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
Boxing in the California Stem Cell Board
Posted: December 23, 2012 at 8:00 am
Robert Klein is much admired for his
prodigious efforts on behalf of stem cell research, including his
service as the first chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell
agency.
Klein was adept at many tasks, such as
directing the ballot campaign that resulted in passage of Proposition
71 in 2004 and creation of of the agency. One of Klein's less
publicly recognized skills was putting the governing board of the
agency in a box from time to time.
directing the ballot campaign that resulted in passage of Proposition
71 in 2004 and creation of of the agency. One of Klein's less
publicly recognized skills was putting the governing board of the
agency in a box from time to time.
The 29 members of that board could well
be headed for another box – this time in connection with their
position on the Institute of Medicine's sweeping recommendations for major changes at the stem cell agency.
be headed for another box – this time in connection with their
position on the Institute of Medicine's sweeping recommendations for major changes at the stem cell agency.
Here is how that could work based on a
similar situation in 2009 involving Klein and the Little Hoover
Commission, the state's good government agency.
similar situation in 2009 involving Klein and the Little Hoover
Commission, the state's good government agency.
Klein did not welcome the inquiry by
the commission, which was requested by state lawmakers who had butted
heads with Klein. He knew that the commission would come up with
recommendations that he would find odious.
the commission, which was requested by state lawmakers who had butted
heads with Klein. He knew that the commission would come up with
recommendations that he would find odious.
So even before the Hoover report was
released in its final form, Klein had the board's outside counsel,
James Harrison, prepare a legal memo on a draft version of the study.
Harrison's memo said many of the most far-reaching recommendations of
the commission would require a vote of the people – a more costly
and unlikely proposition than a vote of the legislature.
released in its final form, Klein had the board's outside counsel,
James Harrison, prepare a legal memo on a draft version of the study.
Harrison's memo said many of the most far-reaching recommendations of
the commission would require a vote of the people – a more costly
and unlikely proposition than a vote of the legislature.
Harrison's memo was dated June 23,
2009. The commission report was released June 26, 2009. On June 30, 2009, Klein warned directors in an email that support of some of the
proposals would violate their oath of office. The first time a
subcommittee of directors had to a chance to react publicly came on
July 16, 2009. The full board did not have the Hoover report on its
agenda until Aug. 6, 2009. By that time, they were thoroughly boxed
in.
2009. The commission report was released June 26, 2009. On June 30, 2009, Klein warned directors in an email that support of some of the
proposals would violate their oath of office. The first time a
subcommittee of directors had to a chance to react publicly came on
July 16, 2009. The full board did not have the Hoover report on its
agenda until Aug. 6, 2009. By that time, they were thoroughly boxed
in.
Their choices were minimal, even if
they disagreed with Klein. To do anything other than go along with
him would mean rejection of a 10-page legal opinion from Harrison,
which could be interpreted as no-confidence vote on Harrison and
possibly Klein. Board members were not interested in losing
Harrison, who has been valuable asset to the board since day one.
Overthrowing Klein was even less likely in 2009.
they disagreed with Klein. To do anything other than go along with
him would mean rejection of a 10-page legal opinion from Harrison,
which could be interpreted as no-confidence vote on Harrison and
possibly Klein. Board members were not interested in losing
Harrison, who has been valuable asset to the board since day one.
Overthrowing Klein was even less likely in 2009.
Harrison is currently revisiting his
2009 memo in the wake of the Institute of Medicine recommendations,
which echo some of the major Hoover proposals. The board has also
scheduled a workshop for Jan. 23 that will discuss the IOM proposals.
2009 memo in the wake of the Institute of Medicine recommendations,
which echo some of the major Hoover proposals. The board has also
scheduled a workshop for Jan. 23 that will discuss the IOM proposals.
If Harrison produces another legal memo
that is as explicit as the 2009 document, CIRM directors will have
few choices. The best procedure may well be for Harrison
to continue his work on the memo until after the Jan. 23 meeting.
