Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:Categories
- Global News Feed
- Uncategorized
- Alabama Stem Cells
- Alaska Stem Cells
- Arkansas Stem Cells
- Arizona Stem Cells
- California Stem Cells
- Colorado Stem Cells
- Connecticut Stem Cells
- Delaware Stem Cells
- Florida Stem Cells
- Georgia Stem Cells
- Hawaii Stem Cells
- Idaho Stem Cells
- Illinois Stem Cells
- Indiana Stem Cells
- Iowa Stem Cells
- Kansas Stem Cells
- Kentucky Stem Cells
- Louisiana Stem Cells
- Maine Stem Cells
- Maryland Stem Cells
- Massachusetts Stem Cells
- Michigan Stem Cells
- Minnesota Stem Cells
- Mississippi Stem Cells
- Missouri Stem Cells
- Montana Stem Cells
- Nebraska Stem Cells
- New Hampshire Stem Cells
- New Jersey Stem Cells
- New Mexico Stem Cells
- New York Stem Cells
- Nevada Stem Cells
- North Carolina Stem Cells
- North Dakota Stem Cells
- Oklahoma Stem Cells
- Ohio Stem Cells
- Oregon Stem Cells
- Pennsylvania Stem Cells
- Rhode Island Stem Cells
- South Carolina Stem Cells
- South Dakota Stem Cells
- Tennessee Stem Cells
- Texas Stem Cells
- Utah Stem Cells
- Vermont Stem Cells
- Virginia Stem Cells
- Washington Stem Cells
- West Virginia Stem Cells
- Wisconsin Stem Cells
- Wyoming Stem Cells
- Biotechnology
- Cell Medicine
- Cell Therapy
- Diabetes
- Epigenetics
- Gene therapy
- Genetics
- Genetic Engineering
- Genetic medicine
- HCG Diet
- Hormone Replacement Therapy
- Human Genetics
- Integrative Medicine
- Molecular Genetics
- Molecular Medicine
- Nano medicine
- Preventative Medicine
- Regenerative Medicine
- Stem Cells
- Stell Cell Genetics
- Stem Cell Research
- Stem Cell Treatments
- Stem Cell Therapy
- Stem Cell Videos
- Testosterone Replacement Therapy
- Testosterone Shots
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
Archives
Recommended Sites
Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy
Stem Cell Agency Chair Pressing for Consensus on IOM Recommendations
Posted: January 19, 2013 at 3:56 pm
The chairman of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, Jonathan Thomas, yesterday outlined how
he intends to proceed next week when the agency's governing board
considers the far-reaching recommendations of a blue-ribbon Institute
of Medicine panel.
Writing on the agency's blog, Thomas
said,
said,
“While some of the IOM’s
recommendations are administrative in nature and can be implemented,
others are much more complex and would require changes in (governing)
board policy or legislative changes.”
 |
| Jonathan Thomas, chairman of CIRM governing board at far right. Art Torres (center), co-vice chair and former state Democratic party chairman, who would play key role in dealing with lawmakers. Robert Klein is at the left in this 2011 meeting, Klein's last as chairman of the agency and the one in which Thomas was elected chairman. |
He continued,
“My goal is to strive to reach
consensus on a course of action on the 23rd. However, if the board
isn’t able to choose a course of action at this time we will
continue the conversation and bring it up at future board meetings
until we reach agreement.”
It is worth noting that Thomas did not
mention the possibility of having to ask the people of California to
amend the state constitution, which would require a statewide election. Opponents to change at the agency have
used that possibility to discourage action. (See here and here.) An
election would be costly, politically difficult and could open the
door to additional unwelcome changes at the eight-year-old research
enterprise.
mention the possibility of having to ask the people of California to
amend the state constitution, which would require a statewide election. Opponents to change at the agency have
used that possibility to discourage action. (See here and here.) An
election would be costly, politically difficult and could open the
door to additional unwelcome changes at the eight-year-old research
enterprise.
Thomas' desire for a consensus among
the 29 board members – instead of a simple majority – could be a
stumbling block as the board becomes snarled internally, perhaps for
months or more. The board normally meets only about once a month and
has a full slate of regular business on those occasions. The agency
will run out of money for new grants in less than four years, and
action on the IOM recommendations seems a necessary prelude to
winning continued financial support.
the 29 board members – instead of a simple majority – could be a
stumbling block as the board becomes snarled internally, perhaps for
months or more. The board normally meets only about once a month and
has a full slate of regular business on those occasions. The agency
will run out of money for new grants in less than four years, and
action on the IOM recommendations seems a necessary prelude to
winning continued financial support.
