The Los Angeles Times this
morning carried a column about the “charmed relationship” between
StemCells, Inc., its “powerful friends” and the $3 billion
California stem cell agency.

“What was the company's
secret? StemCells says it's addressing 'a serious unmet medical need'
in Alzheimer's research. But it doesn't hurt that the company also
had powerful friends going to bat for it, including two guys who were
instrumental in getting CIRM off the ground in the first place.”

“But private enterprise
is new territory for CIRM, which has steered almost all its grants
thus far to nonprofit institutions. Those efforts haven't been
trouble-free: With some 90% of the agency's grants having gone to
institutions with representatives on its board, the agency has long
been vulnerable to charges of conflicts of interest. The last thing
it needed was to show a similar flaw in its dealings with private
companies too.”

“(Weissman) has also
been a leading beneficiary of CIRM funding, listed as the principal
researcher on three grants worth a total of $24.5 million. The agency
also contributed $43.6 million toward the construction of his
institute's glittering $200-million research building on the Stanford
campus.”

“The problem is that
StemCells doesn't have $20 million in spare funds. Its quarterly
report for the period ended June 30 listed about $10.4
million in liquid assets, and shows it's burning about $5 million per
quarter. Its prospects of raising significant cash from investors
are, shall we say, conjectural.

“As it happens, within
days of the board's vote, the
firm downplayed any pledge 'to raise a specific amount of
money in a particular period of time.' The idea that CIRM 'is
requiring us to raise $20 million in matching funds' is a
'misimpression,' it said. Indeed, it suggested that it might count
its existing spending on salaries and other 'infrastructure and
overhead' as part of the match. StemCells declined my request that it
expand on its statement. 

“CIRM spokesman Kevin
McCormack says the agency is currently scrutinizing StemCells'
finances 'to see what it is they have and whether it meets the
requirements and expectations of the board.' The goal is to set
'terms and conditions that provide maximum protection for taxpayer
dollars.' He says, 'If we can't agree on a plan, the award will
not be funded.'"

“The agency shouldn't be
deciding on the spot what does or doesn't qualify as matching funds.
It should have clear guidelines in advance.

“Nor should the board
overturn the judgment of its scientific review panels without
clear-cut reasons....The record suggests that the handling of the
StemCells appeal was at best haphazard and at worst redolent of
cronyism.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6qvBfSLP3RE/los-angeles-times-stemcells-inc-award.html

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.

“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.”

“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.”

“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

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

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

Here is the text of Robert Klein's response today to the California Stem Cell Report concerning his appearance before the governing board of the California stem cell agency July 26, 2012. Klein, former chairman of the agency, real estate investment banker and attorney, promoted two applications seeking $20 million each from the agency. Both applications had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. Here is a link to an item on the subject.

"Dear David,
"You have posed two
questions related to my continuing role as a Patient Advocate in
contributing information to the Board of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, in an effort to optimize decisions on medical
and scientific grants and loans for research that could mitigate
and/or cure chronic diseases or injuries. 

"Q: Do you have any sort
of financial ties to StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or
firms that would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC(the CIRM governing board)?
"A: I have no financial
interest in StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or firms that
would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC. In fact, I
have no financial interest in any biomedical research company.

"Q: Do you think it is
appropriate for the former chairman of the ICOC to lobby that body on
behalf of awards to specific companies or individuals?
"A: First, it is
fundamental that the terms be defined to properly respond to your
question. A “Patient Advocate” is a member of a patient family or
a medical/scientific care /support group who advocates for medical
and scientific advances that might potentially mitigate and/or cure a
patient’s chronic disease or injury. A “Patient Advocate” is
not paid for his/her advocacy, unless they are staff members of a
non-profit institution dedicated to a specific disease or group of
diseases or injuries. 

"Second, a “lobbyist”
is a paid representative of a company or a for-profit institution(s)
with a financial interest in the outcome of a governmental decision. 

"I am serving as a
Patient Advocate in my presentations to the Board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As the former Chairman of the
Board, I have a particular responsibility to contribute my background
knowledge and experience for the Board to consider, along with all
new information, in reaching their best decision. I hope other former
Board members, who possess a wealth of scientific, medical, and
institutional knowledge that can benefit the Board, would consider
the value they can contribute to future decisions. As Board terms
expire, it will be important not to lose that institutional knowledge
and medical/scientific expertise that has been built up over the last
seven plus years of the Agency’s existence. 

"In an outline format,
I would suggest the following areas where the knowledge of former
Board members can be especially valuable in optimizing the input for
Board decisions in the future. 