Directors could then decide on initial steps in connection with the
IOM recommendations and ask Harrison how they can proceed legally, although the task is really more of a political challenge than a legal
one.
that is as explicit as the 2009 document, CIRM directors will have
few choices. The best procedure may well be for Harrison
to continue his work on the memo until after the Jan. 23 meeting.
Directors could then decide on initial steps in connection with the
IOM recommendations and ask Harrison how they can proceed legally, although the task is really more of a political challenge than a legal
one.
Directors paid $700,000 for the IOM's evaluation and advice. It is a prestigious body with virtually no critics in the scientific community. It would be odd, to say the least, for CIRM directors to now reject major recommendations from the blue-ribbon panel only because the proposals might require a statewide vote. The response is likely to be from some: Well, stem cell directors, let's have a statewide vote, and we expect you to support the IOM changes if you plan to seek additional state funding.
Placing another stem cell measure on the ballot -- with or without related additional funding for the agency -- would bring into play a host of issues, including possible elimination of the agency. Not to mention disturbing existing stakeholder relationships and raising uncertainty in the scientific and biotech business communities.
Directors believe the agency has made a major contribution both to California and to science. So does the IOM. The directors need to move forward on the IOM recommendations if they are to continue their research efforts beyond 2017, when cash for new grants runs out. And putting the board in a box is not the best way to give them the room they need to maneuver.
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Boxing in the California Stem Cell Board
San Diego Newspaper Calls for Major Changes at California Stem Cell Agency
Posted: December 23, 2012 at 8:00 am
The San Diego U-T today ran an
editorial that was headlined “Stem cell research institute must fix itself.”
The editorial was written in response
to findings by the Institute of Medicine that the $3 billion
California stem cell should make sweeping changes to deal with issues
ranging from conflicts of interest to management structure.
to findings by the Institute of Medicine that the $3 billion
California stem cell should make sweeping changes to deal with issues
ranging from conflicts of interest to management structure.
The San Diego U-T editorial came as part of
a unanimous reaction so far from California newspapers.
a unanimous reaction so far from California newspapers.
The San Diego paper said,
“We hope we
are wrong in thinking that, given the number of times the same
criticisms of CIRM have come up over the past seven years, the agency
doesn’t really take them seriously.
“If that is
the agency’s attitude, it could well be a fatal error. CIRM has
enough money remaining from the original $3 billion to continue
awarding research grants for another four years. But it will either
have to go back to California voters in 2014 or 2016 for another bond
issue to continue its operations or find a different source of
funding.
“Whichever
CIRM decides, whoever is asked to foot the bill, either taxpayers or
the private sector will demand transparency and accountability. We
hope CIRM can demonstrate it.”
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on San Diego Newspaper Calls for Major Changes at California Stem Cell Agency
Balloting Begins on Stem Cell Person of the Year
Posted: December 23, 2012 at 8:00 am
The nominations are in. Voting has
begun, with about 1,000 ballots cast so far. But only one vote truly
counts. That belongs to Paul Knoepfler, who is running the The Stem
Cell Person of the Year contest and will pony up $1,000 of his
hard-earned cash to honor the winner.
begun, with about 1,000 ballots cast so far. But only one vote truly
counts. That belongs to Paul Knoepfler, who is running the The Stem
Cell Person of the Year contest and will pony up $1,000 of his
hard-earned cash to honor the winner.
On Monday, Knoepfler announced 16 finalists out of 30 nominees. They range from scientists to patients
to advocates. Voting began instantly and will continue until Dec. 31
at 11:59 p.m. Votes will count for something, but Knoepfler makes it clear that they are only advisory. He makes the decision.
to advocates. Voting began instantly and will continue until Dec. 31
at 11:59 p.m. Votes will count for something, but Knoepfler makes it clear that they are only advisory. He makes the decision.
This is Knoepfler's first year at the
contest. The UC Davis stem cell researcher, patient advocate and
blogger wants to recognize someone who made a difference and took
some risks in doing so.
contest. The UC Davis stem cell researcher, patient advocate and
blogger wants to recognize someone who made a difference and took
some risks in doing so.
