foundation upon
which new discoveries can be made to enhance health, lengthen life,
and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. The
irreproducibility of preclinical research is a significant impediment
to the achievement of these goals. To solve this problem requires
immediate and concrete action. It is not enough to make
recommendations and issue guidelines to researchers. Funders must act
to ensure they fund researchers to produce high quality reproducible
research. One such way to do so, is to reward, or require,
independent validation of results. The reproducibility initiative
provides a mechanism for independent validation, allowing the
identification of high quality reproducible research. It is vital
that funders act now to address this problem, to prevent the wasted
time and money that is currently spent funding non-reproducible
research and to prevent the erosion of public trust and support for
research.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Text of Comments on Awards to Stem Cell Directors' Institutions

Posted on by


Here is the full text of comments made
by the California stem cell agency, Joe Mathews, co-author of
“California Crack-Up” and Bob Stern, former president of the
Center for Governmental Studies and co-author of the California
Political Reform Act, in connection with the Sept. 23, 2012, article
in The Sacramento Bee headlined “Stem Cell Cash Mostly Aids Directors' Interests.” The comments were abbreviated for
publication in The Bee because of newspaper space constraints.

Comments by Alan Trounson, president of
CIRM:

“To make sure we do the best job of
managing taxpayer's money it's natural that we turn to people who
know most about stem cells and stem cell research. In fact, as the
state's own Little Hoover Commission reported in its analysis of
CIRM: “The fact that CIRM funding has gone largely to prestigious
California universities and research institutes is hardly surprising
and should be expected, given the goals of Proposition 71 and the
considerable expertise resident in these research centers.” But in
recruiting the best minds, we also adopt best practices to ensure
that there is no conflict of interest. Every board member has to
recuse themselves from voting on, or even being part of a discussion
on anything to do with their own institution, or to an institution or
company that they have any connections to. All this is done in
meetings that are open to the public. CIRM’s conflict of interest
rules have been subject to multiple reviews – by the Bureau of
State Audits, the Little Hoover Commission and the Controller – and
there is no evidence that any of CIRM’s funding decisions have been
driven by conflicts of interest. Indeed, CIRM rigorously enforces its
conflict of interest rules at each stage of the funding process to
ensure that all decisions are made on the merits of the proposal for
funding and not as a result of any conflicts of interest. 

“In addition all funding applications
are reviewed by an independent panel of scientists on our Grants
Working Groups, all of whom are out-of-state and meet strict conflict
of interest requirements, and it is their recommendations that help
guide the ICOC (CIRM governing board) on what to fund.”

Joe Mathews' comments:

“California ballot initiatives are a
terrible way to make public policy. And they are even worse as a
method for making scientific policy. 

“It's not merely that
this initiative was drafted in such a way as to benefit the
enterprises of its directors. It's that, under this initiative's own
provisions and the California constitution, it's so hard to change
Proposition 71 and fix what ails CIRM. Effectively, these provisions are
baked in, and nothing short of another vote of people can really make
the change. (Yes, there are provisions, as you know, that permit the
legislature by super-majority to do things, but supermajorities are
effectively out of reach in California). 

“Sadly, initiatives
like Proposition 71 are not uncommon. Many measures are drafted to benefit
the people who would support the measure, or oversee the program
established. This has been very common with bonds. Essentially, to
win the support of various groups whose money and backing is
important to passage of a bond, a sponsor of an initiative bond will
set up rules and include money specifically intended for each group.
This is a form of pay-to-play. Agree to back the initiative and
you're in. And it happens because there's no rule against it and
because passing initiatives in California require difficult,
expensive campaigns. 

“And this sort of thing will continue
to happen. There is no serious push to do anything about this.
Indeed, good government groups and reformers in California have
opposed changes to the initiative process -- because they want to use
the process for their own schemes.”

