Page 217«..1020..216217218219..230240..»

Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy

Business Success Rate at Stem Cell Agency: Zero in Latest Round After 14 Fail

Posted: June 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm


California biotech companies chalked up
a zero in the latest funding round by the state's $3 billion stem
cell agency, although 14 tried to run a gauntlet that industry has
complained about for years.

All $69 million in last month's
translational research round went to 21 academic and nonprofit insitutions. No business received an award. One firm, Eclipse
Therapeutics
of San Diego, appealed to the agency's governing board but was not successful despite having a higher scientific score
than at least two winners.
The miniscule amount of funding for
commercial enterprises – less than 4 percent of $1.4 billion handed
out so far – has been a matter of concern for some time for both
industry and some members of the CIRM governing board. Most
recently, industry executives complained at an April hearing of the
Institute of Medicine panel looking into CIRM's operations.
Even a 2010 review commissioned by CIRM said the agency needed to do
better by business.
The question of funding goes beyond a
simple matter of fairness or "good science," as CIRM
describes its funding goal. Without efforts by industry to turn
research into cures, CIRM will not be able to fulfill promises to
voters in 2004 when they approved creation of the stem cell agency.
CIRM last month approved a set of five-year goals that push more
aggressively for development of commercial products, but the goals
lacked such things as a financing round devoted solely to business
applicants.
In last month's translational round,
applicants went through a three-step process, which is conducted
primarily behind closed doors. First came what CIRM calls
pre-applications. Those were reviewed by CIRM staff with the help of
outside advisors if necessary. Applicants who cleared that hurdle were allowed to apply for the full, peer-reviewed round. During that
process, the CIRM Grants Working Group reviews applications,
makes decisions and sends them to the full CIRM board for
ratification and possible changes. The board almost never has
rejected a grant approved by reviewers. But the board has ultimate
authority and sometimes funds applications that reviewers have
rejected. The applicants' names are withheld from the board and the
public during the process, although some of the board discussion and
the final vote is conducted in public. CIRM does not release the
names of rejected applicants unless they appeal.
In the translational round, a total of 42
pre-applications out of 167 were approved by staff, according to
CIRM. Thirty-eight came from nonprofits and academics out of the 153
such institutions that applied. Four out of 14 business
pre-applications advanced to full applications but none made the
final cut. All of the winning applications were linked to
institutions that have representatives on the CIRM governing board.
Those representatives are not allowed to vote on or take part in
discussion involving applications to their institutions.
The primary decision tool used by the
grant review group is a scientific score. In last month's round,
scores of approved grants ranged from 88 to 53. However, eight grants
that were ranked above 53 were rejected by the board. One of those
higher-ranking applications came from San Diego's Eclipse
Therapeutics, which scored 58. The low-ranking grants were approved
for what CIRM describes as "programmatic" reasons.
More than three weeks ago, the
California Stem Cell Report asked CIRM for figures on the
numbers of applications in the translational round, including those
for business. CIRM said the figures had not been compiled and would
not be available until after the awards were made on May 24. The
numbers were finally supplied yesterday.
Our take: The number of applicants, and
their breakdown, is basic information that should be part of board's
decision-making process. The statistics should be routinely available
well in advance of the board's meeting. Indeed, the agency in its
earlier days used to routinely publish the figures. It may be now
that generating them is more time-consuming than necessary. The
recent performance evaluation of the agency said CIRM needs to make
major improvements in how it handles critical information needed for
its top management and board.
Whatever the reason, given CIRM's poor
track record with business, the agency's directors should diligently
track industry's success rate on applications. If proposals ranked as
low as 53 are approved while higher ranking applications from
business are bypassed, it warrants more than cursory examination.

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

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Business Success Rate at Stem Cell Agency: Zero in Latest Round After 14 Fail

Business-friendly Changes Proposed for Revenue Sharing by Stem Cell Agency

Posted: June 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm


The $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which hopes to generate income for the state through the sale
of stem cell therapies, is moving to make its profit-sharing rules
more friendly to business.