You can find the entire list of
candidates on Knoepfler's blog, but we wanted to note that they have
a father and son competing against each other – Don Reed and his
son, Roman. (Could be tense around the holiday tables in the
Reeds' households.) Also on the list is Jeanne Loring of Scripps,
whose nominator said engages the wider community with great
effectiveness. I once heard Loring say that every stem cell
researcher should have a spiel that could be delivered in five
minutes in a taxi and that would not only explain stem cell research,
but persuade the cab driver of its virtues.
candidates on Knoepfler's blog, but we wanted to note that they have
a father and son competing against each other – Don Reed and his
son, Roman. (Could be tense around the holiday tables in the
Reeds' households.) Also on the list is Jeanne Loring of Scripps,
whose nominator said engages the wider community with great
effectiveness. I once heard Loring say that every stem cell
researcher should have a spiel that could be delivered in five
minutes in a taxi and that would not only explain stem cell research,
but persuade the cab driver of its virtues.
All of the nominees have much to
recommend them. Knoepfler will be chewing his fingernails before this
is all over.
recommend them. Knoepfler will be chewing his fingernails before this
is all over.
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Balloting Begins on Stem Cell Person of the Year
Exploring the Straw Man Argument Against IOM Reforms at California Stem Cell Agency
Posted: December 23, 2012 at 8:00 am
Constitutional objections to some of
the Institute of Medicine's sweeping recommendations for changes at
the $3 billion California stem cell agency amount to little more than
a straw man, at least based on a legal memo produced earlier by the
agency.
The legal objections to structural reforms at the
agency were initially advanced in 2009 when the stem cell agency was
fighting an unwelcome analysis of its activities by the state's good
government agency, the Little Hoover Commission. The objections were
voiced again at a meeting earlier this month by some governing board
members, particularly Sherry Lansing, who is also chairwoman of the
University of California regents. Her comments came within minutes of
the start of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) presentation to the
board.
agency were initially advanced in 2009 when the stem cell agency was
fighting an unwelcome analysis of its activities by the state's good
government agency, the Little Hoover Commission. The objections were
voiced again at a meeting earlier this month by some governing board
members, particularly Sherry Lansing, who is also chairwoman of the
University of California regents. Her comments came within minutes of
the start of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) presentation to the
board.
She said directors' hands “are tied”
because of requirements in Proposition 71, the ballot initiative that
created the stem cell agency, which is formally known as the
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM). While Lansing
did not elaborate, some of the initiative is written into the state
constitution, which can only be amended by a vote of the people.
However, Proposition 71 can also be amended by a 70 percent vote of
each house of the Legislature and the signature of the governor,
which is no small task to achieve.
because of requirements in Proposition 71, the ballot initiative that
created the stem cell agency, which is formally known as the
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM). While Lansing
did not elaborate, some of the initiative is written into the state
constitution, which can only be amended by a vote of the people.
However, Proposition 71 can also be amended by a 70 percent vote of
each house of the Legislature and the signature of the governor,
which is no small task to achieve.
The 2009 legal memo (see the full text
below) dealt with the recommendations of the Little Hoover
Commission, some of which were cited and echoed by the IOM. The legal
memo contended that the legislature was barred from making major
changes in the structure of the stem cell agency governing board
because the changes supposedly would not “enhance the ability of
the (agency) to further the purposes of the grant and loan programs.”
The argument was that only the people could make “non-enhancing”
changes. The vague “enhancement” requirement was written into
Proposition 71 by its authors, one of whom is James Harrison, the
outside counsel to the board, who was also the lead author on the
2009 memo. Harrison is revisiting the supposed constitutional issues in the wake of the IOM study.
below) dealt with the recommendations of the Little Hoover
Commission, some of which were cited and echoed by the IOM. The legal
memo contended that the legislature was barred from making major
changes in the structure of the stem cell agency governing board
because the changes supposedly would not “enhance the ability of
the (agency) to further the purposes of the grant and loan programs.”
The argument was that only the people could make “non-enhancing”
changes. The vague “enhancement” requirement was written into
Proposition 71 by its authors, one of whom is James Harrison, the
outside counsel to the board, who was also the lead author on the
2009 memo. Harrison is revisiting the supposed constitutional issues in the wake of the IOM study.