While four years would appear to an ample
period of time, making the sort of changes the IOM recommends would
require legislative action, which probably would take a minimum of a
year. Timing is important as well. The current leaders in the state
Senate and Assembly will be termed out in 2014. Starting all over
with novice leadership, changes in key committee chairmanships and so
forth would make the task even more difficult. Then there is the need
to address strategies for continued financial support. Should the
agency seek a new statewide bond measure (the current funding
mechanism)? If so campaign committees need to be formed, electoral
strategies planned and tested and tens of millions of dollars raised
for campaign expenses. If private funds instead are to be raised to
the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars(the agency spends about
$300 million a year), such an effort would also require considerable time.
To keep the funding pipeline full, all of this should be completed
well before the money runs out in 2017.
period of time, making the sort of changes the IOM recommends would
require legislative action, which probably would take a minimum of a
year. Timing is important as well. The current leaders in the state
Senate and Assembly will be termed out in 2014. Starting all over
with novice leadership, changes in key committee chairmanships and so
forth would make the task even more difficult. Then there is the need
to address strategies for continued financial support. Should the
agency seek a new statewide bond measure (the current funding
mechanism)? If so campaign committees need to be formed, electoral
strategies planned and tested and tens of millions of dollars raised
for campaign expenses. If private funds instead are to be raised to
the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars(the agency spends about
$300 million a year), such an effort would also require considerable time.
To keep the funding pipeline full, all of this should be completed
well before the money runs out in 2017.
Dilly-dallying this year in drawn-out, fruitless debate over
the IOM proposals would be an unfortunate beginning should CIRM
directors actually want to continue the existence of the
organization.
the IOM proposals would be an unfortunate beginning should CIRM
directors actually want to continue the existence of the
organization.
In his blog item, Thomas sounded this
final note.
final note.
“It’s likely the debate will be
passionate – everyone involved in this work cares deeply about it –
and there will undoubtedly be disagreements, but ultimately we all
share the same goal, a desire to make sure that whatever we decide
helps make the stem cell agency even stronger and more effective, and
is in the best interests of the people of California.”
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Stem Cell Agency Chair Pressing for Consensus on IOM Recommendations
UC Davis Stem Cell Researcher: 'Ivory Tower' IOM Recommendations Harmful to California Stem Cell Agency
Posted: January 18, 2013 at 9:57 pm
The $3 billion California stem cell
agency has funded in the neighborhood of 500 to 600 scientists and
institutions, reviving and starting careers and stimulating
construction of $1 billion in new research labs around the state.
None of those recipients, as far as we
know, has come forward to comment publicly on the sweeping recommendations by Institute of Medicine for changes at the agency.
Until today, that is.
know, has come forward to comment publicly on the sweeping recommendations by Institute of Medicine for changes at the agency.
Until today, that is.
UC Davis researcher Paul Knoepfler, who
may be the only stem cell scientist in the United States with a stem
cell blog, weighed in with his thoughts today, which do not align
with those of the blue-ribbon IOM panel.
may be the only stem cell scientist in the United States with a stem
cell blog, weighed in with his thoughts today, which do not align
with those of the blue-ribbon IOM panel.
“Harmful” is one word that Knoepfler, who is a stem cell agency grant recipient, used to describe the recommendations. He predicted “extremely negative repercussions” that “would
actually make CIRM less effective and less responsive to patients and
California citizens.”
actually make CIRM less effective and less responsive to patients and
California citizens.”
He wrote that the IOM report, which
will come before stem cell agency governing board next week “...seems more like an ivory tower
intellectual exercise than an operative, realistic guide to a dynamic
agency that must operate in the real world.”
will come before stem cell agency governing board next week “...seems more like an ivory tower
intellectual exercise than an operative, realistic guide to a dynamic
agency that must operate in the real world.”
He defended the CIRM governing board,
which came under fire from the IOM for conflicts of interest.
Institutions linked to board members have received about 90 percent
of the $1.7 billion that the board has awarded, according to compilations by the California Stem Cell Report. The IOM said,
which came under fire from the IOM for conflicts of interest.
Institutions linked to board members have received about 90 percent
of the $1.7 billion that the board has awarded, according to compilations by the California Stem Cell Report. The IOM said,
“Far too many board members
represent organizations that receive CIRM funding or benefit from
that funding. These competing personal and professional
interests compromise the perceived independence of the ICOC,
introduce potential bias into the board’s decision making, and
threaten to undermine confidence in the board."
Knoepfler said,
“(The) IOM itself admits there is no
evidence that any conflicts of interest have ever guided (the agency's governing board) decisions. Not one example.”
