Category Archives: Stem Cells

Robert Klein, who served 6 ½ years as the first chairman
of the $3 billion California stem cell agency,  testified before the agency's board for the first time on July 26, 2012. Klein, a real
estate investment banker and attorney, spoke on behalf of two applicants whose
grants had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. The appearance
has raised questions about the propriety of Klein's actions.

Here is a link to an item on his appearance. Here is the text of
his comments as reported in the transcript of the meeting.

“As the board knows, I've never addressed any grant from the
floor. It is critical here to understand that we have here
StemCells, Inc., which is the only company in North America
and, for that matter, maybe in the world, that has had two stem cell
therapies in the brain with these specific neural stem cells. They
have a huge body of experience here. 

“Secondly, one of the fundamental issues here that it (the
company's grant application) was downgraded on was the issue of the
fundamental concept, the platform concept, of injecting two focal
injections in the brain, in the hippocampus of the brain. It's
important to note that I've sat on three (CIRM)peer reviews where the
scientists really affirmed this specific approach with extremely high
scores, three different views. All right.

“So it's very important to realize we have a standard deviation
here of 12 (on the review scores). These scientists were completely
split. With some recusals on that panel, if you have 12 or 13 that
can really vote, three or four very low scores can bring it out of
the funding category all the way down. It is in the region where
this board is looking where the other three peer reviews, right,
early translation, the one before that was the planning grant review,
that the hippocampus was a good platform.

“Then they said the key weakness was you can't show migration.
Dr. Laferla (a co-PI on the application) has told me that
today the Journal of Neuroscience accepted the publication of
the data demonstrating migration. It was stated previously in the
application, but it wasn't accepted for publication. It now is.
That is the fundamental weakness that they identified in this
approach.  

“So we have a reaffirmed approach to the hippocampus by three
different peer review groups and a substantial portion of these
reviewers along with data dealing with the weak point. I'm sorry it
happened today. The data was out there, accepted for publication
today, means that it should definitely fall into this category. And,
of course, Dr. (Alan) Trounson (president of CIRM) wouldn't
have been able to review that in process because he was recused from
this grant by his own voluntary recusal. So the progress of this
data being accepted for publication is new information today. 

“If I look at the entire history of CIRM, as Leeza (Gibbons,
a CIRM director) says, building up to this point, we have reaffirmed
this approach from the very beginning with Dr. Laferla, with multiple
scientific approvals, and board approval, and we have the best
company in North America with the greatest experience with these
neural stem cells, with the best researcher we have for the potential
to address this disease, and we have brand-new data that demonstrates
and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.”

“This is the only other disease team grant I will address. Very
specifically, this was a disease team grant that I was on the peer
review in the planning grant stage. There are some fundamental
issues here. Is the international company on which the one antibody
that's not coming from Stanford, the two for sorting are
coming from Stanford, is the other antibody coming from this
international company a commitment that you can rely on? 

“The reviewers said this was a showstopper. That's the word they
used. They made a decision this was a showstopper because they did
not believe the company because they thought that the documentation
was inadequate. You now have a letter that goes into great
proprietary depth about the depth of this company's commitments
written by the head of development and translation internationally
for the company. 

“If we cannot depend on company commitments of this type, and
you will review the letter in executive session, if you have one, I
will not understand how we'll be able to collaborate with companies
with proprietary products and processes where they're making
commitments to academic institutions of the highest standard. I
believe this company is going to perform. I was on an hour call to
confirm with eight members of that company their level of commitment,
and I am completely convinced by that point. 

“The review is completely factually wrong on this issue about
the other two antibodies for sorting this. Dr. (Irv) Weissman
has just said they have not only been developed, they have been used
in clinical trials. There's data on them. And they are, in fact,
being thawed under FDA direction to reuse in this trial. 

“So I believe there's a major factual difference. Remember with
Karen Aboody there was a major factual error that was pivotal
in elevating that, and we found tremendous performance on that grant
by Karen Aboody of City of Hope. 

“So you have a decision to make. As a risk issue, do we believe
this company? Finally, this is broader than SCID. 

