Search Results for: double stemcell research

Recent Research on Stem Cells | Stem Cell Of America

Posted: November 10, 2018 at 6:42 pm

The following are recent research journals from US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health's pubmed.gov directory on the use of stem cells for various diseases and conditions:

Researchers said the treatment could be used for several conditions that include dementia.

By Stephen Feller | Oct. 15, 2015 at 4:30 PM

Read Publication

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disorder of upper and lower motor neurons, characterized by progressive muscular atrophy and weakness which culminates in death within 2-5years...

J Clin Neurosci. 2013 Oct 19. pii: S0967-5868(13)00357-3. Author: Meamar R, Nasr-Esfahani MH, Mousavi SA, Basiri K.

Read Publication

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an irreversible neurodegenerative disease, still lacking proper clinical treatment. Therefore, many researchers have focused on the possibility of therapeutic use of stem cells for AD...

Neurodegener Dis. 2013 Oct 23. Author: Chang KA, Kim HJ, Joo Y, Ha S, Suh YH.

Read Publication

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a pleiotropic cytokine with significant functions in the regulation of the immune system. As a potent pro-inflammatory cytokine, IL-6 plays a pivotal role in host defense against pathogens and acute stress...

Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Sep 27. pii: S0163-7258(13)00193-9. Author: Yao X, Huang J, Zhong H, Shen N, Faggioni R, Fung M, Yao Y.

Read Publication

BACKGROUND AIMS: Pre-clinical evidence indicates that autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cell (BM-MSC) transplantation improves motor function in patients...

Cytotherapy. 2013 Oct 5. pii: S1465-3249(13)00561-6. Author: Wang X, Cheng H, Hua R, Yang J, Dai G, Zhang Z, Wang R, Qin C, An Y.

Read Publication

Adult neural stem cells contribute to neurogenesis and plasticity of the brain which is essential for central regulation of systemic homeostasis. Damage to these homeostatic components...

Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2013 Oct 25. Author:Purkayastha S, Cai D.

Read Publication

Despite significant therapeutic advances, the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) remains poor, and current therapeutic approaches are palliative in the sense that they do not address the underlying problem...

Circ Res. 2013 Aug 30;113(6):810-34. Author: Sanganalmath SK, Bolli R.

Read Publication

Recent evidence suggests that enhanced neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation activates plasmacytoid dendritic cells and serves as a source of autoantigens in SLE. We propose that aberrant NET formation...

J Clin Invest. 2013 Jul 1;123(7):2981-93. Author: Knight JS, Zhao W, Luo W, Subramanian V, O'Dell AA, Yalavarthi S, Hodgin JB, Eitzman DT, Thompson PR, Kaplan MJ.

Read Publication

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of visual loss in the developed world in those of working age, and its prevalence is predicted to double by 2025. The management of diabetic...

Clin Med. 2013 Aug;13(4):353-7. Author: Williams MA, Chakravarthy U.

Read Publication

Interleukin (IL)-10 is an important immunoregulatory cytokine shown to impact inflammatory processes as manifested in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and in its animal model, experimental autoimmune...

Brain Behav Immun. 2013 May;30:103-14. Author: Payne NL, Sun G, McDonald C, Moussa L, Emerson-Webber A, Loisel-Meyer S, Medin JA, Siatskas C, Bernard CC.

Read Publication

Stem cell transplantation is being tested as a potential therapy for a number of diseases. Stem cells isolated directly from tissue specimens or generated via reprogramming of differentiated cells require...

Hum Gene Ther. 2013 Oct 23. Author: Rozkalne A, Adkin C, Meng J, Lapan A, Morgan J, Gussoni E.

Read Publication

IMPORTANCE Recent advances in stem cell technologies have rekindled an interest in the use of cell replacement strategies for patients with Parkinson disease...

JAMA Neurol. 2013 Nov 11. Author: Kefalopoulou Z, Politis M, Piccini P, Mencacci N, Bhatia K, Jahanshahi M, Widner H, Rehncrona S, Brundin P, Bjrklund A, Lindvall O, Limousin P, Quinn N, Foltynie T.