However, the objections cited in his earlier memo are dubious and easily overcome. The meaning of “enhance” is
so vague as to permit wide interpretations. Certainly, removing
public suspicion about conflicts of interest would seem to help move
the agency forward. Straightening out the muddled management
structure of the agency, with its overlapping responsibilities for
the chairman and president, would certainly seem to enhance the
functioning of the agency. Assuring that the governing board has the
full ability to exercise strong oversight over the conduct of the
agency would certainly seem to be an enhancement and long overdue.
so vague as to permit wide interpretations. Certainly, removing
public suspicion about conflicts of interest would seem to help move
the agency forward. Straightening out the muddled management
structure of the agency, with its overlapping responsibilities for
the chairman and president, would certainly seem to enhance the
functioning of the agency. Assuring that the governing board has the
full ability to exercise strong oversight over the conduct of the
agency would certainly seem to be an enhancement and long overdue.
At least that is what the most
prestigious body of its sort says. The Institute of Medicine studied
the agency for 17 months under a $700,000 contract with CIRM. The
IOM's charge was to evaluate the performance of the agency and make
recommendations for improvements. The IOM recommendations echoed
findings not only of the Little Hoover Commission, but some in two
earlier studies also funded by the agency.
prestigious body of its sort says. The Institute of Medicine studied
the agency for 17 months under a $700,000 contract with CIRM. The
IOM's charge was to evaluate the performance of the agency and make
recommendations for improvements. The IOM recommendations echoed
findings not only of the Little Hoover Commission, but some in two
earlier studies also funded by the agency.
For CIRM directors now to reject the
IOM findings and turn away would be to indicate that their earlier
admiration and respect for the IOM was something of a sham or, more
likely, now inconvenient.
IOM findings and turn away would be to indicate that their earlier
admiration and respect for the IOM was something of a sham or, more
likely, now inconvenient.
As for removing ambiguity about what
does or does not enhance the agency's mission, the 29-member board
could simply adopt a resolution declaring that all the IOM
recommendations would enhance the CIRM mission.
does or does not enhance the agency's mission, the 29-member board
could simply adopt a resolution declaring that all the IOM
recommendations would enhance the CIRM mission.
One of major obstacles to acting on the
earlier recommendations for changes was Robert Klein, the first
chairman of the agency board. Klein, an attorney and real estate investment
banker, also directed the writing of Proposition 71 and wrote
portions of it himself. He would often make numerical code citations
to the initiative during agency board meetings.
earlier recommendations for changes was Robert Klein, the first
chairman of the agency board. Klein, an attorney and real estate investment
banker, also directed the writing of Proposition 71 and wrote
portions of it himself. He would often make numerical code citations
to the initiative during agency board meetings.
Klein is now gone from the board,
leaving in 2011 at the end of his term. He was replaced by Jonathan
Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, who has ushered in a new and
different era at the stem cell agency. Some might say a more
reasonable era. He says he and governing board
take the IOM study seriously.
leaving in 2011 at the end of his term. He was replaced by Jonathan
Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, who has ushered in a new and
different era at the stem cell agency. Some might say a more
reasonable era. He says he and governing board
take the IOM study seriously.
The report is scheduled for discussion
Jan. 23 at a public workshop at the Claremont Hotel in Berkeley, Ca.,
the day before the regular board meeting. .
Jan. 23 at a public workshop at the Claremont Hotel in Berkeley, Ca.,
the day before the regular board meeting. .
The IOM's recommendations have won theeditorial endorsement of all the California newspapers that have so
far written about them. The newspapers believe that the proposals
would indeed enhance the agency's mission and are, in fact, necessary
if the agency is to survive beyond 2017, when the money for new
grants runs out.
far written about them. The newspapers believe that the proposals
would indeed enhance the agency's mission and are, in fact, necessary
if the agency is to survive beyond 2017, when the money for new
grants runs out.
