With the $700,000 Institute of Medicine inquiry into the performance of the California stem cell agency half complete – at least publicly – the blue-ribbon panel seems to be coming up short on comments from outside of the agency itself.

The major public effort by the IOM to secure comments is the passive posting of forms to be filled out on the IOM web site.

How many responses has the IOM received on those forms? The IOM has not disclosed that information despite two inquiries earlier this month by the California Stem Cell Report.

The prestigious institute is undertaking the study of $3 billion agency under contract with CIRM, which is paying the IOM $700,000. Some CIRM directors have expressed hope that the IOM findings will help build support for another multi-billion dollar state bond measure to renew financing for CIRM. It is scheduled to run out of money for new grants in five years.

So far, the IOM panel has held two public meetings, one in Washington, D.C., and one in the San Francisco area. The final California hearing is scheduled for April 10 in Irvine with the last public meetings scheduled for later this year in Washington.

So far, the panel has heard only from CIRM employees or directors as well as researchers who have received tens of millions of dollars in CIRM grants. The IOM has not heard publicly from a single independent witness.

The IOM has posted on its web site forms seeking comments from the public, grant recipients, beneficiary institutions and businesses. However, passive postings of forms are unlikely to generate more than a relative handful of responses. To produce significant numbers requires aggressive and targeted follow-up.

It is also unclear exactly what the IOM is doing to seek information from biotech businesses and unsuccessful grant applicants. Some businesses have complained publicly about the tiny share of funding that industry has received. And some CIRM directors have expressed concern for several years about the inadequacies of business funding.

On Feb. 12, the California Stem Cell Report queried the IOM about its efforts at outreach, asking for specifics on what is being done. Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the IOM, replied,

"The IOM has been obtaining and compiling lists of organizations and people to circulate the questionnaires as widely as possible among target groups. For example, IOM has sent a notice to some 300 stakeholder groups encouraging participation."

Other specifics were not forthcoming. (The full text of the questions and responses can be found here.)

On Feb. 15, the California Stem Cell Report followed up with these additional questions,

"Regarding the 300 stakeholder groups, how are those defined? Please give me a few examples.

"Based on your response, is it correct to say that the IOM is not sending out questionnaires directly to all CIRM grant applicants, including those who were rejected?

"Is it correct to say that no special effort -- other than that described in your response -- is being made to seek responses from stem cell businesses?

"The failure to provide numbers on the responses so far would indicate that the numbers are so small that the IOM is choosing not to disclose them. If that is not the case, please email me the numbers."

As of this writing, the IOM has not responded to those questions. We will carry its response verbatim when we receive it.

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

Here is the text of the questions submitted Feb. 12 by the California Stem Cell Report to the Institute of Medicine concerning its attempts to secure comments on the operation of the $3 billion California stem cell agency along with the IOM response.

The response from Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the IOM, follows these questions from the California Stem Cell Report.

"I will be writing a piece on Wednesday dealing with the online surveys that IOM has posted. For that piece, please tell me very, very  specifically what the IOM is doing to generate responses. For example, is the IOM buying ads in newspapers or online, asking the public to fill out the forms? Is it hiring a polling firm to call households for responses?  Also please tell me exactly what is being done to generate responses on all the other surveys that have been posted.

"Additionally, please tell me how many responses that the IOM has received so far in each category on the survey forms for CIRM grantees, industry partners and leadership. Thank you."

The IOM response on Feb. 15:

"The IOM has been obtaining and compiling lists of organizations and people to circulate the questionnaires as widely as possible among target groups. For example, IOM has sent a notice to some 300 stakeholder groups encouraging participation. We do not have the resources to hire a polling firm or place ads.

"The purpose of these questionnaires is to extend the committee's information gathering beyond in-person meetings and the standard listing of an email address or phone number for the study on the project website. Not all people who might have useful experiences or perspectives on CIRM may be able to attend the in-person meetings and not all may visit the project website and find the study contact information. This is a proactive effort to reach more people.

"Anyone who knows of individuals or organizations with information on CIRM that would be useful for the committee's knowledge can share the links to the questionnaires with them. This will help spread the word and get the committee insights they need.