“Donald Kohn has written a letter that's in the public
domain that I suggest you read. It makes it very clear that opening
the niche for repopulating the immune system without chemotherapy and
radiation is a key contribution to every form of genetically modified
stem cells for an entire range of childhood diseases and other
genetic diseases in addition to therapies like sickle cell or aids. 

“I suggest that that profound contribution that can be made to
the field is a risk that is worth taking early on because of his
contribution to so many other areas. You have 12 other letters from
North America's leading pediatric geneticists that fundamentally
provide extraordinary support for this position and this approach.”

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

“I wanted to comment on this piece
from the perspective of another patient advocate.  While I think
you know that I did not always agree with Bob Klein during his tenure
on the ICOC(the agency's governing board), I would strongly defend
his right to appear and give his opinions to the Board.  He is a
private citizen now, albeit one with considerable experience and
expertise, and I think his greatest vested interest in this case
stems (you should pardon the expression) from being the child of a
parent with Alzheimers.  As you point out, some eyebrows may be
raised, and I can imagine that some board members might be swayed in
either direction by his testimony, but  he is a passionate and
committed advocate, and he has the right to advocate before us.”

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

Bob Klein is nearly an icon in the
history of the $3 billion California stem cell. And when he appeared
before its governing board last month and aggressively touted a $20
million grant proposal already rejected by agency reviewers, his
actions raised eyebrows.

Robert Klein Elie Dolgin/Nature photo

Irv Weissman Stanford Photo

 “He has
considerable influence with the ICOC(the CIRM governing board), and
is closely associated with biotech in the Bay Area. Even if he
doesn't make a lot of money himself from this, then he certainly has
friends who will.  Irv Weissman would be one of those friends."

"StemCells Inc has been on the
stock market for 20 years, without producing anything of value for
the investors.  The stock price has been sinking fast:  it
was 60 cents this June; last year at this time, it was around $5 a
share.   

“On July 17, when the CIRM Disease
Team Award review results became available, the stock rose from 87
cents to $1.80 – a person who could anticipate the outcome of the
CIRM applications could have made considerable money in that 24 hour
period.”

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

Here is the text of Robert Klein's response today to the California Stem Cell Report concerning his appearance before the governing board of the California stem cell agency July 26, 2012. Klein, former chairman of the agency, real estate investment banker and attorney, promoted two applications seeking $20 million each from the agency. Both applications had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. Here is a link to an item on the subject.

"Dear David,
"You have posed two
questions related to my continuing role as a Patient Advocate in
contributing information to the Board of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, in an effort to optimize decisions on medical
and scientific grants and loans for research that could mitigate
and/or cure chronic diseases or injuries. 

"Q: Do you have any sort
of financial ties to StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or
firms that would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC(the CIRM governing board)?
"A: I have no financial
interest in StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or firms that
would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC. In fact, I
have no financial interest in any biomedical research company.

"Q: Do you think it is
appropriate for the former chairman of the ICOC to lobby that body on
behalf of awards to specific companies or individuals?
"A: First, it is
fundamental that the terms be defined to properly respond to your
question. A “Patient Advocate” is a member of a patient family or
a medical/scientific care /support group who advocates for medical
and scientific advances that might potentially mitigate and/or cure a
patient’s chronic disease or injury. A “Patient Advocate” is
not paid for his/her advocacy, unless they are staff members of a
non-profit institution dedicated to a specific disease or group of
diseases or injuries. 

"Second, a “lobbyist”
is a paid representative of a company or a for-profit institution(s)
with a financial interest in the outcome of a governmental decision. 

"I am serving as a
Patient Advocate in my presentations to the Board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As the former Chairman of the
Board, I have a particular responsibility to contribute my background
knowledge and experience for the Board to consider, along with all
new information, in reaching their best decision. I hope other former
Board members, who possess a wealth of scientific, medical, and
institutional knowledge that can benefit the Board, would consider
the value they can contribute to future decisions. As Board terms
expire, it will be important not to lose that institutional knowledge
and medical/scientific expertise that has been built up over the last
seven plus years of the Agency’s existence. 

"In an outline format,
I would suggest the following areas where the knowledge of former
Board members can be especially valuable in optimizing the input for
Board decisions in the future. 