The proposed changes will come up Monday morning before the Intellectual Property and Industry Subcommittee of the
CIRM governing board.
No stem cell research funded by CIRM
has yet been commercialized. Its intellectual property regulations,
which determine payback criteria, were developed shortly after CIRM
was created in 2004. Ed Penhoet, one of the founders of
Chiron and now a venture capitalist, chaired the panel that worked
out the rules. He has since left the CIRM board.
A CIRM staff memo described the payment
rules in the case of a "blockbuster" therapy as "uneven"
and "lumpy." The memo said they "could be a
disincentive for the engagement of industry." Other rules were described as creating
"administrative challenges and uncertainty." The proposed changes, the memo said,
would address those issues and ensure a "comparable economic
return to California."
Here are links to the specific changes
-- see here and here.
Public sites where interested parties
can take part in the discussion are located in San Francisco, La
Jolla, Los Angeles and Irvine. Specific addresses can be found on themeeting agenda.
The proposed changes must go before the
full governing board and then into the state's administrative law
process before taking full effect.  

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

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Business-friendly Changes Proposed for Revenue Sharing by Stem Cell Agency

‘Ugly’ Stem Cell Headlines and a Stem Cell Essay Contest

Posted: June 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm


California stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler has been busy recently pumping out a plethora of items on his blog, including his own stem cell essay contest and a summary of "ugly" stem cell headlines.
He also rails, albeit briefly, against the Los Angeles Times "hate fest" against the California stem cell agency and offers some advice on developments involving prostate cancer, an affliction that he suffered from a few years ago.
Knoepfler, a UC Davis scientist, puts some cash on the line in his essay contest, with a prize of a $50 iTunes card plus publication of the winning piece. He is looking for a "convincing, non-fiction essay on stem cells thinking entirely outside the box." No more than 500 words. He has two categories, one for persons under 18 and one for persons over that age. June 30 is the deadline for submissions.
Knoepfler also wrote about Twitter and how it can be used by scientists in a useful item called "The scientist's top 10 guide to Twitter." We recommend it.

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

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on ‘Ugly’ Stem Cell Headlines and a Stem Cell Essay Contest

Two California Stem Cell Agency Directors Plump for Proposition 29

Posted: June 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm


Two directors of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency have popped up in the battle over the
anti-tobacco initiative on tomorrow's ballot in the Golden State.

They are Sherry Lansing and
Kristiina Vuori, who were the subjects of a column by Michael
Hiltzik
of the Los Angeles Times dealing with Proposition
29
, the "Son of CIRM" measure that would raise
$800 million for research by increasing the price of cigarettes by $1
a pack. In addition to serving on the CIRM board, Lansing heads her
own anti-cancer foundation and is chair of the board of the UC
regents. Vuori is head of the Sanford-Burnham Institute in La
Jolla.
Proposition 29 is patterned after the
measure that created the stem cell agency. The organization established by Proposition 29 would also be governed by a board that is run by
representatives of organizations almost certain to receive the bulk
of the funding, as is the case with CIRM.
In an op-ed piece on Friday, Lansing and
Vuori said the Times and Hiltzik had fallen for "a smokescreen"
put up by tobacco companies which are spending something in the
neighborhood of $40 million to defeat the initiative. Lansing and
Vuori said the measure is needed to stop smoking by young people as
well as providing cash for research for tobacco-related diseases.
Young people are more sensitive to price increases of cigarettes than
adults, according to research.
Lansing and Vuori referred to a column
in which Hiltzik opposed the measure because it would divert money
from more immediate state needs, including health and welfare
programs for children, education and the poor. (See here for thecolumn and here, here and here for related items.)
In his most recent column, Hiltzik
said,

"The...problem with Proposition 29
is its pigeonholing of the money for cancer research rather than for
immediate needs here in California that are absolutely dire. It’s
all well and good to say that cancer research benefits everyone, but
the real question is whether it should be the absolute top priority
for a state that can’t afford to keep its children fed or offer
them medical care in the here and now. 

"Lansing and Vuori say the fact
that Prop. 29 'fails to provide funding for schools, roads or
affordable housing' is irrelevant, because it was 'was never intended
to solve these problems.'

"In the context of the state’s
needs, this is a rather callous approach to take. Let’s spell out
why, so Lansing and Vuori won’t be so inclined to dismiss these
necessities of life so casually."

Hiltzik cited a list of state
government cuts that have meant the loss of health coverage for
400,000 California children, eliminated welfare benefits for 578,000
poor California families and would mean an end to state college
student aid for 72,000 young people from less affluent families.
Hiltzik continued,

"That’s just the beginning of
what might be cut because the state needs money—and won’t be able
to lay its hands on the hundreds of millions of dollars that Lansing,
Vuori, and their research colleagues are angling for. They don’t
want voters to be reminded that there are competing demands for the
tobacco money, and they do so by failing to mention that they exist,
and also by presenting the spending on cancer research as the voters’
only choice. 