Read Publication

Since several years, adult/perinatal mesenchymal and neural crest stem cells have been widely used to help experimental animal to recover from spinal cord injury. More interestingly...

Stem Cells. 2013 Oct 23. Author: Neirinckx V, Cantinieaux D, Coste C, Rogister B, Franzen R, Wislet-Gendebien S.

Read Publication

Even after decades of intensive studies, therapeutic options for patients with stroke are rather limited. Thrombolytic drugs effectively treat the very acute stage of stroke, and several neuroprotectants...

Cell Transplant. 2013 Oct 22. Author: Yoo J, Seo JJ, Eom JH, Hwang DY.

Read Publication

Although we have supplied the links above to research journals, we are not saying that any of these studies would relate to your particular disease or condition. Please note, stem cells are not a substitute for proper medical diagnosis and care.

Read more from the original source:
Recent Research on Stem Cells | Stem Cell Of America

Posted in Stem Cell Research | Comments Off on Recent Research on Stem Cells | Stem Cell Of America

MS-UK | Stem cells And MS Research

Posted: July 2, 2015 at 12:54 am

Placenta cell focus of potential new treatment(06/05/15)

A study, Human Placenta-Derived Cells (PDA-001) For The Treatment Of Adults With Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Multiple-Dose Study, published in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders and led by researchers at Mount Sinai in New York and Celgene Cellular Therapeutics, has revealed an infusion based on cells derived from the placenta proved to be safe for patients with multiple sclerosis and a promising new treatment for the condition.

It has been previously shown that therapeutic cell-based infusions have an immunomodulatory and repair action in MS. PDA-001 in particular is a preparation of cultured mesenchymal-like cells derived from healthy human placental tissue and designed for the treatment of MS as these cells have immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, pro-regenerative and neuroprotective properties. As these placenta cells are expanded in cell culture, one healthy donor is capable of supplying enough cells for several patients.

In the study, researchers tested the safety and possible exacerbation of the disease with this new MS treatment approach based on PDA-001. A phase 1b, randomised, multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted with 16 MS patients (ten with relapsing-remitting MS and six with secondary progressive MS), aged between 18 and 65 years. Six patients received a high dose of PDA-001 (600106 cells), other six were given a lower dose (150106 cells), and the remaining four patients received a placebo. Patients were monitored monthly for brain lesions.

Researchers found none of the patients had worsening of MS-related brain lesions one year after treatment with both PDA-001 doses, and the majority of the patients had stable or had improved levels of disability.

Were hoping to learn more about how placental stromal cells contribute to myelin repair, said the studys lead author and Professor of Neurology at Mount Sinai, Dr Fred Lublin in a news release.

We suspect they either convert to a myelin making cell, or they enhance the environment of the area where the damage is to allow for natural repair. Our long-term goal is to develop strategies to facilitate repair of the damaged nervous system.

The research team concluded that PDA-001 treatment was overall safe and well tolerated by patients, and that preliminary evidence suggests that PDA-001 could be able to repair damaged nerve tissues in MS patients.

This is the first time placenta-derived cells have been tested as a possible therapy for multiple sclerosis, said Dr Lublin.

The next step will be to study larger numbers of MS patients to assess efficacy of the cells, but we could be looking at a new frontier in treatment for the disease.

Read the rest here:
MS-UK | Stem cells And MS Research

Posted in Mississippi Stem Cells | Comments Off on MS-UK | Stem cells And MS Research

Compensation for Human Eggs Approved by Key California Senate Committee, But Not For CIRM Researchers