Knoepfler also wrote,
“Interestingly, highlighting the
extremely sensitive nature of this issue, while I’ve been talking
with many bigwigs about this, at this point no one is wiling to go on
the record with an opinion about it except one courageous soul, Don
Reed (see
his piece here).”
There is a reason for that. The IOM is the most prestigious organization of its sort. Its studies are
described as the gold standard. And it has a rareified membership
that many scientists seek to join. So few are ready to give the
organization a smack on the nose. Likewise, California researchers
are loath to publicly criticize the stem cell agency because it
holds the strings to the purse that finances their careers.
described as the gold standard. And it has a rareified membership
that many scientists seek to join. So few are ready to give the
organization a smack on the nose. Likewise, California researchers
are loath to publicly criticize the stem cell agency because it
holds the strings to the purse that finances their careers.
California scientists, however, should
be asking themselves a bottom-line question. Do they want to see the
stem cell agency continue for another 10 to 20 years? Under the best
of circumstances, that may be unlikely given the other pressing needs
that the state faces. But if CIRM directors do not forthrightly
address the recommendations of the IOM panel, the fate of the stem
cell agency is exceedingly uncertain.
be asking themselves a bottom-line question. Do they want to see the
stem cell agency continue for another 10 to 20 years? Under the best
of circumstances, that may be unlikely given the other pressing needs
that the state faces. But if CIRM directors do not forthrightly
address the recommendations of the IOM panel, the fate of the stem
cell agency is exceedingly uncertain.
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on UC Davis Stem Cell Researcher: 'Ivory Tower' IOM Recommendations Harmful to California Stem Cell Agency
Patient Advocate Says IOM Recommendations Would 'Destroy' California Stem Cell Agency
Posted: January 18, 2013 at 4:04 pm
California's “beloved,” $3 billion
stem cell research program should not be altered despite
recommendations from the most prestigious scientific organization of
its kind. So says longtime patient advocate Don Reed of Fremont, Ca.
Reed says the recommendations by the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) are a “threat” that would “destroy” an
agency that “is like nothing else on earth.” Reed is urging other
patient advocates to turn out at next week's critical meeting of the stem cell agency's board and lobby against alterations in how it does
business.
Institute of Medicine (IOM) are a “threat” that would “destroy” an
agency that “is like nothing else on earth.” Reed is urging other
patient advocates to turn out at next week's critical meeting of the stem cell agency's board and lobby against alterations in how it does
business.
 |
| Reed and CIRM's Amy Adams World Stem Cell Summit photo |
Reed is a fixture in stem cell circles
nationally and in California and has been a regular at the stem cell
agency's public meetings since 2004. He is also vice president of
Americans for Cures, a private stem cell lobbying group created by
Robert Klein when he was chairman of the stem cell agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM).
nationally and in California and has been a regular at the stem cell
agency's public meetings since 2004. He is also vice president of
Americans for Cures, a private stem cell lobbying group created by
Robert Klein when he was chairman of the stem cell agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM).
Reed has written twice about the IOM
report on his blog with duplicate publication on the Huffington Post.
Yesterday, he said IOM “defies” the voters' will when they
created the stem cell agency in 2004. On Dec. 19, he said the
$700,000, 17-month study was “staggeringly misguided.” He wrote,
report on his blog with duplicate publication on the Huffington Post.
Yesterday, he said IOM “defies” the voters' will when they
created the stem cell agency in 2004. On Dec. 19, he said the
$700,000, 17-month study was “staggeringly misguided.” He wrote,
“If its recommendations were enacted,
they would silence stem cell patient advocate involvement, eliminate
public debate on funding proposals, and delegate the real decisions
to secret proceedings by an out-of-state-controlled board.”
Reed described the stem cell agency as
“fantastic” and wrote,
“fantastic” and wrote,
“So why mess with it, in such a
brutal and insulting manner?”
This writer has known Reed since the
early days of the stem cell agency and respects him. But in this
case he has many of his facts wrong. To mention just a few key
points: Patient advocates would not be silenced; their role would be
changed. Public comment would not be eliminated. Scientists could
still appeal negative decisions by reviewers to the full board if
they so choose, although the “extraordinary petition” process
would be eliminated. The voters' will would not be defied; they provided for a mechanism for making changes in the stem cell program.
early days of the stem cell agency and respects him. But in this
case he has many of his facts wrong. To mention just a few key
points: Patient advocates would not be silenced; their role would be
changed. Public comment would not be eliminated. Scientists could
still appeal negative decisions by reviewers to the full board if
they so choose, although the “extraordinary petition” process
would be eliminated. The voters' will would not be defied; they provided for a mechanism for making changes in the stem cell program.
