Category Archives: Stem Cells

The 12 winners in the latest round of grants from the California stem cell agency all come from institutions linked to directors on the agency's governing board. Board members with conflicts of interest are not allowed to vote on the grants or participate in the debate. Since the inception of the agency, more than 90 percent of its awards have gone to institutions linked to the directors. Here is a link to the CIRM press release on today's meeting.

Here is the list of researchers who won awards today.

New Faculty Physician Scientist Translational Research Awards

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/QdM4BZ5hPnc/winners-from-todays-awards-by.html

The California stem cell agency, which
has awarded ViaCyte, Inc., $36 million, today pumped another $3
million in the firm following the collapse of an alliance between the
San Diego firm and GlaxoSmithKline.

 “This is
verification of our program. To have (the head of Glaxo regenerative
medicine program) join us through a partnership arrangement with GSK
means that a project that we've shepherded from the basic science
through to the preclinical work and is heading to the clinic we're
now going to do in partnership with a very major organization.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/qtxtQt3nhU0/viacyte-wins-another-3-million-from.html

The outside counsel to the governing board of the California stem cell agency is preparing an opinion on whether some of the major changes recommended by the blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine(IOM) study might require a vote of the people.

More than three years ago, the same issue was raised  and used by the agency to resist unwanted changes.

Kevin McCormack, agency spokesman, said today that James Harrison of Remcho Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro will perform the analysis. Harrison has been counsel to the CIRM board since its inception. He also wrote part of Proposition 71, which created the stem cell agency in 2004.

Harrison's analysis was disclosed after CIRM Director Sherry Lansing, who is also chairwoman of the University of California Board of Regents, said this morning that the board's "hands are tied" concerning some of the IOM proposals because they could require a vote of the people. Other members of the board bristled at the IOM recommendations.

In 2009, Harrison tackled a similar task in connection with related, proposed structural changes at the $3 billion stem cell research effort. In reaction to proposals by the Little Hoover Commission, the state's good government agency, Harrison said,

“The Little Hoover Commission’s proposals would effect drastic and disruptive changes to CIRM’s governance and operating systems. Such changes run counter to the voters’ intent, and do not further Proposition 71’s purposes.”

The California Stem Cell Report wrote at the time, 

"The 10-page legal memo hung most of its arguments on a provision in Prop. 71 that states that it can only be amended by the legislature if the changes 'enhance the ability of the institute to further the purposes of the grant and loan programs.'
"Harrison's memo said the Hoover proposals (in question) could only be enacted through another ballot measure...."

The Little Hoover proposals dealt with the structure of the board and the conflicting responsibilities of the president and the chairman. The IOM has recommended major changes in both areas and approvingly cited the Hoover study .

Harrison's analysis will also delineate which IOM recommendations can be implemented by board action and which will require legislative approval.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6UqNIAVe5JY/constitutional-questions-raised-on.html

Carrie Miceli UCLA photo

Stan Nelson UCLA photo

“(The researchers) hope this one-two
punch used in combination will overcome the genetic mutations that
cause DMD, restore a missing protein needed for proper muscle
function and allow those affected by the disease to lead relatively
normal lives.”

“Their youngest son, Dylan, 11, was
diagnosed with DMD in 2004. While he’s still ambulatory – many
DMD patients require the use of wheelchairs by about age 10 – Dylan
can no longer run or climb stairs and he can’t shoot a basketball
over his head like other boys his age.  Despite these
challenges, Miceli said Dylan remains a happy, funny and engaged boy,
full of life and passion.

“'We entered into this field because
of the diagnosis of our son, but we hope our research can help many
others,' she said. 'There are drugs that can help manage the symptoms
of the disease, but nothing that changes its course dramatically.
We’re trying to correct the defect that causes DMD with highly
personalized genetic medicine.'” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/aAacD9507GI/a-singular-scientific-story-duchennes.html

Some directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency today sharply challenged recommendations by the Institute of Medicine(IOM) concerning conflicts of interest and the role of patient advocates on the governing board.

Much  of the criticism came from the 10 patient advocate members on the board, whose roles would be significantly altered  under the IOM recommendations. Jeff Sheehy, a patient advocate for HIV/AIDs and vice chairman of the agency's grant review group, said he saw no evidence in the IOM report for its recommendations regarding patient advocates. He said,

 "If you had some here, I would be more comfortable." 

He continued,

"We are not all powerful. We are a minority on the (29-member) board." 

Jonathan Shestack, another patient/adovcate director, said the IOM's conclusions on "conflicts of interest could not possibly be more incorrect than they are." He said,

"Advocates are here to advocate."

