header logo image


Page 80«..1020..79808182..90100..»

Archive for the ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ Category

Text of Comments on Awards to Stem Cell Directors’ Institutions

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


Here is the full text of comments made
by the California stem cell agency, Joe Mathews, co-author of
California Crack-Up” and Bob Stern, former president of the
Center for Governmental Studies and co-author of the California
Political Reform Act
, in connection with the Sept. 23, 2012, article
in The Sacramento Bee headlined “Stem Cell Cash Mostly Aids Directors' Interests.” The comments were abbreviated for
publication in The Bee because of newspaper space constraints.

Comments by Alan Trounson, president of
CIRM:

“To make sure we do the best job of
managing taxpayer's money it's natural that we turn to people who
know most about stem cells and stem cell research. In fact, as the
state's own Little Hoover Commission reported in its analysis of
CIRM: “The fact that CIRM funding has gone largely to prestigious
California universities and research institutes is hardly surprising
and should be expected, given the goals of Proposition 71 and the
considerable expertise resident in these research centers.” But in
recruiting the best minds, we also adopt best practices to ensure
that there is no conflict of interest. Every board member has to
recuse themselves from voting on, or even being part of a discussion
on anything to do with their own institution, or to an institution or
company that they have any connections to. All this is done in
meetings that are open to the public. CIRM’s conflict of interest
rules have been subject to multiple reviews – by the Bureau of
State Audits, the Little Hoover Commission and the Controller – and
there is no evidence that any of CIRM’s funding decisions have been
driven by conflicts of interest. Indeed, CIRM rigorously enforces its
conflict of interest rules at each stage of the funding process to
ensure that all decisions are made on the merits of the proposal for
funding and not as a result of any conflicts of interest. 

“In addition all funding applications
are reviewed by an independent panel of scientists on our Grants
Working Groups, all of whom are out-of-state and meet strict conflict
of interest requirements, and it is their recommendations that help
guide the ICOC (CIRM governing board) on what to fund.”

Joe Mathews' comments:

“California ballot initiatives are a
terrible way to make public policy. And they are even worse as a
method for making scientific policy. 

“It's not merely that
this initiative was drafted in such a way as to benefit the
enterprises of its directors. It's that, under this initiative's own
provisions and the California constitution, it's so hard to change
Proposition 71 and fix what ails CIRM. Effectively, these provisions are
baked in, and nothing short of another vote of people can really make
the change. (Yes, there are provisions, as you know, that permit the
legislature by super-majority to do things, but supermajorities are
effectively out of reach in California). 

“Sadly, initiatives
like Proposition 71 are not uncommon. Many measures are drafted to benefit
the people who would support the measure, or oversee the program
established. This has been very common with bonds. Essentially, to
win the support of various groups whose money and backing is
important to passage of a bond, a sponsor of an initiative bond will
set up rules and include money specifically intended for each group.
This is a form of pay-to-play. Agree to back the initiative and
you're in. And it happens because there's no rule against it and
because passing initiatives in California require difficult,
expensive campaigns. 

“And this sort of thing will continue
to happen. There is no serious push to do anything about this.
Indeed, good government groups and reformers in California have
opposed changes to the initiative process -- because they want to use
the process for their own schemes.”

Bob Stern's comments:

“It would have been better had
institutions receiving grants not to have had their representatives
on the board awarding grants. On the other hand, we want to have the
most knowledgeable people on the board overseeing this very important
program. The question: Were these people the only qualified ones to
sit on the board?”

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

Read More...

$700,000 Blue-ribbon Study of CIRM All But Finished

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


The $700,000 study of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency is nearly concluded and is expected to be
released sometime in November.