While Bob Klein has not been heard from
publicly on the IOM report, some of Reed's comments reflect Klein's
past positions against altering the agency. Klein, an attorney and
real estate investment banker, might well be considered the father of
the agency. He directed the writing of the 10,000-word measure, Prop. 71, that created the program and wrote much of ballot initiative himself. The initiative contained a detailed description of the
qualifications for the chairman, which fit only one person in
California. It was no surprise when he won the post.
publicly on the IOM report, some of Reed's comments reflect Klein's
past positions against altering the agency. Klein, an attorney and
real estate investment banker, might well be considered the father of
the agency. He directed the writing of the 10,000-word measure, Prop. 71, that created the program and wrote much of ballot initiative himself. The initiative contained a detailed description of the
qualifications for the chairman, which fit only one person in
California. It was no surprise when he won the post.
In years past, Klein has been extraordinarily protective of the ballot measure, at one point boxing
in the board on earlier proposals for changes that he disliked and that the IOM report now echoes.
in the board on earlier proposals for changes that he disliked and that the IOM report now echoes.
In 2010, he was the prime
advocate for commissioning the IOM report which he expected
to serve as the basis for continued funding of the agency. It will
run out of cash for new grants in 2017.
advocate for commissioning the IOM report which he expected
to serve as the basis for continued funding of the agency. It will
run out of cash for new grants in 2017.
To keep the money rolling in, Klein
said the IOM report would constitute a “gold standard” that would
generate increased enthusiasm for the research.
said the IOM report would constitute a “gold standard” that would
generate increased enthusiasm for the research.
According to the transcript of the Aug.18, 2010, governing board meeting, Klein declared,
“(We will) never convince the people
that are adamant against us. But for the public and for the
constituent groups that are reasoned and prepared to look at
evidence, this is a very important validation that they can look to
to separate out what is a false claim from real performance.”
Also writing yesterday about the IOM
study was Bradley Fikes of the San Diego U-T, the dominant daily
newspaper in that area.
study was Bradley Fikes of the San Diego U-T, the dominant daily
newspaper in that area.
He summarized Reed's latest item as well as this on the California Stem Cell Report yesterday. Fikes
plans to file his own story within the next few days.
plans to file his own story within the next few days.
Feel free to file your own comments by
clicking on the word “comment” below or with the stem cell agency
at info@cirm.ca.gov. Anonymous
comments are permitted on this blog.
clicking on the word “comment” below or with the stem cell agency
at info@cirm.ca.gov. Anonymous
comments are permitted on this blog.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/wX7BEi46lc8/patient-advocate-says-iom.html
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Patient Advocate Says IOM Recommendations Would 'Destroy' California Stem Cell Agency
Live Audiocast Available for Next Week's CIRM-IOM Meetings
Posted: January 17, 2013 at 9:40 pm
The California stem cell agency will
provide a live audiocast of next week's critical discussions of
action on the sweeping recommendations proposed for the agency by the
Institute of Medicine.
provide a live audiocast of next week's critical discussions of
action on the sweeping recommendations proposed for the agency by the
Institute of Medicine.
Instructions for hooking into the
telephonic arrangement can be found on the agendas for Wednesday and
Thursday. Also expected to be posted soon on the Wednesday agenda are
recommendations by CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas.
telephonic arrangement can be found on the agendas for Wednesday and
Thursday. Also expected to be posted soon on the Wednesday agenda are
recommendations by CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas.
The audiocast will only provide the
opportunity to listen and no opportunity to provide testimony. If you
are interesting in making suggestions or comments ahead of the
meeting, email them to info@cirm.ca.gov. The public can also testify at the board meeting.
opportunity to listen and no opportunity to provide testimony. If you
are interesting in making suggestions or comments ahead of the
meeting, email them to info@cirm.ca.gov. The public can also testify at the board meeting.
The meeting is scheduled for the
Claremont Hotel in the Berkeley hills across the bay from CIRM's San
Francisco headquarters.
Claremont Hotel in the Berkeley hills across the bay from CIRM's San
Francisco headquarters.
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Live Audiocast Available for Next Week's CIRM-IOM Meetings
California Stem Cell Face-Off: CIRM Directors Wrestle with Tough IOM Recommendations
Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Two days next week at the posh
Claremont Hotel in the Berkeley hills could settle the fate of
California's $3 billion stem cell agency.
At 9 a.m. next Wednesday, the governing
board of the state research effort will begin a critical, two-day
public session. On the table will be the $700,000, blue-ribbon
report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM). The study
recommends sweeping changes in the structure and operations of the
California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the stem
cell agency is formally known.
board of the state research effort will begin a critical, two-day
public session. On the table will be the $700,000, blue-ribbon
report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM). The study
recommends sweeping changes in the structure and operations of the
California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the stem
cell agency is formally known.