Harold Shapiro, chairman of the IOM study, said, "We are not against patient advocates." He said that the IOM supports advocates and that its recommendations could increase the role of patient advocates, albeit in a different manner.

Shapiro added that conflicts of interest do not necessary bar participation by board members. He said, however, they must be disclosed and managed.

Director Robert Price of UC Berkeley said,

 "We have gone to great lengths to manage conflicts of interest."

The IOM recommended that all board members be removed from the grant review process, which would be turned over to the CIRM president. The board would only vote on a slate of applications, not individual grants. More disclosure would be required of personal conflicts of interest, including health matters, that the board said research has shown can create bias.

 The IOM report said,

 “Far too many board mem­bers
represent organizations that receive CIRM funding or benefit from
that funding. These com­peting personal and professional
interests com­promise the perceived independence of the ICOC(the
CIRM governing board), introduce potential bias into the board’s
decision making, and threaten to undermine confidence in the board.”

More than 90 percent of the $1.7 billion that the CIRM board has awarded has gone to institutions that are represented on the CIRM governing board.

J.T. Thomas, chairman of the CIRM board, said that the agency takes the recommendations "very seriously" and that they would discussed further at a board workshop in early January. The workshop is scheduled to be public but the date and location has not been announced. Thomas said the recommendations will receive "lengthy discussion" thereafter and review by appropriate subcommittees of directors.

No one from the public commented during the roughly 90 minute discussion.  Eighteen out of 29 board members were present at the beginning of today's meeting.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/m0FfxPnJUes/some-stem-cell-board-members-bristle-at.html

As the Institute of Medicine began its presentation today to the governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, one of its key directors, Sherry Lansing, pointed out that some of the IOM recommendations require legislative action and perhaps a vote of the people.

Her essential point was that the agency is hamstrung by the very measure that created it in 2004. She did not elaborate on her comment, but here is a look at some of matters she was talking about. (Lansing is chairwoman of the UC board of regents and former CEO of a Hollywood film studio.)

The ballot measure locked in management minutia and more, and then slapped on tight restrictions that make it nearly politically impossible to alter even such matters as who is in charge of production of the annual report. (By order of law, the chairman, in case you are wondering.)

And if the 29-member governing board -- so sized and specified to every nit and nat by the ballot measure -- wants to make the sweeping changes recommended by the IOM, agency directors face a formidable task in California's Capitol.

Many of
the most important recommendations for the California stem cell
agency require a vote of the California legislature and
signature of the governor. The IOM's choice of words – that these proposals “may” need legislation – is conservative. There is little doubt that legislative action would be needed to fully implement the recommendations below.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/xcudV6_VtGE/iom-report-many-major-changes-at-stem.html

Jonathan Thomas CIRM Photo

Jonathan Thomas, the Los Angeles bond
financier who is chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, has
weighed in at more length on the sweeping recommendations from the
Institute of Medicine for changes at the agency.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/HmbrFtBzcs4/stem-cell-agency-chairman-says-iom.html

The Institute of Medicine's
recommendations for major changes at the California stem cell agency
today received generally high marks from independent observers and
critics.

“The institute’s recommendations
for much-needed changes to CIRM’s governance structure to provide
greater efficiency, clarity and accountability reinforce the
recommendations the Little Hoover Commission made in 2009."

“Then and now, the Commission’s
recommendations are aimed at improving CIRM’s ability to meet its
goals for the good of all who can benefit from stem cell research,
and to ensure that California taxpayers’ dollars are put to their
most efficient use to that end.”

“The IOM Committee and its staff have
done an impressive job.  The report recognizes the scientific
value and achievements of the CIRM and, at the same time, makes
cogent recommendations that, if taken seriously, will further improve
the quality and the public credibility of the Institute. The
committee and staff deserve the thanks of the scientific community
and all California citizens for their careful and thoughtful work.” 

“It's long past time to make the
changes the report calls for, but given the spin the agency put on
its response -- saying the report praises the 'agency as a bold
innovation' -- shows it's business as usual. This sort of behavior
will only ensure that CIRM doesn't get another round of public
funding,” 

“Given the agency’s shortcomings
and the state’s budgetary problems, it would be wrong to ask
Californians to give it more public money. If the agency acquires new
funds from industry sources or venture firms, it must recognize that
it has ongoing obligations to the people of California.” 