A draft of the report has been sent out
for “peer review” and no additional public meetings are
scheduled, according to a spokeswoman for the Institute of
Medicine(IOM)
, which is conducting the study. The IOM did not respond
to questions from the California Stem Cell Report about the number of peer reviewers or how they were selected.
The study began last year under a contract with the stem cell agency, which commissioned the effort, in
part, because agency directors hoped the findings by the blue-ribbon
panel would bolster efforts to win voter approval of another multi-billion dollar state bond issue. More recently the agency has
explored the possibility of private financing to continue operations.
The agency is expected to run out of
funds for new awards in 2017. It currently has something in the
neighborhood of $700 million for awards that is not already committed
in one fashion or another.
Christine Stencel, senior media
relations officer for the IOM, said in an email,

There will be no
further information-gathering meetings. The committee members have
finished drafting their report and it is now undergoing peer review.
Reviewers are anonymous to study staff and committee members; they
will be listed in the front matter of the report when it’s finished
and released.”

She said the stem
cell agency will not be given an opportunity to comment further.
Stencel said,

Sponsors are not
treated as peer reviewers; that is, they’re not afforded an
opportunity to comment on IOM draft reports prior to public release.
IOM is aiming for a public release in November (the exact time frame
will hinge on the duration of the peer review, which is influenced by
people’s schedules and adherence to deadlines). IOM is looking at
options for how best to hold this release, whether there will be an
event of some sort. Once plans are set, they’ll be noted on the
project web pages and IOM will alert the various stakeholders and
interested parties of the plans. The study is moving along and we’re
looking forward to the report’s debut in the not too distant
future.”

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

Read More...

Fortune Magazine on California Stem Cell Agency: Warm, Personal and Favorable

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


California's $3 billion stem cell
research effort today garnered a handsome dollop of favorable
national news coverage– a lengthy piece in Fortune magazine that
spoke of looming stem cell cures and the leading role of the state
stem cell agency.

The article led the Fortune web page online at one point this morning and
likely will be read by tens of thousands of persons, although it was not the cover story on the print product. 
Written by a former senior editor of
the magazine, Jeffrey O'Brien of Mill Valley, Ca., the piece was warm
and personal. He began with the story of his 95-year-old
grandmother and her health issues, ranging from arthritis to macular
degeneration. And he wrote,

“The citizens of California have
spoken. If my grandmother and I had the power to get the rest of the
country to follow, we would.”

O'Brien also discussed the science and
finances of the stem cell business. He said,

“To be clear, the earliest stem cell
therapies are almost certainly years from distribution. But so much
progress has been made at venerable research institutions that it now
seems possible to honestly discuss the possibility of a new medical
paradigm emerging within a generation. Working primarily with rodents
in preclinical trials, MDs and Ph.D.s are making the paralyzed walk
and the impotent virile. A stem cell therapy for two types of macular
degeneration recently restored the vision of two women. Once they
were blind. Now they see!

“Some experts assert that AMD could
be eradicated within a decade. Other scientists are heralding a
drug-free fix for HIV/AIDS. Various forms of cancer, Parkinson's,
diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and ALS have already been eradicated
in mice. If such work translates to humans, it will represent the
type of platform advancement that comes along in medicine only once
in a lifetime or two. The effect on the economy would be substantial.
Champions of stem cell research say it would be on the order of the
Internet or even the transistor.”

O'Brien continued,

“The obstacles along the road from
lab rat to human patients are many, of course, but the biggest by far
is money. With the dramatic events in the lab, you might think that a
gold rush would be under way. That's far from true. Long time
horizons, regulatory hurdles, huge R&D costs, public sentiment,
and political headwinds have all scared financiers. Wall Street isn't
interested in financing this particular dream. Most stem cell
companies that have dared go public are trading down 90% or more from
their IPOs. Sand Hill Road is AWOL. The National Venture Capital
Association doesn't even have a category to track stem cell
investments.”

As for the California stem cell agency
itself, the article contained remarks from its Chairman J.T.Thomas,
President Alan Trounson and former chairman Robert Klein about the origins and progress of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).
O'Brien wrote, 

“The $1.7 billion awarded so far has made one obvious mark on the state: a dozen gleaming research institutions. CIRM has proved adept at getting billionaires to donate funds to the cause.”