Bob Stern's comments:

“It would have been better had
institutions receiving grants not to have had their representatives
on the board awarding grants. On the other hand, we want to have the
most knowledgeable people on the board overseeing this very important
program. The question: Were these people the only qualified ones to
sit on the board?”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

$1.5 Billion in Stem Cell Awards Goes to Directors' Institutions

Posted on by


The Sacramento Bee today published an article that reported that $1.5 billion, more than 90 percent of the amount dispensed by the California stem cell agency, has gone to institutions linked to past and present directors of the agency.

The piece was carried on the front page of the newspaper's Sunday Forum section and was written by David Jensen, publisher-editor of the California Stem Cell Report.

The text of the Forum article is below. The Bee also carried a chart listing the top 10 recipient institution. The full text of the comments from Alan Trounson, president of the California stem cell agency,  and two other persons quoted in the article can be found here.

Stem cell cash mostly aids directors' interests

Special to The Bee

By David Jensen

With its latest round of awards earlier this month, California's stem cell agency has now handed out $1.5 billion to enterprises linked to its directors.

The figure amounts to 92 percent of the $1.7 billion awarded by the agency. The grants and loans range from $261 million to Stanford University, whose medical school dean, Philip Pizzo, sits on the agency's governing board, to $170,500 to Children's Hospital in Oakland, whose president, Bert Lubin, also is a member of the board.

The University of California, Davis, has received $128 million. Claire Pomeroy, chief executive officer of UC Davis Health System, is another one of the 29 board members. In all, 27 institutions with past or present representatives on the agency board have received funding.

None of this is illegal. And none of it is likely to change. The situation was created by Proposition 71, the 2004 ballot measure that established the state's $3 billion stem cell agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM. The initiative was crafted so that virtually all of the institutions that stood to benefit from the state's largesse had seats at the table where the money is handed out.

The built-in conflicts of interest at CIRM have perturbed some experts in California government, but concerns have also reached into the scientific community. The prestigious journal Nature, in 2008, editorialized against what it called cronyism at CIRM. It said the agency "must fight the tendency of the academic institutions on the board to hoard dollars."

Some California scientists, wary of offending those who control the lifeblood of their research, privately grumble about an "old boys network."

Joe Mathews, co-author of "California Crackup," a study of major issues in state government, said last week: "California ballot initiatives are a terrible way to make public policy. And they are even worse as a method for making scientific policy."

The stem cell agency has a different view. Alan Trounson, president of the San Francisco-based enterprise, said: "There is no evidence that any of CIRM's funding decisions have been driven by conflicts of interest. Indeed, CIRM rigorously enforces its conflict of interest rules at each stage of the funding process to ensure that all decisions are made on the merits of the proposal for funding and not as a result of any conflicts of interest."

Mathews, California editor of Zocalo Public Square, and others point to the creation of the California stem cell agency as an example of abuse of the initiative process by special interests. The 10,000 words in Proposition 71 were written in private by Bay Area real estate investment banker Robert Klein and a handful of associates, who quietly determined the composition of the board. Klein later served six years as the first chairman of the stem cell agency, leaving in June 2011.

Klein later argued publicly that placing medical school deans and university and research institution executives on the board provided the expertise needed to make the decisions about how to spend the research money. However, the makeup of the board also served to win the support of institutions that envisioned the prospect of fresh cash – in this case money that the state borrows via bonds.

Mathews described the state's initiative process this way: "Essentially, to win the support of various groups whose money and backing is important to passage of a bond, a sponsor of an initiative bond will set up rules and include money specifically intended for each group. This is a form of pay-to-play. Agree to back the initiative, and you're in."

Bob Stern, who co-wrote the California Political Reform Act, said, "It would have been better had institutions receiving grants not to have had their representatives on the board awarding grants."

Trounson said the board follows "best practices" when it comes to grants and legal conflicts of interest. The agency has worked out an unusual procedure to prevent its directors from violating conflict of interest laws as they vote on applications that seek as much as $20 million each. Before each public session, agency attorneys determine which board members cannot vote on a proposal because of legal conflicts of interest. Applications to be approved are considered as a group. Each board member then votes on the entire group by saying, "Yes, on all those except with which I have a conflict."