"A number of Board
members have participated in up to 20 or more Peer Review meetings,
some of which cover multiple days. Current grant or loan requests
represent the result of scientific and medical advancement that has
been intensely vetted in prior peer reviews; the information gained
in those peer reviews should not be lost, when a subsequent grant or
loan request – built on the earlier research outcomes – is
considered. Each peer review session has the benefit of different
specialists and scientists and/or biotech representatives with
unique backgrounds and areas of expertise. The value of the prior
contributions may be pivotal, in considering a later application,
developed from the earlier medical or research advances funded
through CIRM’s grants or loans. The current peer review,
scientific staff presentation, and Board expertise, is not the limit
of the Board’s information, in reaching the best current decision.
To the extent the Board can draw from prior peer reviews (unique
insights), prior scientific staff presentations, and prior Board
expertise, additional information that can enhance a potential
decision, the Board has the opportunity to optimize its decision
making process. This is particularly valuable, when there is a high
standard deviation – a substantial split – in the scoring
positions from the current peer review. 

"Beyond peer review
participation, Board members have intensely engaged in another 35
plus Working Group sessions on Facilities and Standards, in addition
to more than 70 Board meetings and over 125 Subcommittee meetings,
as of August 2012. Retiring Board members possess a treasury of
information on policy development, process, federal and state laws
and regulations, and the regulations of the agency, as well as in
depth information on research facilities and capabilities throughout
California, the nation, and the world. It takes a substantial length
of time for a new Board member to gain a comprehensive knowledge in
all of these areas and each Board member will develop unique
insights, which it would be a tragedy to lose. As Chairman, I
frequently reached back to consult with former Board members on
areas of their special expertise and I would hope that all current
and future Board members utilize the significant asset in developed
knowledge of the prior Board members. To the extent prior members
can be available for public meetings, this would be a substantial
benefit to the agency to broadly inform the Board, the scientific
staff, and the public. 

"The Board has a
unique contribution to make on programmatic resource allocations and
risk management of the research and clinical investments in each
disease area. The opportunities in some disease areas for major
advancement are numerous, whereas there are major diseases and/or
critical research areas where the potential, high-value advancement
options are relatively limited. For Board members who have
participated in over 20 peer reviews and 70 Board meetings, the
programmatic perspective on the opportunities in each disease area
has been highly developed. Concurrently, those Board members or
former Board members have substantial knowledge that is of critical
value in reaching programmatic decisions on the number of
opportunities for advancement in any specific disease area and the
relative risk that needs to be taken to accomplish meaningful
breakthroughs in advancing the research and clinical opportunities
in a disease and/or injury area. 

"I hope these examples
of how former Board members can contribute to the current Board’s
information in reaching decisions on the best medical/scientific
grants and loans are helpful. As I stated earlier, it would be a
tragedy if the expertise of Board members built up over six or more
years is lost. The field is extremely complicated and the Board needs
the opportunity to consider all of the information available. The
Board can choose to accept or reject any past advice or opinions
gained from prior peer review sessions or Board meetings, but the
Board should have access to the full spectrum of information and the
treasury of scientific and medical advice the agency has received
since its inception.

"There are areas that I
have not addresses in this short response, such as the institutional
value of applicants being able to rely upon prior scientific and/or
policy direction, in their current applications. From a historical
perspective, prior Board members and/or the Chairman can have
significant information that is relevant to these evaluations,
especially if the individual Board member served on a special Task
Force , Subcommittee or peer review. These more complicated areas of
individual contribution by former Board members I can address in a
future communication; but, this specific subject – alone – could
comprise several pages and I would like to obtain critical advice and
perspective from other former Board members and the scientific
community before discussing this area in greater detail.
"Bob Klein
"Chair Emeritus
"California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine"

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

“I wanted to comment on this piece
from the perspective of another patient advocate.  While I think
you know that I did not always agree with Bob Klein during his tenure
on the ICOC(the agency's governing board), I would strongly defend
his right to appear and give his opinions to the Board.  He is a
private citizen now, albeit one with considerable experience and
expertise, and I think his greatest vested interest in this case
stems (you should pardon the expression) from being the child of a
parent with Alzheimers.  As you point out, some eyebrows may be
raised, and I can imagine that some board members might be swayed in
either direction by his testimony, but  he is a passionate and
committed advocate, and he has the right to advocate before us.”

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

A robust discussion has arisen
concerning Bob Klein and his appearance last month before the
governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, a body
that he once chaired and an enterprise that he once oversaw.