O'Brien interviewed a several
prominent businessmen who have contributed tens of millions of
dollars to stem cell research “about the prospects of a legitimate industry emerging.” One was “bond genius” Bill Gross, who has
contributed to UC Irvine. Gross replied.

“Goodness, you're talking to the
wrong guy. Our donation had nothing to do with business.”

Eli Broad, another big stem cell donor,
said pretty much the same thing. And Andy Grove, the former chairman
of Intel, was “surprisingly full of doom and gloom.” O'Brien
wrote,

“For close to two hours, Grove argues
passionately about how the FDA is enabling predatory offshore
industries by impeding progress and the many reasons financiers want
no part of stem cells. "VCs aren't interested because it's a
shitty business," he says. Big Pharma? Forget it. CIRM? "There
are gleaming fucking buildings everywhere. That wasn't necessary."
When I press him to be constructive, he wearily offers one possible
solution. Rather than courting billionaires to put their names on
buildings, we need a system of targeted philanthropy in which the 99%
can sponsor the individual stem cell lines that matter to them.”

O'Brien said, however,

“It was clear during our talk that
Grove wants an economic model for stem cell research and development
to emerge, even if he's not willing to bet money on its happening.
And that puts him in good company.”

While the Fortune article has its
negative points about stem cell research, it is about as laudatory as
it is going to get at this point for the California stem cell agency.
The piece recognizes and even celebrates much of the work of the
agency. The article clearly details the void in financing
for commercialization of stem cell research, bolstering support for
efforts like those in California. Importantly, it also helps to push
the activities of the stem cell agency more fully into the national
discussion of stem cell research and its future. That should pay off
again and again in future news coverage and also benefit the stem
cell agency as it explores the possibility of additional funding –
either private or public – after the cash for new awards runs out
in 2017.

(The story is in the Oct. 8, 2012, edition of Fortune.)

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

Read More...

October CIRM Board Meeting Moved to Burlingame

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


The location of the October meeting of
the governing board of the California stem cell agency has been
changed from Irvine to Burlingame, near San Francisco International
Airport, in an effort to save travel costs.  

CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas said the
one-day meeting is being moved because the session will require the
attendance of a large number of CIRM staffers who are based in the
agency's San Francisco headquarters. They will be involved in
presentations involving the agency's new strategic partnership fund and other matters.
The date of the meeting remains
unchanged – Oct. 25. Look for posting of the agenda on the CIRM web
site on Oct. 15. The site of the meeting is the Hilton Bayfront
Hotel
, 600 Airport Blvd.

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

Read More...

$1.5 Billion in Stem Cell Awards Goes to Directors’ Institutions

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


The Sacramento Bee today published an article that reported that $1.5 billion, more than 90 percent of the amount dispensed by the California stem cell agency, has gone to institutions linked to past and present directors of the agency.

The piece was carried on the front page of the newspaper's Sunday Forum section and was written by David Jensen, publisher-editor of the California Stem Cell Report.

The text of the Forum article is below. The Bee also carried a chart listing the top 10 recipient institution. The full text of the comments from Alan Trounson, president of the California stem cell agency,  and two other persons quoted in the article can be found here.

Stem cell cash mostly aids directors' interests

Special to The Bee

By David Jensen

With its latest round of awards earlier this month, California's stem cell agency has now handed out $1.5 billion to enterprises linked to its directors.

The figure amounts to 92 percent of the $1.7 billion awarded by the agency. The grants and loans range from $261 million to Stanford University, whose medical school dean, Philip Pizzo, sits on the agency's governing board, to $170,500 to Children's Hospital in Oakland, whose president, Bert Lubin, also is a member of the board.

The University of California, Davis, has received $128 million. Claire Pomeroy, chief executive officer of UC Davis Health System, is another one of the 29 board members. In all, 27 institutions with past or present representatives on the agency board have received funding.