"I don't have information on the number of responses so far. Ultimately, as noted at the top of each survey, the responses will be aggregated and de-identified and placed in the public access file in addition to being shared with the committee.

"I trust this will be useful for your readers."

The California Stem Cell Report then asked the following questions on Feb. 15.

"Thank you for your response. A few follow-up questions:
Regarding the 300 stakeholder groups, how are those defined? Please give me a few examples.

"Based on your response, is it correct to say that the IOM is not sending out questionnaires directly to all CIRM grant applicants, including those who were rejected?

"Is it correct to say that no special effort -- other than that described in your response -- is being made to seek responses from stem cell businesses?

"The failure to provide numbers on the responses so far would indicate that the numbers are so small that the IOM is choosing not to disclose them. If that is not the case, please email me the numbers. Thank you."

The IOM had not responded to the follow-up questions as of this writing on Feb. 21.

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

The $3 billion California stem cell agency, which is facing its possible demise in five years, is exploring an afterlife that dips into "venture philanthropy" on a national level as well as investment ties with Big Pharma.

The Golden State's unprecedented research program laid out those possibilities in a "transition plan" sent this week to Gov. Jerry Brown and the state legislature. The plan was required under a law passed two years ago. The agency's future direction was also aired at a meeting last month in Los Angeles.

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM) will run out of funds for new grants in 2017. Its only real source of funding is cash that the state borrows (bonds). CIRM says that only $864 million remains for new research awards, and some of its recent grant rounds exceed $200 million. The current position of the agency is that it is "premature" to consider asking voters in financially strapped California to approve another multi-billion dollar bond measure.

The venture philanthropy effort involves creation of a nonprofit organization. CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas said in January that he is "test-driving (the proposal) with some high net worth donors we know to be interested in the stem cell space." Thomas was addressing the Citizens Financial Accountability and Oversight Committee, the only state entity specified charged with overseeing the agency and its directors. He said,

"We're busily putting together in conjunction with a national organization called the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine the plans for a nonprofit venture philanthropy fund."

He said it would "would accept applications for awards from researchers and companies all over the country, not just those funded by CIRM, but those funded by NIH or the New York Stem Cell Foundation or the state of Maryland or whatever."

The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine is an industry-dominated lobbying group, based in Washington, D.C.  The group's executive director and co-founder is Michael Werner, a longtime pharma and health industry lobbyist, who is also a partner in the influential Washington law firm of Holland and Knight.

The "biopharma investment fund" proposed by CIRM is less well developed. CIRM said it plans to explore opportunities with companies to fund stem cell research in California. The transition document uses as an example an $85 million deal between Pfizer and UC San Francisco, which gives the company special access to biomedical research.

The transition plan also touches on other issues such as winding down grants after its new grant money runs out, along with protecting intellectual property.

The plan could be considered a marketing tool for the agency's afterlife efforts. The document devotes a good portion of its nine pages to recounting the history of CIRM and touting its accomplishments.

Thomas used the occasion of the submission of the plan as a springboard for a piece yesterday on the CIRM research blog.He concluded his item by quoting from the plan itself. CIRM's achievements during the past seven years, he wrote, "will allow California to continue world (stem cell) leadership in the coming decades."

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

With the $700,000 Institute of Medicine inquiry into the performance of the California stem cell agency half complete – at least publicly – the blue-ribbon panel seems to be coming up short on comments from outside of the agency itself.

The major public effort by the IOM to secure comments is the passive posting of forms to be filled out on the IOM web site.

How many responses has the IOM received on those forms? The IOM has not disclosed that information despite two inquiries earlier this month by the California Stem Cell Report.

The prestigious institute is undertaking the study of $3 billion agency under contract with CIRM, which is paying the IOM $700,000. Some CIRM directors have expressed hope that the IOM findings will help build support for another multi-billion dollar state bond measure to renew financing for CIRM. It is scheduled to run out of money for new grants in five years.

So far, the IOM panel has held two public meetings, one in Washington, D.C., and one in the San Francisco area. The final California hearing is scheduled for April 10 in Irvine with the last public meetings scheduled for later this year in Washington.