The IOM report alone poses major
challenges for the agency. But the recommendations are freighted with
even more significance. Below the surface lies the hard fact of
CIRM's dwindling resources and possible demise. In less than four
years – without either renewed public support or private
contributions – the research effort will begin a shriveling,
downward spiral.
challenges for the agency. But the recommendations are freighted with
even more significance. Below the surface lies the hard fact of
CIRM's dwindling resources and possible demise. In less than four
years – without either renewed public support or private
contributions – the research effort will begin a shriveling,
downward spiral.
 |
| Claremont Hotel |
The IOM report places a special burden
on the agency governing board. The board paid the IOM to evaluate its
performance. In 2010, then CIRM Chairman Robert Klein trumpeted the
value of an IOM study, saying it would serve as a springboard for a
new, multibillion-dollar state bond measure for the agency(see here and here). Given the
state's difficult financial condition – not to mention the position
of potential private sector investors – winning approval of that
kind of investment will be more than difficult.
California's major newspapers already have editorially backed the IOM proposals. Indeed, if the
directors choose to ignore the major IOM recommendations, they will
hand opponents a devastating weapon, one that could be used to convince voters to reject
any proposal for continued funding. The board
would also give private investors more major reasons to say no to
CIRM pitches for cash.
directors choose to ignore the major IOM recommendations, they will
hand opponents a devastating weapon, one that could be used to convince voters to reject
any proposal for continued funding. The board
would also give private investors more major reasons to say no to
CIRM pitches for cash.
Under Klein's leadership, the 29-member
board has rejected similar proposals for changes in the past. When
the IOM presented the study to the board just last month, the
reception was not much different. Several board members bristled. One
influential board member, Sherry Lansing, chair of the University of
California board of regents, said the directors' “hands are tied”
because some of the recommendations might require a vote of the people. Her comments echoed similar statements from Klein in 2009,
when he said board members would violate their oath of office if they
supported recommendations for changes that he opposed.
board has rejected similar proposals for changes in the past. When
the IOM presented the study to the board just last month, the
reception was not much different. Several board members bristled. One
influential board member, Sherry Lansing, chair of the University of
California board of regents, said the directors' “hands are tied”
because some of the recommendations might require a vote of the people. Her comments echoed similar statements from Klein in 2009,
when he said board members would violate their oath of office if they
supported recommendations for changes that he opposed.
The IOM discussion in December,
however, was relatively brief and less than definitive. Klein has
been off the board since June 2011, replaced by Los Angeles bond
financier Jonathan Thomas, who is regarded as a welcome change by a
number of board members.
however, was relatively brief and less than definitive. Klein has
been off the board since June 2011, replaced by Los Angeles bond
financier Jonathan Thomas, who is regarded as a welcome change by a
number of board members.
Nonetheless, the recommendations of the IOM could mean that some members of the board would lose their seats; others would lose important roles in the grant-award process or
within the agency itself. Conflict of interest rules would be
tightened. In some ways, the board would lose power, which would be
shifted to the president. The board would no longer vote on
individual applications – only a slate recommended by reviewers.
Applicants for CIRM awards would be directly affected, being barred
from making the sort of direct and public appeals that clogged the
CIRM board meetings last year. And that would be just the beginning.
within the agency itself. Conflict of interest rules would be
tightened. In some ways, the board would lose power, which would be
shifted to the president. The board would no longer vote on
individual applications – only a slate recommended by reviewers.
Applicants for CIRM awards would be directly affected, being barred
from making the sort of direct and public appeals that clogged the
CIRM board meetings last year. And that would be just the beginning.
Thomas, the CIRM chairman, is expected
to make his recommendations for action on the report, although they
have not yet been posted on the CIRM web site. Under what might be considered “normal” leadership, Thomas would be testing sentiment
among board members via personal conversations and phone calls.
However, in California that would be illegal – a violation of open
meeting laws that bar what are called “serial meetings” at nearly
all public agencies.
to make his recommendations for action on the report, although they
have not yet been posted on the CIRM web site. Under what might be considered “normal” leadership, Thomas would be testing sentiment
among board members via personal conversations and phone calls.
However, in California that would be illegal – a violation of open
meeting laws that bar what are called “serial meetings” at nearly
all public agencies.
Thomas' task is not easy. Rounding up a
majority vote for anything significant among 29 strong-minded
individuals is not simple. But it is even more difficult when facing
a board that has a tradition of consensus management and
oversight.
majority vote for anything significant among 29 strong-minded
individuals is not simple. But it is even more difficult when facing
a board that has a tradition of consensus management and
oversight.