None of this is illegal. And none of it is likely to change. The situation was created by Proposition 71, the 2004 ballot measure that established the state's $3 billion stem cell agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM. The initiative was crafted so that virtually all of the institutions that stood to benefit from the state's largesse had seats at the table where the money is handed out.

The built-in conflicts of interest at CIRM have perturbed some experts in California government, but concerns have also reached into the scientific community. The prestigious journal Nature, in 2008, editorialized against what it called cronyism at CIRM. It said the agency "must fight the tendency of the academic institutions on the board to hoard dollars."

Some California scientists, wary of offending those who control the lifeblood of their research, privately grumble about an "old boys network."

Joe Mathews, co-author of "California Crackup," a study of major issues in state government, said last week: "California ballot initiatives are a terrible way to make public policy. And they are even worse as a method for making scientific policy."

The stem cell agency has a different view. Alan Trounson, president of the San Francisco-based enterprise, said: "There is no evidence that any of CIRM's funding decisions have been driven by conflicts of interest. Indeed, CIRM rigorously enforces its conflict of interest rules at each stage of the funding process to ensure that all decisions are made on the merits of the proposal for funding and not as a result of any conflicts of interest."

Mathews, California editor of Zocalo Public Square, and others point to the creation of the California stem cell agency as an example of abuse of the initiative process by special interests. The 10,000 words in Proposition 71 were written in private by Bay Area real estate investment banker Robert Klein and a handful of associates, who quietly determined the composition of the board. Klein later served six years as the first chairman of the stem cell agency, leaving in June 2011.

Klein later argued publicly that placing medical school deans and university and research institution executives on the board provided the expertise needed to make the decisions about how to spend the research money. However, the makeup of the board also served to win the support of institutions that envisioned the prospect of fresh cash – in this case money that the state borrows via bonds.

Mathews described the state's initiative process this way: "Essentially, to win the support of various groups whose money and backing is important to passage of a bond, a sponsor of an initiative bond will set up rules and include money specifically intended for each group. This is a form of pay-to-play. Agree to back the initiative, and you're in."

Bob Stern, who co-wrote the California Political Reform Act, said, "It would have been better had institutions receiving grants not to have had their representatives on the board awarding grants."

Trounson said the board follows "best practices" when it comes to grants and legal conflicts of interest. The agency has worked out an unusual procedure to prevent its directors from violating conflict of interest laws as they vote on applications that seek as much as $20 million each. Before each public session, agency attorneys determine which board members cannot vote on a proposal because of legal conflicts of interest. Applications to be approved are considered as a group. Each board member then votes on the entire group by saying, "Yes, on all those except with which I have a conflict."

No final tally is announced. The public can ferret out the overall vote a month or two later in the minutes of the meeting on the CIRM website (http://www.cirm.ca.gov). But the minutes do not list individual votes or conflicts of interest.

Domination of the board by academics and nonprofit institutions has led to bitter complaints from business. Less than 7 percent of all awards have gone to for-profit enterprises. Currently, however, the agency is embracing industry more warmly in an effort to commercialize stem cell research, which raises another set of coziness problems. They surfaced in July and again this month.

Klein, who led the stem cell ballot campaign before becoming chairman of the agency, appeared before his old board to lobby on behalf of a $20 million request from StemCells Inc. of Newark. The California firm was founded by the eminent Stanford stem cell scientist Irv Weissman. He sits on StemCells Inc.'s board, and he and his wife hold 273,821 shares of stock in the firm. Weissman was also an important backer of Proposition 71, working the "billionaire circuit" and raising more than $1 million for the campaign, according to an article in San Francisco magazine.

CIRM's reviewers had rejected StemCells Inc.'s application. After Klein made his pitch in July, the board sent the application back for re-review, an unusual procedure.

When the application returned to the board early this month, reviewers again rejected it. Klein again importuned his former colleagues, and – following a closed door session – the board approved the award, 7-5.

Eleven members were disqualified from voting because of legal conflicts of interest. It was the first time in the board's eight-year history that it approved an application twice rejected by reviewers.