No final tally is announced. The public can ferret out the overall vote a month or two later in the minutes of the meeting on the CIRM website (http://www.cirm.ca.gov). But the minutes do not list individual votes or conflicts of interest.

Domination of the board by academics and nonprofit institutions has led to bitter complaints from business. Less than 7 percent of all awards have gone to for-profit enterprises. Currently, however, the agency is embracing industry more warmly in an effort to commercialize stem cell research, which raises another set of coziness problems. They surfaced in July and again this month.

Klein, who led the stem cell ballot campaign before becoming chairman of the agency, appeared before his old board to lobby on behalf of a $20 million request from StemCells Inc. of Newark. The California firm was founded by the eminent Stanford stem cell scientist Irv Weissman. He sits on StemCells Inc.'s board, and he and his wife hold 273,821 shares of stock in the firm. Weissman was also an important backer of Proposition 71, working the "billionaire circuit" and raising more than $1 million for the campaign, according to an article in San Francisco magazine.

CIRM's reviewers had rejected StemCells Inc.'s application. After Klein made his pitch in July, the board sent the application back for re-review, an unusual procedure.

When the application returned to the board early this month, reviewers again rejected it. Klein again importuned his former colleagues, and – following a closed door session – the board approved the award, 7-5.

Eleven members were disqualified from voting because of legal conflicts of interest. It was the first time in the board's eight-year history that it approved an application twice rejected by reviewers.

Mathews said no likelihood exists of changing the board structure at CIRM. He said it is "baked in" by Proposition 71. That's because Klein and company wrote into the initiative a requirement for a super, super-majority vote – 70 percent – of each house of the Legislature to make any modifications.

Another initiative could be mounted, but that possibility is also exceedingly remote. 

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

StemCells, Inc., Discloses How it Will Generate $40 Million in Matching Funds

Posted on by


StemCells, Inc., said yesterday that it
will come up with the $40 million needed to match loans from the California
stem cell agency through “existing infrastructure and overhead”
and will not be issuing stocks or warrants to the agency.

In a statement to shareholders, Martin
McGlynn, CEO of the publicly traded firm, discussed the $40 million in loans awarded by agency this summer, including $20 million last
week. The stem cell agency's governing board, after it emerged from
an executive session on the matter, last Wednesday night adopted a
motion requiring the company to demonstrate that it has the matching
funds.
CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, said that
concerns were expressed during the executive session that the agency
“would account for such a large part of the assets of the company.”
At his suggestion, the board approved the loan on the condition that
“it show it has access” to the $20 million in matching funds that
company offered during the application process. StemCells, Inc., also
offered a $20 million match on another loan approved in July by CIRM.
The latest financial reports from
StemCells, Inc., which is based in Newark, Ca., show that it had
assets of $17 million as of June 30 and liabilities of $11.6 million.
The company reported net income for the second quarter of $833,522
compared to a loss of $4 million for the same period a year ago.
In its filing with the SEC, the company
said,

“We have incurred significant
operating losses since inception. We expect to incur additional
operating losses over the foreseeable future. We have very limited
liquidity and capital resources and must obtain significant
additional capital and other resources in order to provide funding
for our product development efforts....”

In his statement yesterday, McGlynn
said the California stem cell agency had “doubled down” on
StemCells, Inc., in approving the two loans. He said the company is
not concerned about meeting the matching requirements. McGlynn said, 
Martin McGlynn
StemCells, Inc., Photo

“To be clear, we do not interpret the
diligence requirement as an obligation to raise a specific amount of
money in a particular period of time, and we wish to correct the
misstatements made by some uninformed third parties that the ICOC is
requiring us to raise $20 million in matching funds. In
point of fact, we expect that a substantial amount of our
contribution towards these projects will come from existing
infrastructure and overhead, salaries for our existing personnel, and
other contributions in kind. Furthermore, we will soon be
reviewing the budgets for both projects in detail with CIRM
staff. Because each disease team budget was prepared on a
stand-alone basis, we expect to see significant economies and
efficiencies now that the company has in fact been awarded funding
for both.”