"It’s the only choice because
the promoters of Proposition 29 designed it that way. Advocates of
programs like this love to pass them in via voter initiatives because
they leave no room to measure them against alternative needs."

 A final note: The New York Times
carried a piece yesterday on Proposition 29 that drew 481 comments.
The article said, 

"Organizers argued that the tax would have
less chance of passing if voters thought it would go into the state
coffers, and said that their only goal here was cutting down on
smoking."

 Also yesterday, Willie Brown, the former mayor
of San Francisco and a keen observer of California politics,
predicted voter approval of the measure along with an increase in
cigarette smuggling from adjacent states and the sale of discount
smokes at the 58 Indian casino sites in the state. 

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

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Two California Stem Cell Agency Directors Plump for Proposition 29

Business-friendly Changes Proposed for Revenue Sharing by Stem Cell Agency

Posted: June 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm


The $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which hopes to generate income for the state through the sale
of stem cell therapies, is moving to make its profit-sharing rules
more friendly to business.

The proposed changes will come up Monday morning before the Intellectual Property and Industry Subcommittee of the
CIRM governing board.
No stem cell research funded by CIRM
has yet been commercialized. Its intellectual property regulations,
which determine payback criteria, were developed shortly after CIRM
was created in 2004. Ed Penhoet, one of the founders of
Chiron and now a venture capitalist, chaired the panel that worked
out the rules. He has since left the CIRM board.
A CIRM staff memo described the payment
rules in the case of a "blockbuster" therapy as "uneven"
and "lumpy." The memo said they "could be a
disincentive for the engagement of industry." Other rules were described as creating
"administrative challenges and uncertainty." The proposed changes, the memo said,
would address those issues and ensure a "comparable economic
return to California."
Here are links to the specific changes
-- see here and here.
Public sites where interested parties
can take part in the discussion are located in San Francisco, La
Jolla, Los Angeles and Irvine. Specific addresses can be found on themeeting agenda.
The proposed changes must go before the
full governing board and then into the state's administrative law
process before taking full effect.  

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

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Business-friendly Changes Proposed for Revenue Sharing by Stem Cell Agency

Business Success Rate at Stem Cell Agency: Zero in Latest Round After 14 Fail

Posted: June 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm


California biotech companies chalked up
a zero in the latest funding round by the state's $3 billion stem
cell agency, although 14 tried to run a gauntlet that industry has
complained about for years.

All $69 million in last month's
translational research round went to 21 academic and nonprofit insitutions. No business received an award. One firm, Eclipse
Therapeutics
of San Diego, appealed to the agency's governing board but was not successful despite having a higher scientific score
than at least two winners.
The miniscule amount of funding for
commercial enterprises – less than 4 percent of $1.4 billion handed
out so far – has been a matter of concern for some time for both
industry and some members of the CIRM governing board. Most
recently, industry executives complained at an April hearing of the
Institute of Medicine panel looking into CIRM's operations.
Even a 2010 review commissioned by CIRM said the agency needed to do
better by business.
The question of funding goes beyond a
simple matter of fairness or "good science," as CIRM
describes its funding goal. Without efforts by industry to turn
research into cures, CIRM will not be able to fulfill promises to
voters in 2004 when they approved creation of the stem cell agency.
CIRM last month approved a set of five-year goals that push more
aggressively for development of commercial products, but the goals
lacked such things as a financing round devoted solely to business
applicants.
In last month's translational round,
applicants went through a three-step process, which is conducted
primarily behind closed doors. First came what CIRM calls
pre-applications. Those were reviewed by CIRM staff with the help of
outside advisors if necessary. Applicants who cleared that hurdle were allowed to apply for the full, peer-reviewed round. During that
process, the CIRM Grants Working Group reviews applications,
makes decisions and sends them to the full CIRM board for
ratification and possible changes. The board almost never has
rejected a grant approved by reviewers. But the board has ultimate
authority and sometimes funds applications that reviewers have
rejected. The applicants' names are withheld from the board and the
public during the process, although some of the board discussion and
the final vote is conducted in public. CIRM does not release the
names of rejected applicants unless they appeal.
In the translational round, a total of 42
pre-applications out of 167 were approved by staff, according to
CIRM. Thirty-eight came from nonprofits and academics out of the 153
such institutions that applied. Four out of 14 business
pre-applications advanced to full applications but none made the
final cut. All of the winning applications were linked to
institutions that have representatives on the CIRM governing board.
Those representatives are not allowed to vote on or take part in
discussion involving applications to their institutions.
The primary decision tool used by the
grant review group is a scientific score. In last month's round,
scores of approved grants ranged from 88 to 53. However, eight grants
that were ranked above 53 were rejected by the board. One of those
higher-ranking applications came from San Diego's Eclipse
Therapeutics, which scored 58. The low-ranking grants were approved
for what CIRM describes as "programmatic" reasons.
More than three weeks ago, the
California Stem Cell Report asked CIRM for figures on the
numbers of applications in the translational round, including those
for business. CIRM said the figures had not been compiled and would
not be available until after the awards were made on May 24. The
numbers were finally supplied yesterday.
Our take: The number of applicants, and
their breakdown, is basic information that should be part of board's
decision-making process. The statistics should be routinely available
well in advance of the board's meeting. Indeed, the agency in its
earlier days used to routinely publish the figures. It may be now
that generating them is more time-consuming than necessary. The
recent performance evaluation of the agency said CIRM needs to make
major improvements in how it handles critical information needed for
its top management and board.
Whatever the reason, given CIRM's poor
track record with business, the agency's directors should diligently
track industry's success rate on applications. If proposals ranked as
low as 53 are approved while higher ranking applications from
business are bypassed, it warrants more than cursory examination.