Mathews said no likelihood exists of changing the board structure at CIRM. He said it is "baked in" by Proposition 71. That's because Klein and company wrote into the initiative a requirement for a super, super-majority vote – 70 percent – of each house of the Legislature to make any modifications.

Another initiative could be mounted, but that possibility is also exceedingly remote. 

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

Read More...

CIRM Sponsoring Online Session with FDA on Thursday

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


One of the lesser known activities of
the California stem cell agency is webinars that put researchers
together with the folks who make the federal decisions about whether
stem cell research will be turned into therapies.

One of those sessions is coming up on Thursday, and it is not too late for scientists and other interested
parties to get on board.
Writing on the stem cell agency's blog,
Cynthia Schaffer, CIRM's contract administrator and compliance officer
had this to say today about the webinars.

“The FDA very graciously donates
their time to speak on these webinars because they too have pledged
to maintain an active dialogue with the industry and provide
education on their regulatory expectations for product development in
the regenerative medicine field. CIRM science officer Kevin
Whittlesey
 recently
wrote a paper
with Celia Witten of the FDA about the role of the
FDA in reaching out to regenerative medicine community, including
webinars such as these. 

“In that paper they point out that
the communication goes both ways:

“'Appropriate regulation requires a
strong understanding of the latest scientific developments to meet
current and future regulatory needs and challenges.'

“So the FDA benefits by learning from
the other speakers in the webinar – what is the current state of
the technology, what are investigator’s current thoughts on best
practices and the latest research findings, etc. They also learn what
the industry is facing by listening to the questions asked and the
discussion of the challenges during the Q&A sessions. A group of
FDA employees attend each of these CIRM sponsored webinars, and the
wide variety of other workshops and meetings that CIRM hosts
throughout the year.”  

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly identified Cynthia Schaffer as Cynthia Adams.)

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

Read More...

Text of Comments on Awards to Stem Cell Directors’ Institutions

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


Here is the full text of comments made
by the California stem cell agency, Joe Mathews, co-author of
California Crack-Up” and Bob Stern, former president of the
Center for Governmental Studies and co-author of the California
Political Reform Act
, in connection with the Sept. 23, 2012, article
in The Sacramento Bee headlined “Stem Cell Cash Mostly Aids Directors' Interests.” The comments were abbreviated for
publication in The Bee because of newspaper space constraints.

Comments by Alan Trounson, president of
CIRM:

“To make sure we do the best job of
managing taxpayer's money it's natural that we turn to people who
know most about stem cells and stem cell research. In fact, as the
state's own Little Hoover Commission reported in its analysis of
CIRM: “The fact that CIRM funding has gone largely to prestigious
California universities and research institutes is hardly surprising
and should be expected, given the goals of Proposition 71 and the
considerable expertise resident in these research centers.” But in
recruiting the best minds, we also adopt best practices to ensure
that there is no conflict of interest. Every board member has to
recuse themselves from voting on, or even being part of a discussion
on anything to do with their own institution, or to an institution or
company that they have any connections to. All this is done in
meetings that are open to the public. CIRM’s conflict of interest
rules have been subject to multiple reviews – by the Bureau of
State Audits, the Little Hoover Commission and the Controller – and
there is no evidence that any of CIRM’s funding decisions have been
driven by conflicts of interest. Indeed, CIRM rigorously enforces its
conflict of interest rules at each stage of the funding process to
ensure that all decisions are made on the merits of the proposal for
funding and not as a result of any conflicts of interest. 

“In addition all funding applications
are reviewed by an independent panel of scientists on our Grants
Working Groups, all of whom are out-of-state and meet strict conflict
of interest requirements, and it is their recommendations that help
guide the ICOC (CIRM governing board) on what to fund.”

Joe Mathews' comments:

“California ballot initiatives are a
terrible way to make public policy. And they are even worse as a
method for making scientific policy. 