Posted: June 16, 2013 at 2:58 am

Legislation that would permit women in
California to be paid for their eggs for scientific research
yesterday cleared a key state Senate committee and is likely headed
for the governor's desk.
The measure by Assemblywoman Susan
Bonilla, D-Concord, was approved on a 6-1 vote by the Senate Health
Committee and now goes to the Senate floor. Earlier, it passed the
Assembly on a 54-20 vote.
Some stem cell researchers and other
scientists have chafed under state restrictions that bar compensation
for eggs while that the same time fertility clinics are paying an average of $9,000 a session for eggs, with some prices going as high as $50,000.
However, the legislation will not
affect researchers using grants from the $3 billion California stem
cell agency. The agency's regulations bar compensation for eggs in
the research that it funds. That means that at least a two-tiered
research system would exist in California not to mention another tier
created by federal regulations that differ from both those of the
stem cell agency and those set by the legislation.
CIRM's restrictions are required by
Proposition 71, which created the agency in 2004, and cannot be
changed without a 70 percent vote of the legislature. Bonilla's bill
requires only a majority vote.
Bonilla's legislation is sponsored by
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the chief industry
group for the largely unregulated fertility industry.
The analysis prepared for yesterday's
committee session summarized Bonilla's arguments for the measure in
this fashion:

“This bill seeks to create equity in
the field of medical research compensation by removing the
prohibition on compensation for women participating in oocyte (egg)
donation for medical research. All other research subjects are
compensated for their time, trouble, and inconvenience involved in
participating in research. AB 926 ensures that women are treated
equally to all other research subjects - allowing them to actively
evaluate their participation in research studies. Unfortunately, the
ban on compensation has had serious unintended consequences. It has
led to a de facto prohibition on women’s reproductive research in
California, adversely impacting the same women that the ban intended
to protect. With few oocytes donated, fertility research and
fertility preservation research has been at a standstill. This
greatly affects women suffering from fertility issues and women
facing cancer who would like to preserve their oocytes.”

A number of organizations are opposed
to the bill including the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley
and the Catholic Church. The bill analysis summarized some of the
opposition arguments in this fashion:

“Egg harvesting exposes healthy young
women to multiple synthetic hormones in order to produce many times
the normal number of eggs per cycle. One of the potential harms is
OHSS, which has resulted in hospitalizations and at least a few
documented deaths. These groups state that many experts remain
concerned about the long-term risks of these drugs, especially
their potential impact on infertility and various cancers.
Follow-up research on egg providers, which could establish the
frequency and severity of these adverse outcomes, is widely
recognized to be grossly inadequate.”

In addition to risk and religious
objections, opponents also argue that poor and minority women are
likely to be exploited by enterprises seeking their eggs to resell at
a profit.
No major stem cell research
organizations, including the California stem cell agency, have taken
a position on the bill. The legislation has received little public
attention, although The Sacramento Bee carried an article last March.
Ruha Benjamin, author of "People's Science" and assistant professor at Boston
University, also wrote about the measure in April on the Huffington
Post. Benjamin said,
“UC Berkeley professor Charis
Thompson compares egg
donation to 'other kinds of physically demanding service work,'
arguing for a 'salary negotiation between the state agency (or
relevant employer) and the donor.' This, she contends, is a 'sensible
and dignified recognition of [the donor's] work, time, and effort.'
And instead of refusing compensation to women, Thompson suggests that
we 'direct our efforts to understanding and minimizing' the risks.
“Indeed. Now more than ever, we must
redouble our efforts, because the market in eggs appears to be
expanding from private reproduction to public research, and
increasingly overseas, if the surrogacy
industry is any indication of how 'cheaper' women become a
reserve army of bio-labor in less regulated regions.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/SVuriAz87l0/compensation-for-human-eggs-approved-by.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Compensation for Human Eggs Approved by Key California Senate Committee, But Not For CIRM Researchers

Compensation for Human Eggs Approved by Key California Senate Committee, But Not For CIRM Researchers

Posted: June 13, 2013 at 2:11 pm

Legislation that would permit women in
California to be paid for their eggs for scientific research
yesterday cleared a key state Senate committee and is likely headed
for the governor's desk.
The measure by Assemblywoman Susan
Bonilla, D-Concord, was approved on a 6-1 vote by the Senate Health
Committee and now goes to the Senate floor. Earlier, it passed the
Assembly on a 54-20 vote.
Some stem cell researchers and other
scientists have chafed under state restrictions that bar compensation
for eggs while that the same time fertility clinics are paying an average of $9,000 a session for eggs, with some prices going as high as $50,000.
However, the legislation will not
affect researchers using grants from the $3 billion California stem
cell agency. The agency's regulations bar compensation for eggs in
the research that it funds. That means that at least a two-tiered
research system would exist in California not to mention another tier
created by federal regulations that differ from both those of the
stem cell agency and those set by the legislation.
CIRM's restrictions are required by
Proposition 71, which created the agency in 2004, and cannot be
changed without a 70 percent vote of the legislature. Bonilla's bill
requires only a majority vote.
Bonilla's legislation is sponsored by
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the chief industry
group for the largely unregulated fertility industry.
The analysis prepared for yesterday's
committee session summarized Bonilla's arguments for the measure in
this fashion:

“This bill seeks to create equity in
the field of medical research compensation by removing the
prohibition on compensation for women participating in oocyte (egg)
donation for medical research. All other research subjects are
compensated for their time, trouble, and inconvenience involved in
participating in research. AB 926 ensures that women are treated
equally to all other research subjects - allowing them to actively
evaluate their participation in research studies. Unfortunately, the
ban on compensation has had serious unintended consequences. It has
led to a de facto prohibition on women’s reproductive research in
California, adversely impacting the same women that the ban intended
to protect. With few oocytes donated, fertility research and
fertility preservation research has been at a standstill. This
greatly affects women suffering from fertility issues and women
facing cancer who would like to preserve their oocytes.”

A number of organizations are opposed
to the bill including the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley
and the Catholic Church. The bill analysis summarized some of the
opposition arguments in this fashion:

“Egg harvesting exposes healthy young
women to multiple synthetic hormones in order to produce many times
the normal number of eggs per cycle. One of the potential harms is
OHSS, which has resulted in hospitalizations and at least a few
documented deaths. These groups state that many experts remain
concerned about the long-term risks of these drugs, especially
their potential impact on infertility and various cancers.
Follow-up research on egg providers, which could establish the
frequency and severity of these adverse outcomes, is widely
recognized to be grossly inadequate.”

In addition to risk and religious
objections, opponents also argue that poor and minority women are
likely to be exploited by enterprises seeking their eggs to resell at
a profit.
No major stem cell research
organizations, including the California stem cell agency, have taken
a position on the bill. The legislation has received little public
attention, although The Sacramento Bee carried an article last March.
Ruha Benjamin, author of "People's Science" and assistant professor at Boston
University, also wrote about the measure in April on the Huffington
Post. Benjamin said,
“UC Berkeley professor Charis
Thompson compares egg
donation to 'other kinds of physically demanding service work,'
arguing for a 'salary negotiation between the state agency (or
relevant employer) and the donor.' This, she contends, is a 'sensible
and dignified recognition of [the donor's] work, time, and effort.'
And instead of refusing compensation to women, Thompson suggests that
we 'direct our efforts to understanding and minimizing' the risks.
“Indeed. Now more than ever, we must
redouble our efforts, because the market in eggs appears to be
expanding from private reproduction to public research, and
increasingly overseas, if the surrogacy
industry is any indication of how 'cheaper' women become a
reserve army of bio-labor in less regulated regions.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/SVuriAz87l0/compensation-for-human-eggs-approved-by.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Compensation for Human Eggs Approved by Key California Senate Committee, But Not For CIRM Researchers

California Stem Cell Agency Still in Talks on $40 Million for StemCells, Inc.

Posted: November 25, 2012 at 8:00 am


The California stem cell agency and
StemCells, Inc., are still trying to reach agreement on a deal in
which the company would receive $40 million from the state's
taxpayer-funded research effort.

The sticking point is the $40 million
in matching funds required from the Newark, Ca., firm under the terms
of the two awards approved in July and September. The latter award
was okayed on a 7-5 vote by the governing board after it was rejected
twice by the agency's reviewers.
On Monday the California Stem Cell
Report queried the agency about the status of the awards. Kevin
McCormack, the agency's spokesman, replied,

“We are still in talks with them over
the terms of the funding. Hopefully, we'll have an agreement soon.”