Directors of the stem cell agency are
currently mulling the future of their efforts. If they are to be
successful in raising additional hundreds of millions of dollars –
be they private or public – the directors must confront the
findings of the IOM in a forthright manner. And they must move to
dispel the cloud that now hangs over the stem cell agency.
currently mulling the future of their efforts. If they are to be
successful in raising additional hundreds of millions of dollars –
be they private or public – the directors must confront the
findings of the IOM in a forthright manner. And they must move to
dispel the cloud that now hangs over the stem cell agency.
(Editor's note: The full text of the
2009 legal memo can be found below. Also below is another related
legal memo from Americans for Cures, a stem cell lobbying group
sponsored by Robert Klein at the same time he was chairman of the
stem cell agency. Despite the language on the Americans for Cures
memo, it is a public record. It became a public document when Klein
submitted it to the Little Hoover Commission.)
2009 legal memo can be found below. Also below is another related
legal memo from Americans for Cures, a stem cell lobbying group
sponsored by Robert Klein at the same time he was chairman of the
stem cell agency. Despite the language on the Americans for Cures
memo, it is a public record. It became a public document when Klein
submitted it to the Little Hoover Commission.)
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Exploring the Straw Man Argument Against IOM Reforms at California Stem Cell Agency
California Editorial Unamity: Stem Cell Agency Needs Revamp
Posted: December 23, 2012 at 8:00 am
With the addition of another editorial
this week, reaction among California newspapers so far has been
unanimous that the $3 billion California stem cell agency should heed
the sweeping recommendations of the prestigious Institute of
Medicine.
The Riverside Press-Enterprise added its voice yesterday, declaring,
“Good intentions do not justify poor
practice.”
Like others, the newspaper said that
the agency “needs to revamp its governance structure to avoid
potential conflicts of interest and boost public confidence in the
agency.”
the agency “needs to revamp its governance structure to avoid
potential conflicts of interest and boost public confidence in the
agency.”
The Riverside paper focused on the conflicts of interest at the organization, which has seen about
90 percent of its funding go to institutions with ties to directors, but also supported other recommendations, including elimination of the dual executive arrangement at the research effort.
90 percent of its funding go to institutions with ties to directors, but also supported other recommendations, including elimination of the dual executive arrangement at the research effort.
The editorial said,
“An agency spending Californians’
money has no business being cavalier about good government practice
and ethical safeguards — no matter how promising the potential
therapies might be. The stem-cell institute is not a private fiefdom,
but a taxpayer-supported undertaking. Yet many on the stem-cell
institute’s board objected this month to the report’s
recommendations.
“The agency also said that Prop. 71’s
provisions mean that enacting many of the proposed fixes would
require either a supermajority vote of the Legislature or another
ballot measure. That prospect should warn Californians about the
dangers of voting for complex, costly, politically driven initiatives
that have little to do with fundamental state duties.
“Still, the stem-cell agency cannot
just sit on these recommendations without damaging its credibility.
The search for medical breakthroughs does not justify ignoring vital
safeguards for spending taxpayer dollars.”
For a look at other editorials, see here and here.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/70xi8-waM7k/california-editorial-unamity-stem-cell.html
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on California Editorial Unamity: Stem Cell Agency Needs Revamp
Southern California Newspaper Tackles Stem Cell Agency and UC Irvine Grants
Posted: December 23, 2012 at 8:00 am
The Orange County Register today zeroed
in on the $3 billion California stem cell agency and its relationship
to the local University of California campus in the wake of sweeping
recommendations for changes at the eight-year-old agency.
The article by Melody Petersen was
headlined “Ties to stem cell board lucrative.”
headlined “Ties to stem cell board lucrative.”
Petersen began her article with story of the $20 million award to StemCells, Inc., earlier this year and
the firm's partnership with Frank LaFerla of UC Irvine, which is located in Orange County.
the firm's partnership with Frank LaFerla of UC Irvine, which is located in Orange County.
The award was rejected twice by
reviewers at the stem cell agency but the governing board of the
agency (CIRM) approved it on a 7-5 vote in September following
lobbying on behalf of the company by the board's former chairman,
Robert Klein, and others.
reviewers at the stem cell agency but the governing board of the
agency (CIRM) approved it on a 7-5 vote in September following
lobbying on behalf of the company by the board's former chairman,
Robert Klein, and others.