"A number of Board
members have participated in up to 20 or more Peer Review meetings,
some of which cover multiple days. Current grant or loan requests
represent the result of scientific and medical advancement that has
been intensely vetted in prior peer reviews; the information gained
in those peer reviews should not be lost, when a subsequent grant or
loan request – built on the earlier research outcomes – is
considered. Each peer review session has the benefit of different
specialists and scientists and/or biotech representatives with
unique backgrounds and areas of expertise. The value of the prior
contributions may be pivotal, in considering a later application,
developed from the earlier medical or research advances funded
through CIRM’s grants or loans. The current peer review,
scientific staff presentation, and Board expertise, is not the limit
of the Board’s information, in reaching the best current decision.
To the extent the Board can draw from prior peer reviews (unique
insights), prior scientific staff presentations, and prior Board
expertise, additional information that can enhance a potential
decision, the Board has the opportunity to optimize its decision
making process. This is particularly valuable, when there is a high
standard deviation – a substantial split – in the scoring
positions from the current peer review. 

"Beyond peer review
participation, Board members have intensely engaged in another 35
plus Working Group sessions on Facilities and Standards, in addition
to more than 70 Board meetings and over 125 Subcommittee meetings,
as of August 2012. Retiring Board members possess a treasury of
information on policy development, process, federal and state laws
and regulations, and the regulations of the agency, as well as in
depth information on research facilities and capabilities throughout
California, the nation, and the world. It takes a substantial length
of time for a new Board member to gain a comprehensive knowledge in
all of these areas and each Board member will develop unique
insights, which it would be a tragedy to lose. As Chairman, I
frequently reached back to consult with former Board members on
areas of their special expertise and I would hope that all current
and future Board members utilize the significant asset in developed
knowledge of the prior Board members. To the extent prior members
can be available for public meetings, this would be a substantial
benefit to the agency to broadly inform the Board, the scientific
staff, and the public. 

"The Board has a
unique contribution to make on programmatic resource allocations and
risk management of the research and clinical investments in each
disease area. The opportunities in some disease areas for major
advancement are numerous, whereas there are major diseases and/or
critical research areas where the potential, high-value advancement
options are relatively limited. For Board members who have
participated in over 20 peer reviews and 70 Board meetings, the
programmatic perspective on the opportunities in each disease area
has been highly developed. Concurrently, those Board members or
former Board members have substantial knowledge that is of critical
value in reaching programmatic decisions on the number of
opportunities for advancement in any specific disease area and the
relative risk that needs to be taken to accomplish meaningful
breakthroughs in advancing the research and clinical opportunities
in a disease and/or injury area. 

"I hope these examples
of how former Board members can contribute to the current Board’s
information in reaching decisions on the best medical/scientific
grants and loans are helpful. As I stated earlier, it would be a
tragedy if the expertise of Board members built up over six or more
years is lost. The field is extremely complicated and the Board needs
the opportunity to consider all of the information available. The
Board can choose to accept or reject any past advice or opinions
gained from prior peer review sessions or Board meetings, but the
Board should have access to the full spectrum of information and the
treasury of scientific and medical advice the agency has received
since its inception.

"There are areas that I
have not addresses in this short response, such as the institutional
value of applicants being able to rely upon prior scientific and/or
policy direction, in their current applications. From a historical
perspective, prior Board members and/or the Chairman can have
significant information that is relevant to these evaluations,
especially if the individual Board member served on a special Task
Force , Subcommittee or peer review. These more complicated areas of
individual contribution by former Board members I can address in a
future communication; but, this specific subject – alone – could
comprise several pages and I would like to obtain critical advice and
perspective from other former Board members and the scientific
community before discussing this area in greater detail.
"Bob Klein
"Chair Emeritus
"California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine"

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

Robert Klein, who served 6 ½ years as the first chairman
of the $3 billion California stem cell agency,  testified before the agency's board for the first time on July 26, 2012. Klein, a real
estate investment banker and attorney, spoke on behalf of two applicants whose
grants had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. The appearance
has raised questions about the propriety of Klein's actions.

Here is a link to an item on his appearance. Here is the text of
his comments as reported in the transcript of the meeting.