He did not elaborate further.
CIRM staff normally reviews
applications after they are approved by the agency's governing board
to be sure that all conditions are being met. However, in the case of
the September award to StemCells, Inc., CIRM's governing board took
the unusual step of publicly stating that the firm must demonstrate
it has the $20 million in matching funds before it receives any
payments from CIRM. The board did not take that sort of public
position on the $20 million grant approved earlier in the summer,
although matching funds are required in that case as well.
The former chairman of the $3 billion
stem cell agency, Robert Klein, appeared twice before the board to
lobby for approval of the second award to StemCells, Inc., which is a
publicly traded firm.. It was the first such appearance by Klein
before his former colleagues since leaving the agency in June 2011.
Action on the StemCells, Inc., awards
attracted attention from the Los Angeles Times last month. Pulitzer
Prize-winning columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote that the process was “redolent of cronyism.” He said a “charmed relationship”
existed among StemCells, Inc., its “powerful friends” and the
stem cell agency.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/MeZfo2qdxDQ/california-stem-cell-agency-still-in.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on California Stem Cell Agency Still in Talks on $40 Million for StemCells, Inc.

Researcher Alert: Keeping Tabs on the Stem Cell Exchequer

Posted: November 25, 2012 at 8:00 am


The California stem cell agency has
posted the dates for meetings of its board of directors for 2013
with most of the sessions scheduled for the San Francisco Bay Area.

One is expected to take place in San
Diego in August, and another in Los Angeles 13 months from now. The
other five are in Northern California. Not yet on the schedule is a board workshop in early January that will be open to the public.
Why is this of interest to researchers
and others? The  board controls the purse strings to $3 billion for research grants and determines what areas are to be funded. Astute scientists would do well to take in the sessions.
They offer insights into board thinking and opportunities to deal
with the agency staff and directors on an informal basis. Only a
handful of researchers – or less – attend the meetings on a
regular basis, but have been well-served by the time spent. 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/YJowRDshtEY/researcher-alert-keeping-tabs-on-stem.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Researcher Alert: Keeping Tabs on the Stem Cell Exchequer

California Stem Cell Agency Still in Talks on $40 Million for StemCells, Inc.

Posted: November 25, 2012 at 7:59 am


The California stem cell agency and
StemCells, Inc., are still trying to reach agreement on a deal in
which the company would receive $40 million from the state's
taxpayer-funded research effort.

The sticking point is the $40 million
in matching funds required from the Newark, Ca., firm under the terms
of the two awards approved in July and September. The latter award
was okayed on a 7-5 vote by the governing board after it was rejected
twice by the agency's reviewers.
On Monday the California Stem Cell
Report queried the agency about the status of the awards. Kevin
McCormack, the agency's spokesman, replied,

“We are still in talks with them over
the terms of the funding. Hopefully, we'll have an agreement soon.”

He did not elaborate further.
CIRM staff normally reviews
applications after they are approved by the agency's governing board
to be sure that all conditions are being met. However, in the case of
the September award to StemCells, Inc., CIRM's governing board took
the unusual step of publicly stating that the firm must demonstrate
it has the $20 million in matching funds before it receives any
payments from CIRM. The board did not take that sort of public
position on the $20 million grant approved earlier in the summer,
although matching funds are required in that case as well.
The former chairman of the $3 billion
stem cell agency, Robert Klein, appeared twice before the board to
lobby for approval of the second award to StemCells, Inc., which is a
publicly traded firm.. It was the first such appearance by Klein
before his former colleagues since leaving the agency in June 2011.
Action on the StemCells, Inc., awards
attracted attention from the Los Angeles Times last month. Pulitzer
Prize-winning columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote that the process was “redolent of cronyism.” He said a “charmed relationship”
existed among StemCells, Inc., its “powerful friends” and the
stem cell agency.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/MeZfo2qdxDQ/california-stem-cell-agency-still-in.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on California Stem Cell Agency Still in Talks on $40 Million for StemCells, Inc.

Researcher Alert: Keeping Tabs on the Stem Cell Exchequer

Posted: November 25, 2012 at 7:59 am


The California stem cell agency has
posted the dates for meetings of its board of directors for 2013
with most of the sessions scheduled for the San Francisco Bay Area.