The site of next week's meetings is
interesting. The nearly 100-year-old, iconic Claremont hotel has a
troubled financial history. It was up for sale for $80 million last
spring but there were no takers. In the early 20th century, the
property on which it is located was lost and won in a checkers game
in Oakland, or so the story goes.
interesting. The nearly 100-year-old, iconic Claremont hotel has a
troubled financial history. It was up for sale for $80 million last
spring but there were no takers. In the early 20th century, the
property on which it is located was lost and won in a checkers game
in Oakland, or so the story goes.
The stakes are also high for the
California stem cell agency. Moves next week by directors could
easily determine whether CIRM becomes nothing more than an
interesting scientific footnote or establishes a path that will lead
it to long-lasting leadership in regenerative medicine.
California stem cell agency. Moves next week by directors could
easily determine whether CIRM becomes nothing more than an
interesting scientific footnote or establishes a path that will lead
it to long-lasting leadership in regenerative medicine.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/SS09uwQmVDQ/california-stem-cell-face-off-cirm.html
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on California Stem Cell Face-Off: CIRM Directors Wrestle with Tough IOM Recommendations
SanBio Announces Enrollment Of The Second Cohort Of Patients In Its Clinical Trial Of Stem Cell Therapy For Chronic …
Posted: January 15, 2013 at 10:44 am
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Jan. 14, 2013 /PRNewswire/ --SanBio Inc. today announced the successful enrollment of the second dose cohort of patients in its Phase 1/2a clinical trial testing the safety and efficacy of a novel allogeneic stem cell therapy product, SB623, in patients suffering from chronic deficits resulting from previous stroke injuries. The first 12 patients, of a planned total of 18, have been successfully administered SB623. The trial is being conducted at Stanford University, the University of Pittsburgh and Northwestern University. No safety concerns have been attributed to the cell therapy product. For details regarding this clinical trial, please refer to http://www.strokeclinicaltrial.org.
SB623 is derived from adult bone marrow and has shown safety and efficacy in rodent models of chronic stroke. "The successful completion of the first two dose cohorts of this pioneering clinical trial is a clear indication of the dedication and professionalism of the entire team," said Keita Mori, SanBio CEO.
SB623 is being delivered to the damaged region of the brains of patients who have suffered an ischemic stroke. Product safety is the primary focus of the study but various measurements of efficacy are also being tested.
"We are pleased with the safety findings of the study thus far," said Dr. Ernest Yankee, SanBio's Executive Vice President of Development. "We anticipate completing the enrollment of the third and final dose cohort early in the year and reporting the results shortly thereafter."
About SB623: SB623 is a proprietary cell therapy product consisting of cells derived from genetically engineered bone marrow stromal cells obtained from healthy adult donors. SB623 is administered adjacent to the area damaged by stroke and functions by producing proteins that aid the regenerative process.
About SanBio: SanBio is a privately held San Francisco Bay Area biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of new regenerative cell therapy products.
For more information: http://www.san-bio.com
Posted in Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on SanBio Announces Enrollment Of The Second Cohort Of Patients In Its Clinical Trial Of Stem Cell Therapy For Chronic …
Nature Biotechnology: California Stem Cell Agency Receives ‘Stinging Rebuke’
Posted: January 13, 2013 at 8:01 am
The headline this week in Nature
Biotechnology read: “IOM smacks down California Institute of
Regenerative Medicine.”
Biotechnology read: “IOM smacks down California Institute of
Regenerative Medicine.”
The story by Senior Editor Laura
DeFrancesco said that the $3 billion California stem cell agency
“received a stinging rebuke of much of the way it has been carrying
out its business by a group of independent reviewers.”
DeFrancesco said that the $3 billion California stem cell agency
“received a stinging rebuke of much of the way it has been carrying
out its business by a group of independent reviewers.”
At the same time, DeFranesco wrote that
the blue-ribbon, Institute of Medicine panel “praised the courage
and vision of the individuals who spearheaded the program as well as
those toiling in the CIRM office in San Francisco.”
the blue-ribbon, Institute of Medicine panel “praised the courage
and vision of the individuals who spearheaded the program as well as
those toiling in the CIRM office in San Francisco.”
The Nature Biotechnology piece covered
familiar ground for many readers, summarizing the IOM's sweepingrecommendations last month, including those dealing with the built-in
conflicts of interest on the agency's 29-member governing board.
familiar ground for many readers, summarizing the IOM's sweepingrecommendations last month, including those dealing with the built-in
conflicts of interest on the agency's 29-member governing board.