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

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Business Success Rate at Stem Cell Agency: Zero in Latest Round After 14 Fail

'Ugly' Stem Cell Headlines and a Stem Cell Essay Contest

Posted: June 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm


California stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler has been busy recently pumping out a plethora of items on his blog, including his own stem cell essay contest and a summary of "ugly" stem cell headlines.
He also rails, albeit briefly, against the Los Angeles Times "hate fest" against the California stem cell agency and offers some advice on developments involving prostate cancer, an affliction that he suffered from a few years ago.
Knoepfler, a UC Davis scientist, puts some cash on the line in his essay contest, with a prize of a $50 iTunes card plus publication of the winning piece. He is looking for a "convincing, non-fiction essay on stem cells thinking entirely outside the box." No more than 500 words. He has two categories, one for persons under 18 and one for persons over that age. June 30 is the deadline for submissions.
Knoepfler also wrote about Twitter and how it can be used by scientists in a useful item called "The scientist's top 10 guide to Twitter." We recommend it.

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

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on 'Ugly' Stem Cell Headlines and a Stem Cell Essay Contest

Two California Stem Cell Agency Directors Plump for Proposition 29

Posted: June 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm


Two directors of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency have popped up in the battle over the
anti-tobacco initiative on tomorrow's ballot in the Golden State.

They are Sherry Lansing and
Kristiina Vuori, who were the subjects of a column by Michael
Hiltzik
of the Los Angeles Times dealing with Proposition
29
, the "Son of CIRM" measure that would raise
$800 million for research by increasing the price of cigarettes by $1
a pack. In addition to serving on the CIRM board, Lansing heads her
own anti-cancer foundation and is chair of the board of the UC
regents. Vuori is head of the Sanford-Burnham Institute in La
Jolla.
Proposition 29 is patterned after the
measure that created the stem cell agency. The organization established by Proposition 29 would also be governed by a board that is run by
representatives of organizations almost certain to receive the bulk
of the funding, as is the case with CIRM.
In an op-ed piece on Friday, Lansing and
Vuori said the Times and Hiltzik had fallen for "a smokescreen"
put up by tobacco companies which are spending something in the
neighborhood of $40 million to defeat the initiative. Lansing and
Vuori said the measure is needed to stop smoking by young people as
well as providing cash for research for tobacco-related diseases.
Young people are more sensitive to price increases of cigarettes than
adults, according to research.
Lansing and Vuori referred to a column
in which Hiltzik opposed the measure because it would divert money
from more immediate state needs, including health and welfare
programs for children, education and the poor. (See here for thecolumn and here, here and here for related items.)
In his most recent column, Hiltzik
said,

"The...problem with Proposition 29
is its pigeonholing of the money for cancer research rather than for
immediate needs here in California that are absolutely dire. It’s
all well and good to say that cancer research benefits everyone, but
the real question is whether it should be the absolute top priority
for a state that can’t afford to keep its children fed or offer
them medical care in the here and now. 

