Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy

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

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

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

Stem cell cash mostly aids directors' interests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stem cell cash mostly aids directors' interests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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