DeFrancesco wrote that is unclear
whether the agency will move to adopt any of the recommendations from
the panel, many of which have been rejected in the past.
whether the agency will move to adopt any of the recommendations from
the panel, many of which have been rejected in the past.
Some members of the CIRM governing
board last month bristled at some of the recommendations. The board is scheduled to discuss the IOM report, for
which it paid $700,000, at a public meeting Jan. 23 in Berkeley.
Patient advocates are already organizing a turn-out to lobby against
some recommendations.
board last month bristled at some of the recommendations. The board is scheduled to discuss the IOM report, for
which it paid $700,000, at a public meeting Jan. 23 in Berkeley.
Patient advocates are already organizing a turn-out to lobby against
some recommendations.
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Nature Biotechnology: California Stem Cell Agency Receives ‘Stinging Rebuke’
Roman Reed is Stem Cell Person of 2012; Leigh Turner Runner-up
Posted: January 13, 2013 at 8:01 am
Roman Reed, a Fremont, Ca., patient advocate, this week was named Stem
Cell Person of 2012 by the Knoepfler Stem Cell Lab at UC Davis, which
cited Reed for energizing a new generation of
advocacy.
 |
| Roman Reed (left) and Paul Knoepfler Knoepfler Lab photo |
UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul
Knoepfler awarded Reed $1,000 from his personal funds. The ceremonial
check appears to be close to four-feet long in a photo taken in
Knoepfler's lab.
Knoepfler awarded Reed $1,000 from his personal funds. The ceremonial
check appears to be close to four-feet long in a photo taken in
Knoepfler's lab.
Knoepfler wrote on his blog that Reed
made a “tremendous difference” in 2012. The researcher said,
made a “tremendous difference” in 2012. The researcher said,
“One of the most notable was
catalyzing the TJ Atchison Spinal Cord Injury Research Act in
Alabama, which provides $400,000/year in funding for research. Of
course, TJ and many others who helped make this possible also deserve
great credit and have my admiration, but Roman provided key
leadership. Here in California, Roman’s Law supported its 11th
year of grants all eligible for all forms of stem cell research.
Roman informs me that it funded $749,00 overall and approximately
$200,000 in stem cell funding.
“In addition, Roman in 2012 mentored
and energized a whole new generation of advocacy from young,
energetic leaders: TJ Atchison, Katie Sharify, Richard Lajara
and Tory Minus.”
Knoepfler personally made the decision on the award,
but also conducted an advisory poll that Reed won. Knoepfler wrote,
but also conducted an advisory poll that Reed won. Knoepfler wrote,
 |
| Leigh Turner U of Minn photo |
“Only 6% behind Roman was the amazing
activist Ted Harada followed by Roman’s dad the remarkable Don
Reed, the wonderful Judy Roberson, and the super Katie Sharify nearly
all tied for third. Next after them was the relative new kid in stem
cell town, Leigh Turner.”
Knoepfler named Turner, an associate
professor at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota,
as the official runner-up in the contest, No. 2 behind Reed.
Knoepfler wrote,
professor at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota,
as the official runner-up in the contest, No. 2 behind Reed.
Knoepfler wrote,
“Leigh took the courageous,
outside-the-box step in 2012 of contacting the FDA to investigate
Celltex when he perceived patients could be at risk. As “thanks”
for his action, he was put under enormous pressure and there was talk
of possible litigation against him. Pressure was applied to his
employer, the University of Minnesota. We’ll never know for sure,
but from everything that I know I believe that Leigh’s actions
directly led to prompt FDA action, which otherwise might not have
happened at all or until much later. In my opinion, Leigh’s act of
courage, helped make hundreds of patients safer in a direct way and
indirectly may have set a higher standard for the field of stem cell
treatments.”
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Roman Reed is Stem Cell Person of 2012; Leigh Turner Runner-up
BioTime Stock Jumps 22 Percent in Two Days in Wake of Geron Deal
Posted: January 13, 2013 at 8:01 am
The stock price of Biotime, Inc., of
Alameda, Ca., shot up more than 12 percent today following the
announcement of a complex deal that will give it the stem cell assets
of Geron Corp., the first firm to launch a clinical trial for an hESC
therapy.
 |
| Geron stock price Jan. 2-8 Google chart |
BioTime stock closed at $3.88, up
43 cents or 12.46 percent. That followed a 9.6 percent gain
yesterday. Geron's stock closed at $1.63, up three cents or 1.9
percent.
43 cents or 12.46 percent. That followed a 9.6 percent gain
yesterday. Geron's stock closed at $1.63, up three cents or 1.9
percent.
News coverage of the deal was light
with our tracking showing only one story so far today on The Scientist magazine web site.
with our tracking showing only one story so far today on The Scientist magazine web site.