McGlynn also said,

"Under this particular CIRM
program (RFA 10-05), funding for companies will be in the form of
unsecured, non-recourse, interest-bearing, term loans, which will be
forgivable in the event the funded research fails to result in a
commercialized product. On the other hand, should the product be
successfully commercialized, CIRM would earn milestone payments
depending on how successful the product becomes. Because CIRM
shares the downside risk, and could participate handsomely on the
upside, the structure makes the loan about as close to 'equity' as one could, without having to dilute existing shareholders in order
to gain access to significant amounts of capital.  The company
will not issue stock, warrants or other equity to CIRM in connection
with these awards. 

"Of course, we realize that CIRM
prefers that applicants from industry provide evidence of their
ability to secure whatever additional funds may be needed to complete
any CIRM-funded project, in this case the filing of an IND for each
indication. This is stated in the text of RFA 10-05 itself and
was repeated in various comments by CIRM staff during the application
process. When making the second award on September 5, the
ICOC naturally recognized the sizeable commitment it was making
to StemCells, so it instructed CIRM staff to satisfy themselves
of the company's ability to access the capital needed to fund the
project, namely the Alzheimer's program through to the filing of the
IND.”

McGlynn also said firm's bid for
another $10 million from CIRM could come in the form of a grant
instead of a loan. He said,

"Finally, I can confirm that in
June of this year the Company applied for up to $10
million under CIRM's Strategic Partnership I program
(RFA 12-05). Unlike the disease team awards under RFA
10-05, if companies are approved for funding under RFA 12-05, they
may elect to take such funding in the form of a grant, not a
loan. Our application under RFA 12-05 is for a controlled Phase
II clinical trial of HuCNS-SC cells in Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease
(PMD), a rare myelination disorder. StemCells completed a Phase
I study in PMD in February 2012 and in April announced that
all of the patients from that study showed evidence of cell-derived
myelination and three of the four patients in the study showed
measurable gains in motor and/or cognitive function.”

According to CIRM, the awards in the strategic partner round will be approved either next month or in December. 
StemCells, Inc. stock was trading at
$1.85 at the time of this writing. Last week, it rose to $2.43.
During the last 12 months, its high was $2.67 and its low was 59
cents.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Road to Commercialization: California Stem Cell Agency Seeking Top Level Product Development Execs

Posted on by


Looking for a good job at an
enterprise that is on the cutting edge of biotechnology?

Nine positions are open at the $3
billion California stem cell agency, headquartered in San Francisco.
Some of them could pay more than $200,000 a year.
Several of the new jobs are closely
aligned with the agency's fresh focus on commercializing stem cell
research and driving therapies into the clinic. Scientists and
lawyers are being recruited along with a business development
officer. For some of the positions, travel is required.
One new, high-level position is
described as a senior development officer. The job posting calls for
“expertise in product development for stem cell therapies.” The
person would “directly interact with investigators on CIRM’s
clinically applicable research programs to help provide product
development guidance from preclinical, manufacturing, and first in
human to early phase clinical regulatory perspectives.” An M.D. or
Ph.D. degree in a biomedical science is required. Pay tops out at
$232,891. This person would report to Ellen Feigal, senior vice
president for research and development.
A second, high-level position reporting to Feigal is senior medical officer, who would manage the
agency's portfolio aimed at commercialization of stem cell research,
specifically “focused on IND enabling and clinical development
projects.” This also requires an M.D. or Ph.D. and substantial professional experience in development of biomedical research and
products. Pay also could run as high $232.891 annually.
A third new job at CIRM is
business development officer. That person would help generate
“outside investment in stem cell research in California for both
CIRM-funded and not currently CIRM-funded programs by
biopharmaceutical strategic partners; equity investors (venture
capital and others); and disease foundations.” The salary range
hits $216,270 annually. It wouldn't be surprising if the person in
this job also became involved in developing a funding mechanism for
CIRM after it runs out of state cash in 2017 or so. 
This position reports to Elona Baum,
general counsel and vice president, business development.
And yet another new position is called
director of alliance management. The job deals with the agency's
extensive collaborative funding partnerships, many of which are
abroad. CIRM wants somebody with a law degree, experience in
intellectual property and business law along with strong negotiating
skills. The pay range for the post tops out at $232,891 annually. This position reports to CIRM President
Alan Trounson.
Other open positions include: deputy
general counsel, two science officers and office manager.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