 “CIRM has not
responded in a meaningful way to many previous public interest
suggestions or to independent reviews, including the one in 2009 by
the state’s Little Hoover Commission. We hope the agency will not
continue that pattern.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/yyZ0TAisMZQ/iom-proposals-for-overhaul-at-cirm-win.html

Additional coverage emerged this morning,
including stories in the Los Angeles Times, the Nature web site and
Businessweek. on a blue-ribbon report that recommended sweeping changes
at the the $3 billion California stem cell agency

"Stem cell
agency board criticized for conflicts of interest."

"The board of California's stem cell
funding agency is rife with conflicts of interest and should be
restructured to improve the integrity of its grant-making process,
according to a new report from independent experts convened by the
national Institute of Medicine."“

“It’s unclear what effect the
report will have. Many of these recommendations run counter to
requirements enshrined in the legislation that created CIRM, and the
board of CIRM has heard similar recommendations before and failed to
act on them.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/yk8zuHF6IKA/more-iom-cirm-coverage-one-story-notes.html

Here is the full text or the essential
elements of comments sought by the California Stem Cell Report on the
Institute of Medicine report that recommended sweeping changes at the
California stem cell agency. Consumer Watchdog and the Center for
Genetics and Society put their comments in the form of news releases,
which contained redundant material.

“CIRM initiated the Institute of
Medicine review, which is to its credit.  The Institute of
Medicine took a scrupulous and rigorous approach to its review of the
California Institute of Regenerative Medicine and in its report,
notes CIRM’s many achievements and accomplishments.

“The Institute’s recommendations
for much-needed changes to CIRM’s governance structure to provide
greater efficiency, clarity and accountability reinforce the
recommendations the Little Hoover Commission made in 2009. The
institute graciously acknowledged the commission’s work, which
clearly is as relevant now as it was in 2009.

“Then and now, the Commission’s
recommendations are aimed at improving CIRM’s ability to meet its
goals for the good of all who can benefit from stem cell research,
and to ensure that California taxpayers’ dollars are put to their
most efficient use to that end.”

“Consumer Watchdog Thursday welcomed
a report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) calling for
sweeping reforms in governance at California’s stem cell agency and
an end to the board’s built-in conflicts of interest. 

“The report said that 'far too many
board members represent organizations' that receive funding or
benefit from the stem cell agency. The IOM said that the board’s
oversight function should be separated from the day-to-day management
of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). 

“'The IOM's critical report echoes
what every independent evaluator has said in the past,' said John
M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Stem Cell Project director.
'As we have repeated from the beginning, CIRM suffers from built-in
conflicts of interest and needs to separate the board's oversight
function from day-to-day management.'

“'It's long past time to make the
changes the report calls for, but given the spin the agency put on
its response -- saying the report praises the 'agency as a bold
innovation' -- shows it's business as usual. This sort of behavior
will only ensure that CIRM doesn't get another round of public
funding,' Simpson said.”

“The Center for Genetics and Society,
a nonprofit policy research and advocacy organization, welcomed the
report on the California stem cell agency released today by the
Institute of Medicine and called for stronger protections for  the interests of Californians as
the agency continues its disbursement of public funds.

“CIRM is nearing the end of the
billions of dollars of public funding allocated to it in
2004. The agency is currently considering how to extend
its operations after the money runs out. CGS Associate Executive
Director Marcy Darnovskysaid, “Given the agency’s
shortcomings and the state’s budgetary problems, it would be wrong
to ask Californians to give it more public money. If the agency
acquires new funds from industry sources or venture firms, it must
recognize that it has ongoing obligations to the people of
California.”

“She continued, 'CIRM has not
responded in a meaningful way to many previous public interest
suggestions or to independent reviews, including the one in 2008 by
the state’s Little Hoover Commission. We hope the agency will not
continue that pattern.' 

“'Today’s report from the IOM
reaffirms the significance of the conflicts of interest and
structural flaws that were built into the stem cell program from the
beginning, and that continue to threaten its credibility and
effectiveness. These are serious problems that the Center for
Genetics and Society and other public interest voices pointed out
even before the agency was approved by the 2004 ballot measure on
which backers spent some $35 million. 

“'Many aspects of these early
concerns remain directly relevant,' Darnovsky said. 'There is
still no way for elected officials to provide oversight because the
measure that created CIRM requires a 70% vote by both houses – more
than a supermajority. The agency’s governing board is still tainted
by its built-in conflicts of interest, and still includes no
representation of the public beyond disease advocates. Members of the
agency’s powerful Working Groups, including the one that reviews
grant applications, are still not required to publicly disclose their
individual financial interests.'”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/iu4DrhoewYo/text-of-comments-reacting-to-iom-report.html