One is expected to take place in San
Diego in August, and another in Los Angeles 13 months from now. The
other five are in Northern California. Not yet on the schedule is a board workshop in early January that will be open to the public.
Why is this of interest to researchers
and others? The  board controls the purse strings to $3 billion for research grants and determines what areas are to be funded. Astute scientists would do well to take in the sessions.
They offer insights into board thinking and opportunities to deal
with the agency staff and directors on an informal basis. Only a
handful of researchers – or less – attend the meetings on a
regular basis, but have been well-served by the time spent. 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/YJowRDshtEY/researcher-alert-keeping-tabs-on-stem.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Researcher Alert: Keeping Tabs on the Stem Cell Exchequer

Los Angeles Times: StemCells, Inc., Award ‘Redolent of Cronyism’

Posted: October 21, 2012 at 7:59 am


The Los Angeles Times this
morning carried a column about the “charmed relationship” between
StemCells, Inc., its “powerful friends” and the $3 billion
California stem cell agency.

The article was written by
Pulitzer prize winner and author Michael Hiltzik, who has been
critical of the agency in the past. The piece was the first in the major
mainstream media about a $20 million award to StemCells, Inc., that was approved in September by the agency's board. The bottom line of the
article? The award was “redolent of cronyism.”
Hiltzik noted that
StemCells, Inc., now ranks as the leading corporate recipient of cash
from the agency with $40 million approved during the last few months.
But he focused primarily
on September's $20 million award, which was approved despite being
rejected twice by grant reviewers – “a particularly
impressive” performance, according to Hiltzik. It was the first
time that the board has approved an award that was rejected twice by
reviewers.
Hiltzik wrote,

“What was the company's
secret? StemCells says it's addressing 'a serious unmet medical need'
in Alzheimer's research. But it doesn't hurt that the company also
had powerful friends going to bat for it, including two guys who were
instrumental in getting CIRM off the ground in the first place.”

The two are Robert Klein,
who led the ballot campaign that created the agency and became its
first chairman, and Irv Weissman of Stanford, who co-founded
StemCells, Inc., and sits on its board. Weissman, an internationally
known stem cell researcher, also was an important supporter of the
campaign, raising millions of dollars and appearing in TV ads. Klein,
who left the agency last year, appeared twice before the CIRM board
this summer to lobby his former colleagues on behalf of Weissman's
company. It was Klein's first appearance before the board on behalf
of a specific application.
The Times piece continued,

“But private enterprise
is new territory for CIRM, which has steered almost all its grants
thus far to nonprofit institutions. Those efforts haven't been
trouble-free: With some 90% of the agency's grants having gone to
institutions with representatives on its board, the agency has long
been vulnerable to charges of conflicts of interest. The last thing
it needed was to show a similar flaw in its dealings with private
companies too.”

Hiltzik wrote,

“(Weissman) has also
been a leading beneficiary of CIRM funding, listed as the principal
researcher on three grants worth a total of $24.5 million. The agency
also contributed $43.6 million toward the construction of his
institute's glittering $200-million research building on the Stanford
campus.”

CIRM board approval of the
$20 million for StemCells, Inc., came on 7-5 vote that also required
the firm to prove that it had a promised $20 million in matching
funds prior to distribution of state cash.
Hiltzik continued,

“The problem is that
StemCells doesn't have $20 million in spare funds. Its quarterly
report for the period ended June 30 listed about $10.4
million in liquid assets, and shows it's burning about $5 million per
quarter. Its prospects of raising significant cash from investors
are, shall we say, conjectural.

“As it happens, within
days of the board's vote, the
firm downplayed any pledge 'to raise a specific amount of
money in a particular period of time.' The idea that CIRM 'is
requiring us to raise $20 million in matching funds' is a
'misimpression,' it said. Indeed, it suggested that it might count
its existing spending on salaries and other 'infrastructure and
overhead' as part of the match. StemCells declined my request that it
expand on its statement. 

“CIRM spokesman Kevin
McCormack says the agency is currently scrutinizing StemCells'
finances 'to see what it is they have and whether it meets the
requirements and expectations of the board.' The goal is to set
'terms and conditions that provide maximum protection for taxpayer
dollars.' He says, 'If we can't agree on a plan, the award will
not be funded.'"

Hiltzik wrote,

“The agency shouldn't be
deciding on the spot what does or doesn't qualify as matching funds.
It should have clear guidelines in advance.