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on BioTime Stock Jumps 22 Percent in Two Days in Wake of Geron Deal
BioTime Buys Geron’s Stem Cell Assets, Including hESC Clinical Trial
Posted: January 13, 2013 at 8:01 am
Geron Corp., which pioneered the first
clinical trial of an hESC therapy, today sold its stem cell
business to another San Francisco Bay Area firm whose two top
executives were once CEOs at Geron.
 |
| Michael West BioTime photo |
The total value of the complex deal was
not clear from the public statements released by Geron and the
acquiring firm, BioTime, Inc., of Alameda, but an unidentified
outside investor is adding $10 million to transaction.
not clear from the public statements released by Geron and the
acquiring firm, BioTime, Inc., of Alameda, but an unidentified
outside investor is adding $10 million to transaction.
In a telephone interview this evening,
Michael West, CEO of BioTime, said that as a result of the deal his
firm will hold 600 patents and patent applications involving stem
cells. He said the aggregation should help in attracting financial
interest in the firm and its efforts.
Michael West, CEO of BioTime, said that as a result of the deal his
firm will hold 600 patents and patent applications involving stem
cells. He said the aggregation should help in attracting financial
interest in the firm and its efforts.
West founded Geron in 1990. BioTime
Acquistion Corp., the BioTime subsidiary that is picking up the Geron
assets, is headed by Tom Okarma, who was Geron's CEO from 1999 to
2011.
Acquistion Corp., the BioTime subsidiary that is picking up the Geron
assets, is headed by Tom Okarma, who was Geron's CEO from 1999 to
2011.
After Okarma left the firm in 2011,
Geron abruptly jettisoned its stem cell business along with the
clinical trial. Geron has been looking since then for a buyer for the
assets.
Geron abruptly jettisoned its stem cell business along with the
clinical trial. Geron has been looking since then for a buyer for the
assets.
 |
| Tom Okarma Geron photo |
Only a few months prior to the Geron
decision in 2011, the California stem cell agency had signed a $25
million loan agreement with Geron to support the clinical trial. The
company paid back with interest the amount of the loan that it had
received.
decision in 2011, the California stem cell agency had signed a $25
million loan agreement with Geron to support the clinical trial. The
company paid back with interest the amount of the loan that it had
received.
Information from the two companies did
not specify whether BioTime will begin seeking additional
participants in the clinical trial. Nor did BioTime indicate whether
it would seek additional funding from the state stem cell agency.
not specify whether BioTime will begin seeking additional
participants in the clinical trial. Nor did BioTime indicate whether
it would seek additional funding from the state stem cell agency.
However, West said during the telephone
interview that he has an “open mind” about working with CIRM.
Last year, agency officials indicated an interest in continuing to
support the clinical trial. West said BioTime had already hired some
employees that were laid off by Geron, including its patent attorney.
He said that he hoped to reassemble at least part of Geron's now
scattered stem cell team.
interview that he has an “open mind” about working with CIRM.
Last year, agency officials indicated an interest in continuing to
support the clinical trial. West said BioTime had already hired some
employees that were laid off by Geron, including its patent attorney.
He said that he hoped to reassemble at least part of Geron's now
scattered stem cell team.
According to the Geron press release,
when the deal is officially concluded in September, “it is
anticipated that Geron stockholders would own approximately 21% of
BAC, BioTime would own approximately 72%, and a private investor
would own approximately 7% after an additional $5 million investment
in BAC.”
when the deal is officially concluded in September, “it is
anticipated that Geron stockholders would own approximately 21% of
BAC, BioTime would own approximately 72%, and a private investor
would own approximately 7% after an additional $5 million investment
in BAC.”
For its new operations, BioTime has
leased space in Menlo Park that Geron once used for its stem cell
business.
leased space in Menlo Park that Geron once used for its stem cell
business.
Both firms are publicy traded.
BioTime's stock price closed at $3.45 today and had a 52-week high of
$6.35 and a low of $2.67. Geron closed at $1.60 and had a 52-week
high of $2.99 and a low of 91 cents.
BioTime's stock price closed at $3.45 today and had a 52-week high of
$6.35 and a low of $2.67. Geron closed at $1.60 and had a 52-week
high of $2.99 and a low of 91 cents.
Here is a link to an article in the San
Francisco Business Times about the deal. Here are links to the
BioTime press release, a BioTime FAQ and the Geron press release.
Francisco Business Times about the deal. Here are links to the
BioTime press release, a BioTime FAQ and the Geron press release.
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on BioTime Buys Geron’s Stem Cell Assets, Including hESC Clinical Trial