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

Andy McMahon Harvard photo

The governing board of the California stem cell agency this afternoon approved a $5.7 million grant to lure a Harvard researcher to the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

The scientist is Andrew McMahon, who serves on the executive committee of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. CIRM officials said McMahon is ready to begin his work immediately at USC.

McMahon won stellar reviews from CIRM's grant reviewers who said he was an “exceptional scientist and one of the leading young developmental biologists.” Reviewers gave his proposal a score of 90 and, in summary, said,

“Major strengths include the candidate's exceptional productivity and contributions to the fields of mammalian embryology and kidney development, the significance and potential of the research program, the PI's proven leadership capabilities, and the outstanding institutional commitment.”

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

Robert Klein, who served 6 ½ years as the first chairman
of the $3 billion California stem cell agency,  testified before the agency's board for the first time on July 26, 2012. Klein, a real
estate investment banker and attorney, spoke on behalf of two applicants whose
grants had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. The appearance
has raised questions about the propriety of Klein's actions.

Here is a link to an item on his appearance. Here is the text of
his comments as reported in the transcript of the meeting.

“As the board knows, I've never addressed any grant from the
floor. It is critical here to understand that we have here
StemCells, Inc., which is the only company in North America
and, for that matter, maybe in the world, that has had two stem cell
therapies in the brain with these specific neural stem cells. They
have a huge body of experience here. 

“Secondly, one of the fundamental issues here that it (the
company's grant application) was downgraded on was the issue of the
fundamental concept, the platform concept, of injecting two focal
injections in the brain, in the hippocampus of the brain. It's
important to note that I've sat on three (CIRM)peer reviews where the
scientists really affirmed this specific approach with extremely high
scores, three different views. All right.

“So it's very important to realize we have a standard deviation
here of 12 (on the review scores). These scientists were completely
split. With some recusals on that panel, if you have 12 or 13 that
can really vote, three or four very low scores can bring it out of
the funding category all the way down. It is in the region where
this board is looking where the other three peer reviews, right,
early translation, the one before that was the planning grant review,
that the hippocampus was a good platform.

“Then they said the key weakness was you can't show migration.
Dr. Laferla (a co-PI on the application) has told me that
today the Journal of Neuroscience accepted the publication of
the data demonstrating migration. It was stated previously in the
application, but it wasn't accepted for publication. It now is.
That is the fundamental weakness that they identified in this
approach.  

“So we have a reaffirmed approach to the hippocampus by three
different peer review groups and a substantial portion of these
reviewers along with data dealing with the weak point. I'm sorry it
happened today. The data was out there, accepted for publication
today, means that it should definitely fall into this category. And,
of course, Dr. (Alan) Trounson (president of CIRM) wouldn't
have been able to review that in process because he was recused from
this grant by his own voluntary recusal. So the progress of this
data being accepted for publication is new information today. 

“If I look at the entire history of CIRM, as Leeza (Gibbons,
a CIRM director) says, building up to this point, we have reaffirmed
this approach from the very beginning with Dr. Laferla, with multiple
scientific approvals, and board approval, and we have the best
company in North America with the greatest experience with these
neural stem cells, with the best researcher we have for the potential
to address this disease, and we have brand-new data that demonstrates
and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.”

“This is the only other disease team grant I will address. Very
specifically, this was a disease team grant that I was on the peer
review in the planning grant stage. There are some fundamental
issues here. Is the international company on which the one antibody
that's not coming from Stanford, the two for sorting are
coming from Stanford, is the other antibody coming from this
international company a commitment that you can rely on? 

“The reviewers said this was a showstopper. That's the word they
used. They made a decision this was a showstopper because they did
not believe the company because they thought that the documentation
was inadequate. You now have a letter that goes into great
proprietary depth about the depth of this company's commitments
written by the head of development and translation internationally
for the company. 

“If we cannot depend on company commitments of this type, and
you will review the letter in executive session, if you have one, I
will not understand how we'll be able to collaborate with companies
with proprietary products and processes where they're making
commitments to academic institutions of the highest standard. I
believe this company is going to perform. I was on an hour call to
confirm with eight members of that company their level of commitment,
and I am completely convinced by that point. 

“The review is completely factually wrong on this issue about
the other two antibodies for sorting this. Dr. (Irv) Weissman
has just said they have not only been developed, they have been used
in clinical trials. There's data on them. And they are, in fact,
being thawed under FDA direction to reuse in this trial. 