“As the board knows, I've never addressed any grant from the
floor. It is critical here to understand that we have here
StemCells, Inc., which is the only company in North America
and, for that matter, maybe in the world, that has had two stem cell
therapies in the brain with these specific neural stem cells. They
have a huge body of experience here. 

“Secondly, one of the fundamental issues here that it (the
company's grant application) was downgraded on was the issue of the
fundamental concept, the platform concept, of injecting two focal
injections in the brain, in the hippocampus of the brain. It's
important to note that I've sat on three (CIRM)peer reviews where the
scientists really affirmed this specific approach with extremely high
scores, three different views. All right.

“So it's very important to realize we have a standard deviation
here of 12 (on the review scores). These scientists were completely
split. With some recusals on that panel, if you have 12 or 13 that
can really vote, three or four very low scores can bring it out of
the funding category all the way down. It is in the region where
this board is looking where the other three peer reviews, right,
early translation, the one before that was the planning grant review,
that the hippocampus was a good platform.

“Then they said the key weakness was you can't show migration.
Dr. Laferla (a co-PI on the application) has told me that
today the Journal of Neuroscience accepted the publication of
the data demonstrating migration. It was stated previously in the
application, but it wasn't accepted for publication. It now is.
That is the fundamental weakness that they identified in this
approach.  

“So we have a reaffirmed approach to the hippocampus by three
different peer review groups and a substantial portion of these
reviewers along with data dealing with the weak point. I'm sorry it
happened today. The data was out there, accepted for publication
today, means that it should definitely fall into this category. And,
of course, Dr. (Alan) Trounson (president of CIRM) wouldn't
have been able to review that in process because he was recused from
this grant by his own voluntary recusal. So the progress of this
data being accepted for publication is new information today. 

“If I look at the entire history of CIRM, as Leeza (Gibbons,
a CIRM director) says, building up to this point, we have reaffirmed
this approach from the very beginning with Dr. Laferla, with multiple
scientific approvals, and board approval, and we have the best
company in North America with the greatest experience with these
neural stem cells, with the best researcher we have for the potential
to address this disease, and we have brand-new data that demonstrates
and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.”

“This is the only other disease team grant I will address. Very
specifically, this was a disease team grant that I was on the peer
review in the planning grant stage. There are some fundamental
issues here. Is the international company on which the one antibody
that's not coming from Stanford, the two for sorting are
coming from Stanford, is the other antibody coming from this
international company a commitment that you can rely on? 

“The reviewers said this was a showstopper. That's the word they
used. They made a decision this was a showstopper because they did
not believe the company because they thought that the documentation
was inadequate. You now have a letter that goes into great
proprietary depth about the depth of this company's commitments
written by the head of development and translation internationally
for the company. 

“If we cannot depend on company commitments of this type, and
you will review the letter in executive session, if you have one, I
will not understand how we'll be able to collaborate with companies
with proprietary products and processes where they're making
commitments to academic institutions of the highest standard. I
believe this company is going to perform. I was on an hour call to
confirm with eight members of that company their level of commitment,
and I am completely convinced by that point. 

“The review is completely factually wrong on this issue about
the other two antibodies for sorting this. Dr. (Irv) Weissman
has just said they have not only been developed, they have been used
in clinical trials. There's data on them. And they are, in fact,
being thawed under FDA direction to reuse in this trial. 

“So I believe there's a major factual difference. Remember with
Karen Aboody there was a major factual error that was pivotal
in elevating that, and we found tremendous performance on that grant
by Karen Aboody of City of Hope. 

“So you have a decision to make. As a risk issue, do we believe
this company? Finally, this is broader than SCID. 

“Donald Kohn has written a letter that's in the public
domain that I suggest you read. It makes it very clear that opening
the niche for repopulating the immune system without chemotherapy and
radiation is a key contribution to every form of genetically modified
stem cells for an entire range of childhood diseases and other
genetic diseases in addition to therapies like sickle cell or aids. 

“I suggest that that profound contribution that can be made to
the field is a risk that is worth taking early on because of his
contribution to so many other areas. You have 12 other letters from
North America's leading pediatric geneticists that fundamentally
provide extraordinary support for this position and this approach.”

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