StemCells, Inc., Gunning for Another $10 Million from California Stem Cell Agency

Posted on by


Fresh from winning $40 million from the
California stem cell agency, StemCells, Inc., is shooting for
another, $10 million award from the state research effort.

The latest proposal comes as the
publicly traded firm also faces the task of raising $40 million that it
has promised the agency to match the earlier awards. That figure
could well rise to $50 million given the new application.
Martin McGlynn, CEO of the
well-connected Newark, Ca., firm, disclosed StemCells, Inc.'s,
latest proposal in an article by Catherine Shaffer in BioWorld. She
wrote,

“Already looking ahead, StemCells has
set its sights on one more CIRM initiative designed to fund early
stage clinical trials over a four-year period. StemCells has applied
for that grant, worth up to $10 million, to fund a Phase II trial in
PMD(Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease).”

The article did not disclose the timing on the new application.
StemCells, Inc.'s lobbying efforts with the stem cell agency were vigorously aided by the former chairman of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, Robert Klein (see here and here). And Wednesday evening, the company convinced
the state agency's board to overturn two successive reviewer rejections of a
$20 million proposal for Alzheimer's research. The vote was 7-5.
Klein's efforts came in a record-breaking round of appeals and emotional presentations by patient advocates, which triggered complaints from the board this week about "arm-twisting" and politicking. 
StemCells, Inc., was founded by the
eminent Stanford stem cell researcher Irv Weissman, who helped to
raise millions for the ballot initiative that created the stem cell
agency. He additionally appeared in in the campaign's TV advertising.
The campaign was headed by Klein, who ultimately raised $35 million
to convince voters to create the agency. Weissman is currently on the board
of the StemCells, Inc. His wife is executive vice president.
In July, the stem cell agency board
approved the first $20 million award to the firm for research involving spinal injury.
McGlynn told BioWorld,

"We're the only company that has
programs going on in all three regions of the central nervous system:
the brain, the spinal cord and the eye."

Not discussed in the BioWorld article
was a requirement, imposed by the CIRM board, that StemCells, Inc.,
show it can deliver $20 million in matching funds on the Alzheimer's
award before receiving any state funds. CIRM said no such board
requirement existed on the spinal award, but the firm has promised to
match the $20 million on that award as well.
BioWorld described the awards as
grants. In fact, they are loans. But under the terms of the loans, if
the research is not successfully commercialized, it will be
forgiven.  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

California Stem Cell Firsts: From Emotional Appeals to $40 Million Awards

Posted on by


During the last few months, the $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which is approaching its eight-year anniversary, has chalked up a
number of important firsts.