“It's not merely that
this initiative was drafted in such a way as to benefit the
enterprises of its directors. It's that, under this initiative's own
provisions and the California constitution, it's so hard to change
Proposition 71 and fix what ails CIRM. Effectively, these provisions are
baked in, and nothing short of another vote of people can really make
the change. (Yes, there are provisions, as you know, that permit the
legislature by super-majority to do things, but supermajorities are
effectively out of reach in California). 

“Sadly, initiatives
like Proposition 71 are not uncommon. Many measures are drafted to benefit
the people who would support the measure, or oversee the program
established. This has been very common with bonds. Essentially, to
win the support of various groups whose money and backing is
important to passage of a bond, a sponsor of an initiative bond will
set up rules and include money specifically intended for each group.
This is a form of pay-to-play. Agree to back the initiative and
you're in. And it happens because there's no rule against it and
because passing initiatives in California require difficult,
expensive campaigns. 

“And this sort of thing will continue
to happen. There is no serious push to do anything about this.
Indeed, good government groups and reformers in California have
opposed changes to the initiative process -- because they want to use
the process for their own schemes.”

Bob Stern's comments:

“It would have been better had
institutions receiving grants not to have had their representatives
on the board awarding grants. On the other hand, we want to have the
most knowledgeable people on the board overseeing this very important
program. The question: Were these people the only qualified ones to
sit on the board?”

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

Read More...

Cytori’s Stem Cell Therapy for Burns Wins U.S. Contract

Friday, September 28th, 2012

By Ryan Flinn - 2012-09-28T16:23:41Z

Cytori Therapeutics Inc. (CYTX), a biotechnology company with $10 million in annual revenue, rose the most in more than a year after the company won a $4.7 million U.S. government contract to develop a stem cell therapy to treat burns caused by thermal or radioactive bombs.

Cytori jumped 19 percent to $4.58 at 12:11 p.m. New York time, after earlier reaching $4.93 for the biggest intraday increase since August 2011. The shares of the San Diego-based company rose 75 percent this year through yesterday.

Were seeing a lot of momentum, Chief Executive Officer Christopher Calhoun said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television. This contract is one more major thing that we are delivering on, and there is more to come. This is an important year for us.

The two-year contract with the Department of Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority may be worth $106 million over five years if certain milestones are met, Cytori said today in a statement. The company had a net loss last year of $32 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Cytoris experimental therapy takes adipose tissue, or body fat, from a patient and through its device separates the adult stem and regenerative cells before transferring them to a burn wound. Money from the contract will be used to develop the device and take it through the U.S. regulatory approval process with the Food and Drug Administration, Calhoun said.

These cells help to facilitate the healing of the injury, he said in a telephone interview earlier this week. They release growth factors that stimulate new blood flow.

Testing the technology in a clinical trial and getting approval may take five years, Calhoun said. The company is currently testing its therapy for other soft tissue damage, as well as cardiovascular disease.

Once approved, the device will be deployed in hospitals across the country, and can be used for routine burns as well as a treatment for patients in wake of a mass casualty event that could injure 10,000 people, Cytori said in the statement.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan Flinn in San Francisco at rflinn@bloomberg.net

Read the rest here:
Cytori’s Stem Cell Therapy for Burns Wins U.S. Contract

Read More...

Mayo Clinic finds way to weed out problem stem cells, making therapy safer

Friday, September 28th, 2012

Public release date: 27-Sep-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Jennifer Schutz newsbureau@mayo.edu 507-284-5005 Mayo Clinic

ROCHESTER, Minn. -- Mayo Clinic researchers have found a way to detect and eliminate potentially troublemaking stem cells to make stem cell therapy safer. Induced Pluripotent Stem cells, also known as iPS cells, are bioengineered from adult tissues to have properties of embryonic stem cells, which have the unlimited capacity to differentiate and grow into any desired types of cells, such as skin, brain, lung and heart cells. However, during the differentiation process, some residual pluripotent or embryonic-like cells may remain and cause them to grow into tumors.