“So I believe there's a major factual difference. Remember with
Karen Aboody there was a major factual error that was pivotal
in elevating that, and we found tremendous performance on that grant
by Karen Aboody of City of Hope. 

“So you have a decision to make. As a risk issue, do we believe
this company? Finally, this is broader than SCID. 

“Donald Kohn has written a letter that's in the public
domain that I suggest you read. It makes it very clear that opening
the niche for repopulating the immune system without chemotherapy and
radiation is a key contribution to every form of genetically modified
stem cells for an entire range of childhood diseases and other
genetic diseases in addition to therapies like sickle cell or aids. 

“I suggest that that profound contribution that can be made to
the field is a risk that is worth taking early on because of his
contribution to so many other areas. You have 12 other letters from
North America's leading pediatric geneticists that fundamentally
provide extraordinary support for this position and this approach.”

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

Jill Helms, Stanford photo

Zhenyu Tang (at microscope) examines vascular stem cells in culture along with Aijun Wang (left) and Song Li. UC Berkeley/Zoey Huang photo

"Even though he works just across
the (San Francisco) Bay from me - I met him at a meeting in Japan
that was sponsored by the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine, or CIRM, and they fund a lot of stem cell research in
California."

"I will tell you that cancer is
certainly a disease that looks very much like a stem cell gone out of
control. And so if we understand what normally regulates a stem
cell's behavior, then we gain some crucial insights into what
regulates maybe a cancer cell's behavior. It's that kind of approach
that I think that CIRM is largely funding initiatives to try to
target human diseases, the big ones, and the ones that make us all
sort of quake in our shoes, and attempt to come up with new
therapies."

"Most basic scientists that work
in stem cells and in the area of stem cell are trying as hard as
possible to move this into translational therapies, things that can
be used in humans. And, of course, CIRM, our funding institution, is
very adamant about this being the trajectory. So, you know, I'll be
taking a stab at it about five to seven years. I think that the
ability to rapidly screen existing drugs for their ability to target
this cell population is why we think that it might have a shorter
course to getting into humans."

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

Why did Geron "fail" in its
much ballyhooed pursuit of the first-ever human embryonic stem cell
therapy?

"How did Geron’s R&D program
meet such a demise? After all, the company raised more than $583
million through 23 financings, including two venture rounds, and
plowed more than half a billion dollars into R&D (about half of
that into hESC work) through 2010. 

"There are problems with being at
the forefront of unknown territory. Of Geron’s development efforts,
the hESC trial was the most prominent, and fraught. Therapies based
on hESCs were new territory for the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and it eyed Geron warily. The
investigational new drug application (IND), filed in 2008, was twice
put on clinical hold while more animal data were collected among
fears that nonmalignant tumors would result from stray hESCs that
escaped the purification process. Geron says it spent $45 million on
the application, and at 22,000 pages, it was reportedly the largest
the agency had ever received."

"Your technology may be
revolutionary, your team may be dedicated and you may believe. But it
does not matter if no one else will stand at your side."

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

Directors of the California stem cell
agency next Thursday are likely to approve spending $12.4 million to
lure a couple of stem cell stars to the Golden State.

“Major strengths include the
candidate's exceptional productivity and contributions to the fields
of mammalian embryology and kidney development, the significance and
potential of the research program, the PI's proven leadership
capabilities, and the outstanding institutional commitment.”

 The other grant was larger–$6.7
million–but reviewers raised a number of questions about the
candidate although they recommended it for funding. The review summary ranked the application at 57 and said,

“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.“

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

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

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process.  But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science.  The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity.  And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India. 

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field? 

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy. 

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways? 
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

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

"The sun now never sets on the
CIRM collaborative projects..."

 "The
Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology has committed roughly
$850,000 in collaboration with a team at UCSF to study liver failure.
This is the stem cell agency’s first joint effort with scientists
in China, which is home to a fast-growing stem cell research
community."

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

In the last couple of weeks, two
well-respected Los Angeles Times columnists have visited what
might be called the "Son of CIRM" initiative on the
June ballot in California. It is aimed at fighting cancer by spending
$800 million or so annually on research with the money coming from a
$1-a-pack tax on cigarettes.

"Prop. 29 would increase cancer
research. Reduce smoking. Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco
companies. Good plan."

"Proposition 71, you may recall, was sold to a gullible
public via candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking
again and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's.
The implication was that these miracles would happen if voters
approved a $3-billion bond issue for stem cell research. Who could be
against that? 