“Nor should the board
overturn the judgment of its scientific review panels without
clear-cut reasons....The record suggests that the handling of the
StemCells appeal was at best haphazard and at worst redolent of
cronyism.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6qvBfSLP3RE/los-angeles-times-stemcells-inc-award.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Los Angeles Times: StemCells, Inc., Award ‘Redolent of Cronyism’

Researcher Alert: Stem Cell Agency to Take Up Grant Appeal Restrictions

Posted: October 21, 2012 at 7:59 am


The move by the $3 billion California
stem cell agency to curtail its free-wheeling grant appeal process
will undergo its first public hearing next week.

The proposals will mean that scientists
whose applications are rejected by reviewers will have fewer avenues
to pursue to overturn those decisions. The changes could take effect
as early as next year.
The move comes in the wake of a record
number of appeals this summer that left the board complaining about
“arm-twisting,” lobbying and “emotionally charged presentations.”
Among other things, the new "guidelines" attempt to define
criteria for re-review – “additional analysis” – of
applications involved in appeals, also called “extraordinary
petitions.” The plan states that re-review should occur only in
the case of a material dispute of fact or material new information.
(See the end of this item for agency's proposed definitions.)
In addition to alterations in the
appeal process, the CIRM directors' Application Review Task Force
will take up questions involving “ex parte communications.” The
agenda for the Oct. 24 meeting did not contain any additional
information on the issue but it likely deals with lobbying efforts on
grants outside of public meetings of the agency. We understand that
such efforts surfaced last summer involving the $$214 million disease
team round and Robert Klein, the former chairman of the stem cell
agency.
Klein appeared twice publicly before
the board on one, $20 million application by StemCells, Inc., the
first time a former governing board member has publicly lobbied his former
colleagues on an application. The application was rejected twice by reviewers – once
on the initial review and again later on a re-review – but it was
ultimately approved by directors in September on a 7-5 vote.
The board has long been troubled with
its appeal process but last summer's events brought the matter to a
new head. The issue is difficult to deal with because state law
allows anyone to address the CIRM governing board on any subject when
it meets. That includes applicants who can ask the board to approve
grants for any reason whatsoever, not withstanding CIRM rules. The board can also approve a grant
for virtually any reason although it has generally relied on
scientific scores from reviewers.
The proposals to restrict appeals are
designed to make it clear to scientists whose applications are
rejected by reviewers that the board is not going to look with favor
on those who depart from the normal appeals procedure.
While the board almost never has
overturned a positive decision by reviewers, in nearly every round it  approves some applications that have been rejected by reviewers. That has
occurred as the result of appeals and as the result of motions by
board members that did not result from public appeals.
Ten of the 29 board members are classified as patient advocates and often feel they must advance the cause of the
diseases that they have been involved with. Sometimes that means
seeking approval of applications with low scientific scores.
Here is how agency proposes to define
“material dispute of fact:”

“A material dispute of fact should
meet five criteria:(1) An applicant disputes the accuracy of a
statement in the review summary;(2) the disputed fact was significant
in the scoring or recommendation of the GWG(grant review group); (3) the dispute pertains
to an objectively verifiable fact, rather than a matter of scientific
judgment or opinion;(4) the discrepancy was not addressed through the
Supplemental Information Process and cannot be resolved at the
meeting at which the application is being considered; and
(5) resolution of the dispute could affect the outcome of the board’s
funding decision."

Here is how the agency proposes to
define “material new information:”

“New information should: (1)be
verifiable through external sources; (2) have arisen since the
Grants Working Group(grant review group) meeting at which the application
was considered; (3) respond directly to a specific criticism or
question identified in the Grants Working Group’s review; and (4)
be submitted as part of an extraordinary petition filed five business
days before the board meeting at which the application is
being considered."

Next week's hearing is scheduled for
Children's Hospital in Oakland with a teleconference location at UC
Irvine. Addresses can be found on the agenda.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6sbxGqQJ77Y/researcher-alert-stem-cell-agency-to.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Researcher Alert: Stem Cell Agency to Take Up Grant Appeal Restrictions