"Pluripotent stem cells show great promise in the field of regenerative medicine; however, the risk of uncontrolled cell growth will continue to prevent their use as a therapeutic treatment," says Timothy Nelson, Ph.D., M.D., lead author on the study, which appears in the October issue of STEM CELLS Translational Medicine.

Using mouse models, Mayo scientists overcame this drawback by pretreated stem cells with a chemotherapeutic agent that selectively damages the DNA of the stem cells, efficiently killing the tumor-forming cells. The contaminated cells died off, and the chemotherapy didn't affect the healthy cells, Dr. Nelson says.

"The goal of creating new therapies is twofold: to improve disease outcome with stem cell-based regenerative medicine while also ensuring safety. This research outlines a strategy to make stem cell therapies safer for our patients while preserving their therapeutic efficacy, thereby removing a barrier to translation of these treatments to the clinic," says co-author Alyson Smith, Ph.D.

Stem cell therapies continue to be refined and improved. Researchers are finding that stem cells may be more versatile than originally thought, which means they may be able to treat a wider variety of diseases, injuries and congenital anomalies. Stem cell therapy is an emerging regenerative strategy being studied at Mayo Clinic.

"By harnessing the potential of regenerative medicine, we'll be able to provide more definitive solutions to patients," says Andre Terzic, M.D., Ph.D., co-author and director of Mayo Clinic's Center for Regenerative Medicine.

###

Other members of the Mayo research team included Clifford Folmes, Ph.D., Katherine Hartjes, Natalie Nelson and Saji Oommen, Ph.D. The research was supported by the Todd and Karen Wanek Family Program for Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome, National Institutes of Health New Innovator Award OD007015-01, and a Mayo Clinic Center for Regenerative Medicine accelerated research grant.

Here is the original post:
Mayo Clinic finds way to weed out problem stem cells, making therapy safer

Read More...

Stem cells revolutionizing veterinary medicine

Monday, September 24th, 2012

(WGBA/NBC) - It is a story that gives hope to pet owners all over the country stem cell therapy for animals suffering from problems like arthritis or hip displaysia.

Stem cells are taken out of the dog's fatty tissue are harvested then injected into problem areas leaving the dogs completely healed.

"We couldn't take him on walks, he just laid around a lot," said Keith Nosowiak, Deniro's owner.

"We'd hear whimpering overnight, she'd take a few steps and she would sit down," said Luther Kortbein, Shadow's owner.

Until two months ago, Deniro suffered from severe arthritis, Shadow from hip displaysia.

Deniro's owner thought he may even have to put his German shepherd down.

"We felt we had a decision to make with his quality of life and being in pain we didn't want him to be in pain," Noskowiak said.

Shadow's owner was willing to try anything to cure her.

"Whatever the cost needed to get this done we were willing to do," Kortbein said.

Then Packerland Veterinary Center offered them stem cell therapy by using the dogs own stem cells and then injecting them back into the bloodstream joints.

See more here:
Stem cells revolutionizing veterinary medicine

Read More...

Reproducing Research Results: Removing a Scientific Roadblock

Sunday, September 23rd, 2012


The California stem cell agency faces
no easy task in trying to translate basic research findings into
something that can be used to treat patients and be sold commercially.

Even clinical trials, which only begin
long after the basic research is done and which involve more ordinary
therapeutic treatments than stem cells, fail at an astonishing rate.
Only one out of five that enter the clinical trial gauntlet
successfully finish the second stage, according to industry data
cited last spring by Pat Olson, executive director of scientific activities at the stem cell agency. And
then come even more challenges.
But at a much earlier stage of
research there is the “problem of irreproducible results,” in the
words of writer Monya Baker of the journal Nature. Baker last month reported on
moves by a firm called Science Exchange in Palo Alto, Ca., to
do something to ease the problem and speed up preclinical research.
The effort is called the Reproducibility Initiative and also involves
PLOS and figshare, an open science Internet project.
Elizabeth Iorns
Science Exchange Photo
Science Exchange is headed by Elizabeth
Iorns
, a scientist and co-founder of the firm. She wrote about  test-tube-to-clinic translation issues in a recent article in New
Scientist
that was headlined, “Is medical science built on shaky
foundations?”
Iorns said,

“One goal of scientific publication
is to share results in enough detail to allow other research teams to
reproduce them and build on them. However, many recent reports have
raised the alarm that a shocking amount of the published literature
in fields ranging from cancer biology to psychology is not
reproducible.”