Most of them came during the July and
September meetings of its 29-member governing board and were related to strenuous efforts by researchers to win approval of awards of up to
$20 million each. Several firsts involved the agency's former
chairman, Robert Klein, who could be considered the father of the
state's stem cell research effort.
So here is the California Stem Cell
Report's list of firsts at the California Institute of Regenerative
Medicine (as CIRM, the stem cell agency, is formally known) for the
summer of 2012.
It was the first time that a single
company – in this case, StemCells, Inc. , of Newark, Ca. –
received two awards in the same round.
It was the first time any company has
been awarded as much as $40 million. Again, StemCells, Inc.
It was the first time that Klein has lobbied his former board (see here and here) on
behalf of a particular grant application. That occurred in both July
and September with one of StemCells, Inc.'s application.
It was the first time that the board
has approved an application that has been rejected twice by
reviewers, again the StemCells, Inc., proposal backed by Klein.
It was the first time that board has
received such a large outpouring of appeals by rejected applicants.
It was the first time that the board
has received such lengthy presentations of emotional appeals by
patient advocates on behalf of rejected applicants.
It was the first time that action on a
grant round has been extended over three months(see here and here). The disease team
round began in July. Action will not be completed until the end of
October.
It was the first time that the
governing board has sent so many applications back for re-review –
five, six if the one to be acted on in October is included.
It was also the first time that the
board has ordered a full-blown review of its grant appeal process
with an eye to making making major changes in it.
Several reasons exist for the number of
firsts racked up by CIRM. One is the high stakes involved in the
disease team round that began in July and the low number approved by reviewers – six compared to the 12 approved by the board, as of
today, out of 21 applications. Another reason involves the
increasing understanding on the part of many scientists that they can
appeal directly to the board when reviewers reject their
applications. However, it is also clear that not all applicants
grasp the full range of appeal possibilities. A third reason involves
the agency's muddled appeal process, which has been a problem for
years. And a fourth reason involves the board's push to drive research into
the clinic and commercialization, which applicants are quickly
learning how to exploit.
Readers should feel free to add their
own firsts to this list. They can do so – even, anonymously – by
clicking on the word “comments” at the end of this item.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Florida Researcher Wins $6.7 Million Grant to Come to Golden State

Posted on by


Dennis Steindler
UF Photo

The governing board of the California stem cell agency this morning approved a $6.7 million grant to recruit Dennis Steindler of the University of Florida to the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, Ca.

The grant was approved immediately following a 45-minute executive session with no further debate. (For more on this, see here, here and here.)

Steindler later told the California Stem Cell Report he would begin work in California as soon as possible.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

California Stem Cell Agency Okays $38 Million for Basic Research

Posted on by


Directors of the California stem cell agency today approved about $38 million for research into basic biology, including two appeals by researchers on applications initially rejected by reviewers.

The governing board turned down five appeals in the round, which attracted 357 applications in its "pre-app" process, 64 of which were invited to apply. Reviewers approved 25 applications.

The following appeals in the biology round were approved:

  • $1.3 million, Deborah Lieu of UC Davis. (Review summary here, appeal here.) 764
  • $1.4 million, Yanhong Shi  of the City of Hope. (See review summary here and appeal here.)

The board also approved another application that was rejected by reviewers based on a recommendation by CIRM President Alan Trounson.  It is very unusual for the board to approve rejected applications based on staff recommendations following a review. Trounson described the grant addressed a major bottleneck in stem cell science.

 The California stem cell agency is expected to post a press release shortly with the names of all recipients. The agency usually withholds names of applicants until the the board formally acts.
(An earlier version of this item reported that the board approved $37 million in grants.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Arm-twisting and Emotion: Stem Cell Directors Move to Reform Appeals on Multimillon Dollar Grants

Posted on by


Frustrated with politicking,
“arm-twisting,” lobbying and “emotionally charged
presentations,” the governing board of the $3 billion California
stem cell agency today approved short-term changes in its grant
appeal process and ordered up a study to prepare long-term reforms.

The moves followed a prolonged series of appeals on grant applications that began in July and continued through today,
setting records for the number of appeals and generating hours of
sometimes tearful and emotion-laden presentations from members of the
public.
The board adopted changes in the appeal process for its next few meetings that are aimed at curbing its
free-wheeling nature and making it more understandable to the public
and applicants. The board also directed creation of a panel to make
recommendations by the end of the year for more wide-ranging reforms.
Directors of the agency were clearly
not happy with the appeal process this summer. However, it has been a
problem since 2008 when Bert Lubin, now a director of the stem cell
agency and CEO of Childrens Hospital of Oakland, Ca., was the first applicant to make a public pitch before the board to overturn
reviewer rejection of his application.
One director, UCLA medical school dean,
Gerald Levey, said at the time,

"I don't think we can run a board
this way. If we do, it would be chaos." 

