Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy

So
urce:
http://intlstemcell.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

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

"Even if your mother says it is true, check it out," an old saying goes. So we did.

The case in point was the new financial arrangement for the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas laid out the plan last month for the California Stem Cell Report in the wake of a state bond issue that provided only $51 million for the agency, which fell far short of its needs over the next year or so. He said, however, a new arrangement was in place that amounted to a win-win for the state and the stem cell agency. The plan minimizes the amount of state bond borrowing immediately needed and instead provides, if necessary, short-term commercial paper, also backed by the state, but at less interest cost.

Thomas said both the state treasurer and the Brown Administration, through its state Department of Finance, were on board.

But -- keeping the admonition about mothers in mind -- we routinely asked the Finance Department and the state treasurer's office about the arrangement. What happened then provides some insight into how difficult it is sometimes to verify even what appear to be simple facts. It also tells a story about the responsiveness of state agencies and their dedication to openness and transparency.

Let's start with CIRM and Thomas. After we raised questions by email following the state bond sale Oct. 19, he offered a telephone interview about the situation and persisted despite dropped cellular signals and several callbacks from our post here in the bay off Panama City.

After we filed our item on the interview, we queried on Oct. 24 the other two agencies involved. The state treasurer's office responded quickly. The state Department of Finance, on the other hand, has remained silent on the subject to this day, despite three emailed queries.

Unfortunately, the state treasurer office's initial response was off the mark. "We haven’t seen any agreement.  We were not aware of the reported agreement until we read about it in your blog.  So, we have no comment about the reported agreement," the treasurer's office said initially.

That raised eyebrows a bit. So we renewed our queries to the Finance Department, even suggesting that a failure to respond could be construed as an indication that the Brown Administration is not fully behind CIRM.

Ten days after our initial query to the two agencies, we sent an email to Thomas briefly describing what we had planned to write and asking him if he would like to comment. He did not respond. But the next day, Steve Cooney, chief deputy state treasurer, said in an email that the earlier comment from the treasurer's office was incorrect. Cooney said,

"Our office DOES (Cooney's capitalization) and DID know that CIRM and the Department of Finance reached an understanding about future funding.

"The Treasurer’s Office has been aware since before last month’s sale of GO (general obligation) bonds that the Department of Finance and CIRM are in general agreement that the state will take necessary action to ensure that CIRM has adequate funds to meet its operational, grant funding and reserve needs, including the use of the state’s commercial paper line in the event the state cannot timely access the bond market.  It is neither necessary nor usual for our office to be informed of the specifics, if any, of any future commitment made by the Administration to any other state agency, including CIRM, and this case is no exception."

Cooney additionally re-affirmed the commercial paper arrangements for CIRM as laid out in the initial response from the treasurer's office.

The response said,

"The issuance of commercial paper has always been a part of our bond financing program.  The size of the CP line is about $1.5 billion, and it is available for use by all infrastructure programs, including stem cell research.  When we issue commercial paper to finance infrastructure projects, including CIRM, the paper is repaid with bond-sale proceeds.  So, if CIRM received funds from the issuance of commercial paper, the 'loan' would be retired not by CIRM, but by the proceeds of a subsequent bond sale."

Cooney also said,

"If you still need further clarification on the issue of future CIRM funding beyond the proceeds of the recent bond sale, the best place to get that information continues to be the Department of Finance."

Silence, however, has only been heard from the state Department of Finance.

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

The president of the California stem cell agency, Alan Trounson, popped up in a recent article in Scientific American dealing with a method for creating pluripotent stem cells from unfertilized human eggs.

The piece by Julia Galef said that "many investigators remain frustrated" that the method "remains offlimits" for federal funding, a barrier that does not apply to financing from the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

Galef wrote that one California firm, International Stem Cell Corp., of Carlsbad, is using the method to develop products. She said the firm's work involves "a process called parthenogenesis, in which researchers use chemicals to induce the egg to begin developing as if it had been fertilized. The egg—called a parthenote—behaves just like an embryo in the early stages of division. Because it contains no genetic material from a father, however, it cannot develop into a viable fetus."

Trounson was quoted as saying, nonetheless, that "proving that unfertilized eggs will produce stable tissues in humans remains an obstacle." He said other labs need to replicate the work.

International Stem Cell has applied unsuccessfully several times for research funding from the California stem cell agency.

The Scientific American article said,

"International Stem Cell scientists have converted them into liver cells and plan to convert them into neurons for treating Parkinson’s disease, pancreatic cells for diabetes, and other tissues. Meanwhile teams at the Massachusetts-based Bedford Stem Cell Research Foundation are working to improve the efficiency of methods of deriving stem cells from parthenotes."

As researcher interest in parthenotes gains attention, the NIH is being urged to change its negative position. Late last year, Teresa Woodruff, founder and director of the Institute for Women's Health Research at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and others called for a lifting of the NIH ban on funding for parthenotes.

California is not constrained by NIH limitations. One of the key reasons, if not the only reason, that voters approved in 2004 the ballot initiative that created the $3 billion stem cell agency was to fund research that the federal government did not. At the time, the focus was on the Bush ban on financing hESC research.

