Category Archives: Stem Cells

Constitutional objections to some of
the Institute of Medicine's sweeping recommendations for changes at
the $3 billion California stem cell agency amount to little more than
a straw man, at least based on a legal memo produced earlier by the
agency.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/8TDUJVXl3rw/exploring-straw-man-argument-against.html

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/_Zshc3lQops/balloting-begins-on-stem-cell-person-of.html

With the addition of another editorial
this week, reaction among California newspapers so far has been
unanimous that the $3 billion California stem cell agency should heed
the sweeping recommendations of the prestigious Institute of
Medicine.

“Good intentions do not justify poor
practice.”

“An agency spending Californians’
money has no business being cavalier about good government practice
and ethical safeguards — no matter how promising the potential
therapies might be. The stem-cell institute is not a private fiefdom,
but a taxpayer-supported undertaking. Yet many on the stem-cell
institute’s board objected this month to the report’s
recommendations.

“The agency also said that Prop. 71’s
provisions mean that enacting many of the proposed fixes would
require either a supermajority vote of the Legislature or another
ballot measure. That prospect should warn Californians about the
dangers of voting for complex, costly, politically driven initiatives
that have little to do with fundamental state duties.

“Still, the stem-cell agency cannot
just sit on these recommendations without damaging its credibility.
The search for medical breakthroughs does not justify ignoring vital
safeguards for spending taxpayer dollars.”

For a look at other editorials, see here and here.Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/70xi8-waM7k/california-editorial-unamity-stem-cell.html

The Orange County Register today zeroed
in on the $3 billion California stem cell agency and its relationship
to the local University of California campus in the wake of sweeping
recommendations for changes at the eight-year-old agency.

“Repeated independent reviews of the
agency, including one by the (IOM) released this month, have found
that its board is rife with conflicts of interest. In fact, of the
$1.7 billion that the agency has awarded so far, about 90 percent has
gone to research institutions with ties to people sitting on the
board, according to an analysis by David Jensen at the California
Stem Cell Report, which closely follows the agency's operations.

“What's clear already is that the
money has transformed stem cell research in California and poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into the state's universities,
including UC Irvine.”

“Before Proposition 71 (the measure
that created the agency) passed, UC Irvine had less than ten stem
cell scientists, who received about $1.5 million in funding each
year. Now, after receiving $100 million in grants from the state
agency, the university has sixty scientists working to advance stem
cell research and teaching. It touts itself as one of the top stem
cell research centers in the world. In 2010, it opened an $80 million
four-story stem cell research center with the agency picking up $27
million of the cost.

“As UC Irvine has won increasing
amounts of taxpayer money, its two professors who sit on the agency's
board have risen in status on campus.

Susan Bryant UC Irvine photo

“Professor Susan Bryant, an expert in
regenerative medicine, was dean of the School of Biological Sciences
when she was named to the agency's board in 2004. She was then
promoted to vice-chancellor of research. In July, she was named the
university's interim executive vice-chancellor and provost, its
second most powerful administrator.

“When Professor Oswald Steward, a
stem cell scientist, joined the agency's board in 2004, he was
director of UCI's Reeve-Irvine Research Center for Spinal Injury.
Since then, the scientists working in his center have received
millions of dollars in grants from the agency. In May, the university
rewarded Steward with an additional title: senior associate dean of
research for the School of Medicine.”

“The two professors are prohibited
from receiving any agency funds for their own scientific work. But so
much money has been funneled into the stem cell field in California
that it can be difficult to show their continued scientific efforts
are not somehow benefiting. For example, Bryant co-authored a
scientific article in 2009 with nine other scientists about the
genetics of salamanders, which can regenerate limbs. In the report,
the group recognized the state agency for partially funding their
work. Bryant said that the money was received by another scientist in
the group who was not employed by UC Irvine. She said the state
agency has never given a grant for research involving salamanders. 'I
have never-ever benefited from CIRM funding,' Bryant said using the
agency's acronym.

Os Steward UC Irvine photo

“Steward said he stopped his stem
cell research when he joined the board in 2004. His board position,
he said, 'has prevented me from taking on lines of research I
otherwise would do.'

“Tom Vasich, a campus spokesperson,
said Bryant and Stewart's positions on the agency's board played no
part in their promotions and success at the school.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/41IPNEUfHpo/southern-california-newspaper-tackles.html

Two other major California newspapers
today said the $3 billion California stem cell agency needs to “clean
up its act” if it wants to be successful in continuing its efforts
at turning stem cells into cures.

“The $700,000 spent on the
study...will be wasted if the institute's oversight board fails to
heed the (IOM) committee's
criticisms, which echo the findings of the Little Hoover
Commission and other groups over the years.”

“The 29-member board is made up
almost entirely of representatives of advocacy groups and research
institutions that have a direct interest in how the money is spent.”

“The board also overrode the advice
of its scientific advisors — twice on a single application when it
considered a grant for a well-connected company, StemCells Inc. based
in Newark, Calif. The board granted the company $20 million after Robert Klein, the driving force behind the passage of Proposition 71,
which created and funded the agency in 2004, and its former head,
lobbied so intensively for the company that one board member
described it as 'arm-twisting.'"

“The agency has used more than half
of its funding and one day will almost certainly want to ask
taxpayers for more. It should remember that voters will look for
evidence of public accountability as well as respected research.”

“(I)f it wants to survive...it
should heed the Institute of Medicine's advice to eliminate conflicts
of interest on its board -- and do it before awarding the remaining
$1.2 billion of the $3 billion voters approved for stem cell
research.”

“Long-term funding was never the
intent when Proposition 71 passed in 2004. It was supposed to
kick-start research at a time when federal funding was blocked and to
establish California as a major player in the rapidly advancing
medical field. 

“The agency could continue to bring
value to the state as an advocate and funder of research, but only if
it can attract private donors, partners and investors. For that to
happen, it will need a board that passes the ethics test, with more
independent experts and industry executives free of conflicts. 

“At the outset, stem cell advocates
took immense pride in structuring the agency to keep it relatively
free of legislative interference despite the use of public money.
Politicians kept their hands off, which was good. But the agency
created its own inappropriate influences in the way it constituted
its board. Now it needs to clean up its act.“

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/hjDmQPb6wDs/two-more-editorials-california-stem.html