Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy

Early next month, the state of
California will sell $2.7 billion in bonds, a tiny fraction of which will go
towards the California stem cell agency.

“CIRM’s funding needs now are met
via the issuance of commercial paper (CP).  They’re authorized
a certain amount of CP periodically.  Then we work with them on
a regular basis to issue the commercial paper on an as-needed basis. 
Last fall, they were authorized $160 million of CP.  We will
issue the first $27 million under that authorization (this) week. 
This spring, CIRM is scheduled to receive another $100 million
authorization. The Department of Finance , consulting with CIRM
officials, determined the $100 million would be needed to meet CIRM’s
funding requirements through the end of 2013.

“Now, here’s where it gets a little
complicated.  The state pays down the CP with bond proceeds. 
The March ....bond sale includes $60 million of stem
cell bonds.  Those proceeds won’t provide new money for CIRM,
but will pay down the CP proceeds CIRM already has used.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/GGDUJVY45VQ/california-stem-cell-agency-bonds-on.html

The $3 billion California stem cell
agency appears unlikely to make any changes in who gets the cash from
any commercial products that its research grants help finance despite
recommendations from the Institute of Medicine(IOM).

“Because CIRM is a new institution
without a track record to reassure stakeholders, and because its
finite funding timeline means as yet unknown agencies will be
enforcing these policies years down the road, CIRM should “propose
regulations that specify who will have the power and authority to
assert and enforce in the future rights retained by the state” in
CIRM IP, specifically referring to march-in rights, access plans and
revenue sharing....

“Second, as other sources of funding
become more prevalent, the agency should “reconsider whether its
goal of developing cures would be better served by harmonizing CIRM’s
IP policies wherever possible with the more familiar policies of the
BayhDole Act.”

“CIRM staff has engaged in
preliminary discussions several years ago with other agencies
regarding future enforcement of CIRM’s regulations and agreements.
Staff proposes to restart those discussions and return to the
Subcommittee (or the Board) with a formal proposal to address future
enforcement of CIRM’s IP regulations.”

“In light of the IOM’s own
recognition that it may be premature to assess whether CIRM’s
regulations will act as a deterrence to future investment, the fact
that a number of CIRM’s regulations have been codified in statutes
and CIRM’s positive progress in its industry engagement efforts to
date, although quite early, CIRM staff proposes to continue to
monitor this area and not to pursue any changes at this time.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/xvosTob7Zo0/monitoring-cash-and-ip-at-california.html

Michael Friedman City of Hope photo

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/DWx8xx07ZOY/city-of-hope-exec-will-leave-california.html

The California stem cell agency's
editorial road show paid off a bit again this week with a mildly
approving editorial in the Oakland Tribune.

“California
must get its stem cell house in order”

“...{T)he agency must prove that it
understands how to properly handle the public's money. …. If
the stem cell agency can establish a record as a good steward of
public dollars to finance brilliant science, it can continue to play
a useful role in stimulating and guiding research to bring the
potential cures from stem cell research to fruition.

“If it cannot do that, it will be
just another expensive Tyrannosaurus rex.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/tMt6gs55Yvs/half-full-half-empty-editorial-on.html

Should the scientists who evaluate
and score the applications for $3 billion in taxpayer funds be
required to publicly disclose their financial interests?

“(T)he FPPC believes that, under
state regulations, working group members (including grant reviewers)
may act as decision makers if they make substantive recommendations
that are, over an extended period, regularly approved without
significant amendment or modification by the committee. Thus, as
decision makers, working group members would need to be subject to
the conflict-of-interest code. This would mean that working groups
would be subject not only to the (public) financial disclosure requirements of
the Political Reform Act but also to the prohibition against a member
participating in a government decision in which that member has a
disqualifying financial interest and may be subject to the penalties
that may be imposed on individuals who violate that act.”

"We have given careful
consideration to your recommendation and have decided it is not
appropriate to implement at this time. In almost three years of
operation and approval of four rounds of grants, the recommendations
of the CIRM working groups have never been routinely and/or regularly
adopted by the ICOC. Until the time that such a pattern is detected,
the question you suggest we raise with the attorney general is
entirely hypothetical, and is therefore not appropriate for
submission. We will, however, continue to monitor approvals for such
a pattern and will reconsider our decision if one emerges."

“No matter what the circumstances --
if an independent observer might reasonably question whether the
individual's professional actions or decisions are determined by
considerations of personal financial gain, the relationship should be
disclosed to the public during presentations, in publications,
teaching or other public venues.”

"The public trust in what we do is
just essential, and we cannot afford to take any chances with the
integrity of the research process."

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/oma-MLcANoY/time-for-public-disclosure-of-financial.html

Michael Friedman City of Hope photo

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/DWx8xx07ZOY/city-of-hope-exec-will-leave-california.html

The $3 billion California stem cell
agency appears unlikely to make any changes in who gets the cash from
any commercial products that its research grants help finance despite
recommendations from the Institute of Medicine(IOM).

“Because CIRM is a new institution
without a track record to reassure stakeholders, and because its
finite funding timeline means as yet unknown agencies will be
enforcing these policies years down the road, CIRM should “propose
regulations that specify who will have the power and authority to
assert and enforce in the future rights retained by the state” in
CIRM IP, specifically referring to march-in rights, access plans and
revenue sharing....

“Second, as other sources of funding
become more prevalent, the agency should “reconsider whether its
goal of developing cures would be better served by harmonizing CIRM’s
IP policies wherever possible with the more familiar policies of the
BayhDole Act.”

“CIRM staff has engaged in
preliminary discussions several years ago with other agencies
regarding future enforcement of CIRM’s regulations and agreements.
Staff proposes to restart those discussions and return to the
Subcommittee (or the Board) with a formal proposal to address future
enforcement of CIRM’s IP regulations.”

“In light of the IOM’s own
recognition that it may be premature to assess whether CIRM’s
regulations will act as a deterrence to future investment, the fact
that a number of CIRM’s regulations have been codified in statutes
and CIRM’s positive progress in its industry engagement efforts to
date, although quite early, CIRM staff proposes to continue to
monitor this area and not to pursue any changes at this time.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/xvosTob7Zo0/monitoring-cash-and-ip-at-california.html