Today, CIRM Director Carmen Puliafito,
dean of the USC School of Medicine, said that “lots of lobbying”
was going over the last couple of months. He predicted there will
more lobbying and “more politicking.” Puliafito said,

“On big money grants, people will be
calling their friends.”

The name of former board chairman,
Robert Klein, was not mentioned during this afternoon's discussion.
But Klein vigorously and successfully backed an appeal (see here,
here and here) by StemCells, Inc., of Newark, Ca., for a $20 million
application that had been rejected twice by reviewers. Last night the
board approved the award on a 7-5 vote. It was the first time the
board has approved an award that was rejected twice by its reviewers.
Director Jeff Sheehy, co-vice chairman
of the review group and a communications manager at UC San Francisco,
said the agency is dealing with “big money grants” that are
“incredibly complex.” He also referred to “certain arm-twisting
by certain individuals.”
Several board members made references
to appearances by persons who have diseases or conditions that might
be affected by CIRM-financed research. Director Duane Roth, head of
CONNECT, a San Diego business development organization, said the
board is making decisions in “an emotionally charged setting.”
Other issues cited by directors include
the integrity of review process, fairness, consistency, shifting
appeals procedures, transparency and board discipline on appeals.

James Harrison, outside counsel to the board, said the board's action today includes "eliminating the reference to unpublished data in the discussion of 'material new information," imposing a 3-page limit on other correspondence, explaining that applicants should have seven business days from the time the (grants review group) recommendation is made available to them to file an (extraordinary petition), and posting all of the information regarding these policies in one place on CIRM’s website."

For a list of articles and CIRM
documents dealing with the appeal process, see here.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Dennis Steindler Application: Excerpt from Review Summary

Posted on by


The CIRM summary of the review on the
$6.7 million grant to recruit Florida scientist Dennis Steindler to
the Parkinson's Institute in California carried a strong minority report. However, the review itself drew fire this morning from some CIRM board members.
They included patient advocate Jeff Sheehy, co-vice chair of the grant review group, who supported approval of the grant. He noted that the low score reflected two extreme opinions. He said some of the reviewers were doing their research on the Parkinson's Institute on the Internet during the actual review.  Sheehy said that was not a "good way" to perform a review and reflected a "major short-coming." 
Here is an excerpt from the review.

"In summary, this is an
application from an established leader in NSC biology to pursue
research focused on disease mechanisms in PD. Strengths of the
proposal include the quality of the PI, the focus of the project on
an interesting hypothesis, and the leadership in basic science that
the candidate would bring to the applicant institution. Weaknesses
included deficiencies in the research plan, the limited track-record
of the PI in PD research and an institutional environment lacking
adequate support for basic science investigations."

The summary continued, 

"During programmatic discussion some GWG (grant review group) members cited a need to broaden stem cell leadership not only at the
large universities but also at the smaller institutions as well. They
felt that the candidate's recruitment would strengthen the applicant
institution and provide leadership and strength in basic research.
The need for increased research focused on Parkinson's Disease was
also cited by some reviewers. A motion to recommend the application
for funding carried with a majority vote. Because more than 35% of
GWG members opposed the motion, opponents have exercised their right
to have that position reported to the ICOC. The consensus statement
from this group is as follows: 'Despite the facts that the
applicant has many excellent attributes, that Parkinson's disease is
a key area of interest, and that the applicant institution may
deserve additional consideration, our opinion is that the application
clearly falls short in several critical scientific areas that
outweigh the programmatic concerns and do not justify a
recommendation for funding. We believe that the people of California
depend upon us to make recommendations based on our scientific
expertise, for outcomes that are most likely to impact medicine and
the health and treatment of their citizens. We believe that their
money can be better spent.'"

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Board Concludes Private Session on Recruitment Grant

Posted on by


The governing board of the California stem cell agency has just concluded a 45 minute executive session on a $6.7 million grant to recruit a Florida scientist to the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, Ca.

It was the longest executive session ever on a recruitment grant, which are usually approved routinely with little serious discussion.

The board is now resuming discussion of the matter(see here and here.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss


  1. Stem Cell Therapy