Petersen said the award was not the first time that questions have been raised about stem cell agency grants. She said that the 17-month study by the prestigious Institute of
Medicine (IOM) and some of its findings, particularly those dealing
with conflicts of interest, echoed criticisms that have been raised for years.
Medicine (IOM) and some of its findings, particularly those dealing
with conflicts of interest, echoed criticisms that have been raised for years.
She wrote,
“Repeated independent reviews of the
agency, including one by the (IOM) released this month, have found
that its board is rife with conflicts of interest. In fact, of the
$1.7 billion that the agency has awarded so far, about 90 percent has
gone to research institutions with ties to people sitting on the
board, according to an analysis by David Jensen at the California
Stem Cell Report, which closely follows the agency's operations.
While the agency has yet to produce a
cure, Petersen said,
cure, Petersen said,
“What's clear already is that the
money has transformed stem cell research in California and poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into the state's universities,
including UC Irvine.”
She noted that the CIRM governing board
is dominated by members from the UC system, including two professors
at UC Irvine.
is dominated by members from the UC system, including two professors
at UC Irvine.
Peterson continued,
“Before Proposition 71 (the measure
that created the agency) passed, UC Irvine had less than ten stem
cell scientists, who received about $1.5 million in funding each
year. Now, after receiving $100 million in grants from the state
agency, the university has sixty scientists working to advance stem
cell research and teaching. It touts itself as one of the top stem
cell research centers in the world. In 2010, it opened an $80 million
four-story stem cell research center with the agency picking up $27
million of the cost.
“As UC Irvine has won increasing
amounts of taxpayer money, its two professors who sit on the agency's
board have risen in status on campus.
Susan Bryant
UC Irvine photo
“Professor Susan Bryant, an expert in
regenerative medicine, was dean of the School of Biological Sciences
when she was named to the agency's board in 2004. She was then
promoted to vice-chancellor of research. In July, she was named the
university's interim executive vice-chancellor and provost, its
second most powerful administrator.
“When Professor Oswald Steward, a
stem cell scientist, joined the agency's board in 2004, he was
director of UCI's Reeve-Irvine Research Center for Spinal Injury.
Since then, the scientists working in his center have received
millions of dollars in grants from the agency. In May, the university
rewarded Steward with an additional title: senior associate dean of
research for the School of Medicine.”
“The two professors are prohibited
from receiving any agency funds for their own scientific work. But so
much money has been funneled into the stem cell field in California
that it can be difficult to show their continued scientific efforts
are not somehow benefiting. For example, Bryant co-authored a
scientific article in 2009 with nine other scientists about the
genetics of salamanders, which can regenerate limbs. In the report,
the group recognized the state agency for partially funding their
work. Bryant said that the money was received by another scientist in
the group who was not employed by UC Irvine. She said the state
agency has never given a grant for research involving salamanders. 'I
have never-ever benefited from CIRM funding,' Bryant said using the
agency's acronym.
Os Steward
UC Irvine photo
“Steward said he stopped his stem
cell research when he joined the board in 2004. His board position,
he said, 'has prevented me from taking on lines of research I
otherwise would do.'
“Tom Vasich, a campus spokesperson,
said Bryant and Stewart's positions on the agency's board played no
part in their promotions and success at the school.”
Petersen additionally reported that
Steward and Bryant are not allowed to vote on grants to UC Irvine.
Steward and Bryant are not allowed to vote on grants to UC Irvine.
Petersen pointed out that the
University of California has 16 members on the 29-member board. One
of those is the chairwoman of the UC Regents, Sherry Lansing.
Petersen also noted that three of the UC officials, including
Steward, hold seats on the board as patient advocates.
University of California has 16 members on the 29-member board. One
of those is the chairwoman of the UC Regents, Sherry Lansing.
Petersen also noted that three of the UC officials, including
Steward, hold seats on the board as patient advocates.