 "As it turned out, the stem cell
measure created an unwieldy bureaucracy and etched conflicts of
interest into the state Constitution. By last count about 85% of the
$1.3 billion in grants handed out by the program, or some $1.1
billion, has gone to institutions with representatives on the stem
cell board. The program is virtually immune to oversight by the
Legislature or other elected officials. For these reasons and others,
it has grappled with only mixed success with changes in stem cell
science and politics that have called its original rationale into
question."

"Proposition
29, similarly, places most spending from the tobacco tax in the hands
of a nine-member board that must comprise one cardiovascular
physician affiliated with a California academic medical center; the
chancellors of UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco and UC
Santa Cruz; two representatives of lobbying groups devoted to
tobacco-related illness (including one who has been treated for such
a disease); and three representatives from National Cancer
Institute-designated cancer centers in the state. There are
10 of the latter, including five UC campuses and the City of Hope.
Plainly, every member of the board will represent an employer that
thinks it's in line for some of the money."

"The anti-29 side is hitting this
hard: that the research money generated in California could be spent
out of state. And the politest thing possible to say about that claim
is that it's disingenuous. It's stretching something that's
conceivable into a virtual certainty."

"The anti-29 camp charges that
(the structure of the board) would allow a conflict of interest in
awarding contracts. But there are state laws that protect against
such conflicts.

"Anyway, the tobacco crowd can't have it
both ways: complaining that the money could be spent outside
California and also griping when the system is set up to practically
guarantee that it will be spent in California."

"Gov. Brown's latest budget
proposal calls for cuts of $1.2 billion in Medi-Cal and
$900 million in CalWorks (a relief program for families with
children) and steep cuts in financial aid for college students and in
court budgets. The University of California and Cal State systems are
becoming crippled by 20 years of cutbacks in state funding,
leading to soaring tuition charges. Tobacco-related illnesses create
some of the burden on Medi-Cal and other public healthcare programs,
yet a minimal portion of Proposition 29 revenue, if any, would go to
helping taxpayers carry that burden. 

"With the overall state budget gap
approaching $16 billion, how can anyone make the case for diverting a
huge chunk of $800 million a year in new revenue to long-term
scientific research, whether in California or not? Even if you
believe that case can be made, the proper place to make it is in the
Legislature, where all these demands on the budget can be weighed and
balanced against one another — not at the ballot box, where the
only choice is to spend it the way the initiative's drafters choose
or not to raise it at all."

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

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

It was not exactly a case of "Back
to the Future," the hit movie starring Michael J. Fox,
but it did offer a reflection on the past.

Fox's 2004 Ad

 "It could save the life of someone you love."

“It’s not so much that [stem cell
research has] diminished in its prospects for breakthroughs as much
as it’s the other avenues of research have grown and multiplied and
become as much or more promising. So, an answer may come from stem
cell research but it’s more than likely to come from another area.”

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

The California Stem Cell Report will
provide live coverage of tomorrow's meeting of the governing board of
the $3 billion California stem cell agency. Directors are expected to
make major decisions about the agency's future direction, hear the results
of the first-ever performance audit and award about $95 million in
grants or loans.

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

The California
stem cell agency today unveiled initial details of how it plans to
run its $30 million bank of reprogrammed adult stem cells.

"This permits
CIRM to have complete control of this valuable resource and is
consistent with the practice of NIH’s Center for Regenerative
Medicine which is also creating a repository for iPSC lines and
derived materials."

"The (current) IP
regulations were drafted to address conventional drug discovery
activities and did not contemplate creation of a comprehensive
repository of cell lines intended for broad distribution. As a
result, the IP regulations contain a number of provisions which are
either not applicable or worse could impede the success of the hiPSC
bank. For instance, IP regulations permit the exclusive licensing of
CIRM funded inventions and technology. This would be
counterproductive to the goals of the hiPSC repository which are
predicated on wide spread access."

"These lines
will serve as valuable tools in drug discovery and will be available
to researchers worldwide. The Tissue Collection RFA No. 12-02 will
fund clinicians and other scientists to identify, recruit and consent
sufficient numbers of affected individuals within a disease
population so as to effectively represent the disease’s
manifestations. Tissues will be collected and appropriate clinical,
medical or diagnostic information, will be obtained to enable
informed discovery of disease-related phenotypes and drug development
activities using hiPSC-based models. These tissue samples will be
provided (without charge) to the recipient of the CIRM hiPSC
Derivation Award (RFA No. 12-03) for the production of the hiPSC
lines. Once derived, characterized and released, the lines will be
deposited in the CIRM hiPSC bank funded under RFA No. 12-04."

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

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