So far, the panel has heard only from CIRM employees or directors as well as researchers who have received tens of millions of dollars in CIRM grants. The IOM has not heard publicly from a single independent witness.

The IOM has posted on its web site forms seeking comments from the public, grant recipients, beneficiary institutions and businesses. However, passive postings of forms are unlikely to generate more than a relative handful of responses. To produce significant numbers requires aggressive and targeted follow-up.

It is also unclear exactly what the IOM is doing to seek information from biotech businesses and unsuccessful grant applicants. Some businesses have complained publicly about the tiny share of funding that industry has received. And some CIRM directors have expressed concern for several years about the inadequacies of business funding.

On Feb. 12, the California Stem Cell Report queried the IOM about its efforts at outreach, asking for specifics on what is being done. Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the IOM, replied,

"The IOM has been obtaining and compiling lists of organizations and people to circulate the questionnaires as widely as possible among target groups. For example, IOM has sent a notice to some 300 stakeholder groups encouraging participation."

Other specifics were not forthcoming. (The full text of the questions and responses can be found here.)

On Feb. 15, the California Stem Cell Report followed up with these additional questions,

"Regarding the 300 stakeholder groups, how are those defined? Please give me a few examples.

"Based on your response, is it correct to say that the IOM is not sending out questionnaires directly to all CIRM grant applicants, including those who were rejected?

"Is it correct to say that no special effort -- other than that described in your response -- is being made to seek responses from stem cell businesses?

"The failure to provide numbers on the responses so far would indicate that the numbers are so small that the IOM is choosing not to disclose them. If that is not the case, please email me the numbers."

As of this writing, the IOM has not responded to those questions. We will carry its response verbatim when we receive it.

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

Here is the text of the questions submitted Feb. 12 by the California Stem Cell Report to the Institute of Medicine concerning its attempts to secure comments on the operation of the $3 billion California stem cell agency along with the IOM response.

The response from Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the IOM, follows these questions from the California Stem Cell Report.

"I will be writing a piece on Wednesday dealing with the online surveys that IOM has posted. For that piece, please tell me very, very  specifically what the IOM is doing to generate responses. For example, is the IOM buying ads in newspapers or online, asking the public to fill out the forms? Is it hiring a polling firm to call households for responses?  Also please tell me exactly what is being done to generate responses on all the other surveys that have been posted.

"Additionally, please tell me how many responses that the IOM has received so far in each category on the survey forms for CIRM grantees, industry partners and leadership. Thank you."

The IOM response on Feb. 15:

"The IOM has been obtaining and compiling lists of organizations and people to circulate the questionnaires as widely as possible among target groups. For example, IOM has sent a notice to some 300 stakeholder groups encouraging participation. We do not have the resources to hire a polling firm or place ads.

"The purpose of these questionnaires is to extend the committee's information gathering beyond in-person meetings and the standard listing of an email address or phone number for the study on the project website. Not all people who might have useful experiences or perspectives on CIRM may be able to attend the in-person meetings and not all may visit the project website and find the study contact information. This is a proactive effort to reach more people.

"Anyone who knows of individuals or organizations with information on CIRM that would be useful for the committee's knowledge can share the links to the questionnaires with them. This will help spread the word and get the committee insights they need.

"I don't have information on the number of responses so far. Ultimately, as noted at the top of each survey, the responses will be aggregated and de-identified and placed in the public access file in addition to being shared with the committee.

"I trust this will be useful for your readers."

The California Stem Cell Report then asked the following questions on Feb. 15.

"Thank you for your response. A few follow-up questions:
Regarding the 300 stakeholder groups, how are those defined? Please give me a few examples.

"Based on your response, is it correct to say that the IOM is not sending out questionnaires directly to all CIRM grant applicants, including those who were rejected?

"Is it correct to say that no special effort -- other than that described in your response -- is being made to seek responses from stem cell businesses?

"The failure to provide numbers on the responses so far would indicate that the numbers are so small that the IOM is choosing not to disclose them. If that is not the case, please email me the numbers. Thank you."

The IOM had not responded to the follow-up questions as of this writing on Feb. 21.

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