Petersen is a recent addition to the
Register's staff, joining it in November as an investigative
reporter. She worked as a business reporter for the New York Times and authored "Our Daily Meds," a book about the pharmaceutical industry. She shared in the top award in newspaper financial journalism when she was at the San Jose Mercury News.
Register's staff, joining it in November as an investigative
reporter. She worked as a business reporter for the New York Times and authored "Our Daily Meds," a book about the pharmaceutical industry. She shared in the top award in newspaper financial journalism when she was at the San Jose Mercury News.
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Southern California Newspaper Tackles Stem Cell Agency and UC Irvine Grants
San Diego Newspaper Calls for Major Changes at California Stem Cell Agency
Posted: December 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm
The San Diego U-T today ran an
editorial that was headlined “Stem cell research institute must fix itself.”
The editorial was written in response
to findings by the Institute of Medicine that the $3 billion
California stem cell should make sweeping changes to deal with issues
ranging from conflicts of interest to management structure.
to findings by the Institute of Medicine that the $3 billion
California stem cell should make sweeping changes to deal with issues
ranging from conflicts of interest to management structure.
The San Diego U-T editorial came as part of
a unanimous reaction so far from California newspapers.
a unanimous reaction so far from California newspapers.
The San Diego paper said,
“We hope we
are wrong in thinking that, given the number of times the same
criticisms of CIRM have come up over the past seven years, the agency
doesn’t really take them seriously.
“If that is
the agency’s attitude, it could well be a fatal error. CIRM has
enough money remaining from the original $3 billion to continue
awarding research grants for another four years. But it will either
have to go back to California voters in 2014 or 2016 for another bond
issue to continue its operations or find a different source of
funding.
“Whichever
CIRM decides, whoever is asked to foot the bill, either taxpayers or
the private sector will demand transparency and accountability. We
hope CIRM can demonstrate it.”
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on San Diego Newspaper Calls for Major Changes at California Stem Cell Agency
Boxing in the California Stem Cell Board
Posted: December 21, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Robert Klein is much admired for his
prodigious efforts on behalf of stem cell research, including his
service as the first chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell
agency.
Klein was adept at many tasks, such as
directing the ballot campaign that resulted in passage of Proposition
71 in 2004 and creation of of the agency. One of Klein's less
publicly recognized skills was putting the governing board of the
agency in a box from time to time.
directing the ballot campaign that resulted in passage of Proposition
71 in 2004 and creation of of the agency. One of Klein's less
publicly recognized skills was putting the governing board of the
agency in a box from time to time.
The 29 members of that board could well
be headed for another box – this time in connection with their
position on the Institute of Medicine's sweeping recommendations for major changes at the stem cell agency.
be headed for another box – this time in connection with their
position on the Institute of Medicine's sweeping recommendations for major changes at the stem cell agency.
Here is how that could work based on a
similar situation in 2009 involving Klein and the Little Hoover
Commission, the state's good government agency.
similar situation in 2009 involving Klein and the Little Hoover
Commission, the state's good government agency.
Klein did not welcome the inquiry by
the commission, which was requested by state lawmakers who had butted
heads with Klein. He knew that the commission would come up with
recommendations that he would find odious.
the commission, which was requested by state lawmakers who had butted
heads with Klein. He knew that the commission would come up with
recommendations that he would find odious.
So even before the Hoover report was
released in its final form, Klein had the board's outside counsel,
James Harrison, prepare a legal memo on a draft version of the study.
Harrison's memo said many of the most far-reaching recommendations of
the commission would require a vote of the people – a more costly
and unlikely proposition than a vote of the legislature.
released in its final form, Klein had the board's outside counsel,
James Harrison, prepare a legal memo on a draft version of the study.
Harrison's memo said many of the most far-reaching recommendations of
the commission would require a vote of the people – a more costly
and unlikely proposition than a vote of the legislature.
Harrison's memo was dated June 23,
2009. The commission report was released June 26, 2009. On June 30, 2009, Klein warned directors in an email that support of some of the
proposals would violate their oath of office. The first time a
subcommittee of directors had to a chance to react publicly came on
July 16, 2009. The full board did not have the Hoover report on its
agenda until Aug. 6, 2009. By that time, they were thoroughly boxed
in.