"Lansing and Vuori say the fact
that Prop. 29 'fails to provide funding for schools, roads or
affordable housing' is irrelevant, because it was 'was never intended
to solve these problems.'

"In the context of the state’s
needs, this is a rather callous approach to take. Let’s spell out
why, so Lansing and Vuori won’t be so inclined to dismiss these
necessities of life so casually."

Hiltzik cited a list of state
government cuts that have meant the loss of health coverage for
400,000 California children, eliminated welfare benefits for 578,000
poor California families and would mean an end to state college
student aid for 72,000 young people from less affluent families.
Hiltzik continued,

"That’s just the beginning of
what might be cut because the state needs money—and won’t be able
to lay its hands on the hundreds of millions of dollars that Lansing,
Vuori, and their research colleagues are angling for. They don’t
want voters to be reminded that there are competing demands for the
tobacco money, and they do so by failing to mention that they exist,
and also by presenting the spending on cancer research as the voters’
only choice. 

"It’s the only choice because
the promoters of Proposition 29 designed it that way. Advocates of
programs like this love to pass them in via voter initiatives because
they leave no room to measure them against alternative needs."

 A final note: The New York Times
carried a piece yesterday on Proposition 29 that drew 481 comments.
The article said, 

"Organizers argued that the tax would have
less chance of passing if voters thought it would go into the state
coffers, and said that their only goal here was cutting down on
smoking."

 Also yesterday, Willie Brown, the former mayor
of San Francisco and a keen observer of California politics,
predicted voter approval of the measure along with an increase in
cigarette smuggling from adjacent states and the sale of discount
smokes at the 58 Indian casino sites in the state. 

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

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Two California Stem Cell Agency Directors Plump for Proposition 29

ChoiceCenter's Garrett Tanner: 1 Year after Stem Cell Treatments 2012 – Video

Posted: June 6, 2012 at 9:10 pm

04-06-2012 21:49 In November 2007, gymnast Garrett Tanner had an accident while training that left him a quadriplegic. In 2010, he came to ChoiceCenter Leadership University (LV102) where he met fellow student Maynard Howe (LV100), Vice Chairman of Stemedica, a stem cell company. In May 2011, Garrett received his first stem cell treatment in Moscow. Stemedica donated the cells and ChoiceCenter students donated money for his rehabilitation therapy, transportation, food and housing. This video documents Garrett's progress as of May 2012. He will receive his second treatment later this summer.

Read more:
ChoiceCenter's Garrett Tanner: 1 Year after Stem Cell Treatments 2012 - Video

Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on ChoiceCenter's Garrett Tanner: 1 Year after Stem Cell Treatments 2012 – Video

Treatment eases arthritis pain in dogs

Posted: June 6, 2012 at 9:10 pm

A local veterinary clinic recently added a cuttingedge treatment.

Dr. Tina Gemeinhardt, owner of Tsawwassen Animal Hospital, is excited to be offering stem cell therapy to animals suffering from arthritis and joint issues.

"I'm excited about trying to bring some relief to dogs that are living in pain," she said.

The therapy, which uses stem cells harvested from fat that is surgically removed from the dog, is, in most cases, able to offer relief from the pain and stiffness associated with

Gemeinhardt said once it's determined the therapy is the right course of treatment for an animal, body fat is surgically removed and sent to a lab in California where the stem cells are harvested. The harvested stem cells are then sent back to the vet clinic within 48 hours and injected into the joints in question.

Gemeinhardt, who added the treatment to the clinic's list of services earlier this year, said it's not quite clear exactly how the stem cells work.

"Stem cells seem to inherently know what needs to be done in that area," she said.

The treatment is not a cure-all - the arthritis is still there but the symptoms are lessened - and it does not work instantly. The vet said most animals start to notice a difference in a month or so, and some might require follow up injections.

She said about 85 per cent of animals receiving stem cell therapy have had a beneficial response, while 15 per cent saw no response.

Beatrice, a seven-yearold chow chow, has seen remarkable results. Owner Rose McClelland said Beatrice had been having problems with arthritis in her hips for years and medication wasn't working any more.

Visit link:
Treatment eases arthritis pain in dogs

Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Treatment eases arthritis pain in dogs

Page 217«..1020..216217218219..230240..»