Ken Aldrich, co-chairman of International Stem Cell, circulated the Scientific American article, touting its significance.

We found this posting on the Stem Cell Pioneers web site in which Aldrich said,

“We at International Stem Cell Corporation (ISCO.OB) are finding it increasingly gratifying that mainstream and highly respected publications like Scientific American are now beginning to take notice of the fact that our parthenogenetic stem cells may well turn out to be a viable alternative to the embryonic stem cells that have dominated research and headlines for the last 10 years.

"Like embryonic stem cells, our parthenogenetic stem cells can be converted into almost any kind of cell that might ever be needed for therapy, but can also provide a solution to the two biggest issues that have surrounded embryonic stem cell research: 1) the ethics of destroying a fertilized embryo, which our process never does, and 2) the problem of immune rejection by the patient. We hope you enjoy the attached article." 

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

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

The $3 billion California stem cell agency likes to align itself with the very best science. And as of today it is also hooked up with the best lobbyist in California – at least based on earnings.

CIRM hires many firms to perform work, given its unusual needs, rather than building a large and relatively permanent staff. The tasks of the outside contractors range from publishing the annual report to grant review matters. Today Laurel Rosenhall of The Sacramento Bee reported that one of the firms that CIRM has hired now ranks as the No. 1 lobbyist in California, based on its earnings.

The firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni pulled down nearly $5 million during the first three quarters of this year. The firm knocked KP Public Affairs out of the top spot, which it had held for at least the last 10 years.

Nielsen has had a contract with CIRM since its earliest days in 2005, but it doesn't amount to much in the scope of Nielsen's business. According to the latest CIRM report on outside contracting, Nielsen was paid $79,984 during the fiscal year 2010-2011 for services that also extended into the current fiscal year. The report did not list payments for earlier years, but it is our recollection that Nielsen was paid about $50,000 every year since 2005. It is not known whether the firm continues to hold a contract for the current fiscal year.

One of Nielsen's partners, Gene Erbin, was one of the drafters of Prop. 71, the ballot initiative that created the California stem cell agency in 2004. Merck and Pfizer, in addition to CIRM, are among the firm's clients.

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

The prestigious Institute of Medicine earlier this month kicked off its $700,000 study of the California stem cell agency minus an important perspective – the view directly from California.

None of the persons on the 13-member panel evaluating the performance of the $3 billion enterprise comes from California. The reasons for that are not clear. The IOM is all but mum on the matter.

One could argue that it is not necessary to be geographically located in California to determine whether CIRM is working at peak performance. However, some conditions do exist in California that are difficult for many others to grasp. They include its state budget crisis that has now placed the once Golden State at the bottom of the heap in terms of its credit. Some even liken it to Greece. Obviously that situation can be understood in the abstract by reading The Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times. But the intensity and emotion surrounding that issue and others are difficult to comprehend for many folks living in more blessed states.

Count among the other volatile issues the cutbacks in the state's once vaunted higher education system, including the University of California, which showed its back to students by increasing tuition by nearly 18 percent this fall. Couple that with a visceral antipathy -- and that is putting it mildly -- among some Californians to what they regard as execessive state salaries, including those at the stem cell agency.

What does all this have to with financing stem cell research through an agency that was supposed to have a guaranteed stream of income isolated from mischief that could be wreaked by the governor or legislature. It turns out that CIRM's cash flow is not as guaranteed as its backers believed. Instead of issuing bonds, the state is going to finance the agency over the next 18 months with commercial paper, if necessary. That's because Gov. Jerry Brown wants to reduce the interest costs on state borrowing, which have risen sharply and now consume 8 percent of the state budget along with funds that could otherwise go to educate California's children, among other things.

Brown's parsimony is famous. During his first term in office, he denied pay raises to state college professors, saying they are amply rewarded through "psychic income." More recently, he objected to out-of-state travel by CIRM staff. Too much "lollygagging in London on the taxpayer's dime," a Brown spokesman said. CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas promptly cut travel in the chairman's office by 50 percent and asked CIRM President Alan Trounson to do the same for the rest of the staff.

It is an environment that can be difficult to navigate under the best of circumstances. It places limitations on the stem cell agency and tends to focus its operations and funding in different directions than might be the case if California's economic climate were rosier.

The IOM has no real response to the question of why no Californian is on the panel. The California Stem Cell Report last week asked the institute whether an overt decision had been made to exclude persons from California. The IOM did not answer directly. Instead it referred to a generic description of how panel members are selected. The institute's unwillingness to address the specific question does not speak well for the openness and transparency of the IOM examination of CIRM.

Currently the IOM does have a comment period available on the selection of the panel members, who will not become official for another three days. Interested parties can make their views known to the IOM by using this link.

A Californian or two on the IOM panel would help to bring a valuable, broader perspective to this important study, which is sure to affect the future of the state's stem cell research and voter approval of another possible multibillion dollar bond issue in the next few years.

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

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