2009. The commission report was released June 26, 2009. On June 30, 2009, Klein warned directors in an email that support of some of the
proposals would violate their oath of office. The first time a
subcommittee of directors had to a chance to react publicly came on
July 16, 2009. The full board did not have the Hoover report on its
agenda until Aug. 6, 2009. By that time, they were thoroughly boxed
in.
Their choices were minimal, even if
they disagreed with Klein. To do anything other than go along with
him would mean rejection of a 10-page legal opinion from Harrison,
which could be interpreted as no-confidence vote on Harrison and
possibly Klein. Board members were not interested in losing
Harrison, who has been valuable asset to the board since day one.
Overthrowing Klein was even less likely in 2009.
they disagreed with Klein. To do anything other than go along with
him would mean rejection of a 10-page legal opinion from Harrison,
which could be interpreted as no-confidence vote on Harrison and
possibly Klein. Board members were not interested in losing
Harrison, who has been valuable asset to the board since day one.
Overthrowing Klein was even less likely in 2009.
Harrison is currently revisiting his
2009 memo in the wake of the Institute of Medicine recommendations,
which echo some of the major Hoover proposals. The board has also
scheduled a workshop for Jan. 23 that will discuss the IOM proposals.
2009 memo in the wake of the Institute of Medicine recommendations,
which echo some of the major Hoover proposals. The board has also
scheduled a workshop for Jan. 23 that will discuss the IOM proposals.
If Harrison produces another legal memo
that is as explicit as the 2009 document, CIRM directors will have
few choices. The best procedure may well be for Harrison
to continue his work on the memo until after the Jan. 23 meeting.
Directors could then decide on initial steps in connection with the
IOM recommendations and ask Harrison how they can proceed legally, although the task is really more of a political challenge than a legal
one.
that is as explicit as the 2009 document, CIRM directors will have
few choices. The best procedure may well be for Harrison
to continue his work on the memo until after the Jan. 23 meeting.
Directors could then decide on initial steps in connection with the
IOM recommendations and ask Harrison how they can proceed legally, although the task is really more of a political challenge than a legal
one.
Directors paid $700,000 for the IOM's evaluation and advice. It is a prestigious body with virtually no critics in the scientific community. It would be odd, to say the least, for CIRM directors to now reject major recommendations from the blue-ribbon panel only because the proposals might require a statewide vote. The response is likely to be from some: Well, stem cell directors, let's have a statewide vote, and we expect you to support the IOM changes if you plan to seek additional state funding.
Placing another stem cell measure on the ballot -- with or without related additional funding for the agency -- would bring into play a host of issues, including possible elimination of the agency. Not to mention disturbing existing stakeholder relationships and raising uncertainty in the scientific and biotech business communities.
Directors believe the agency has made a major contribution both to California and to science. So does the IOM. The directors need to move forward on the IOM recommendations if they are to continue their research efforts beyond 2017, when cash for new grants runs out. And putting the board in a box is not the best way to give them the room they need to maneuver.
Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Boxing in the California Stem Cell Board
Stem cell therapy procedure – Video
Posted: December 21, 2012 at 5:43 am
Stem cell therapy procedure
This is a live video of stem cell therapy by intra-arterial procedure to a DMD patient. Muscualr Dystrophy Foundation India has been assisting patients in stem cell therapy in India. Please do visit http://www.mdfindia.orgFrom:MusclecampaignViews:2 0ratingsTime:01:39More inNonprofits Activism
More here:
Stem cell therapy procedure - Video
Posted in Cell Therapy, Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Stem cell therapy procedure – Video
Animal Stem Cell Therapy – Video
Posted: December 21, 2012 at 5:43 am
Animal Stem Cell Therapy
Dr Tim O #39;neill DVM hard at work showing you the amazing results of stem cell and Platlete Rich Plasma treatment.From:Greg SantiniViews:0 0ratingsTime:01:03More inPets Animals
More here:
Animal Stem Cell Therapy - Video
Posted in Stem Cell Therapy
Comments Off on Animal Stem Cell Therapy – Video