Iorns cited studies in Nature that
reported that Bayer cannot “replicate about two-thirds of published
studies identifying possible drug targets” and that Amgen failed at
even a higher rate. It could not “replicate 47 of 53 highly
promising results they examined.”
The California Stem Cell Report earlier
this week asked Iorns for her thoughts on the implications for the
California stem cell agency, whose motto is "Turning stem cells into cures." Here is the full text of her response.

“First, I think it is important to
accept that there is a crisis affecting preclinical research. Recent
studies estimate that 70% of preclinical research cannot be
reproduced. This is the research that should form the foundation upon
which new discoveries can be made to enhance health, lengthen life,
and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. The
irreproducibility of preclinical research is a significant impediment
to the achievement of these goals. To solve this problem requires
immediate and concrete action. It is not enough to make
recommendations and issue guidelines to researchers. Funders must act
to ensure they fund researchers to produce high quality reproducible
research. One such way to do so, is to reward, or require,
independent validation of results. The reproducibility initiative
provides a mechanism for independent validation, allowing the
identification of high quality reproducible research. It is vital
that funders act now to address this problem, to prevent the wasted
time and money that is currently spent funding non-reproducible
research and to prevent the erosion of public trust and support for
research.”

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

Read More...

Reproducing Research Results: Removing a Scientific Roadblock

Sunday, September 23rd, 2012


The California stem cell agency faces
no easy task in trying to translate basic research findings into
something that can be used to treat patients and be sold commercially.

Even clinical trials, which only begin
long after the basic research is done and which involve more ordinary
therapeutic treatments than stem cells, fail at an astonishing rate.
Only one out of five that enter the clinical trial gauntlet
successfully finish the second stage, according to industry data
cited last spring by Pat Olson, executive director of scientific activities at the stem cell agency. And
then come even more challenges.
But at a much earlier stage of
research there is the “problem of irreproducible results,” in the
words of writer Monya Baker of the journal Nature. Baker last month reported on
moves by a firm called Science Exchange in Palo Alto, Ca., to
do something to ease the problem and speed up preclinical research.
The effort is called the Reproducibility Initiative and also involves
PLOS and figshare, an open science Internet project.
Elizabeth Iorns
Science Exchange Photo
Science Exchange is headed by Elizabeth
Iorns
, a scientist and co-founder of the firm. She wrote about  test-tube-to-clinic translation issues in a recent article in New
Scientist
that was headlined, “Is medical science built on shaky
foundations?”
Iorns said,

“One goal of scientific publication
is to share results in enough detail to allow other research teams to
reproduce them and build on them. However, many recent reports have
raised the alarm that a shocking amount of the published literature
in fields ranging from cancer biology to psychology is not
reproducible.”

Iorns cited studies in Nature that
reported that Bayer cannot “replicate about two-thirds of published
studies identifying possible drug targets” and that Amgen failed at
even a higher rate. It could not “replicate 47 of 53 highly
promising results they examined.”
The California Stem Cell Report earlier
this week asked Iorns for her thoughts on the implications for the
California stem cell agency, whose motto is "Turning stem cells into cures." Here is the full text of her response.

“First, I think it is important to
accept that there is a crisis affecting preclinical research. Recent
studies estimate that 70% of preclinical research cannot be
reproduced. This is the research that should form the foundation upon
which new discoveries can be made to enhance health, lengthen life,
and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. The
irreproducibility of preclinical research is a significant impediment
to the achievement of these goals. To solve this problem requires
immediate and concrete action. It is not enough to make
recommendations and issue guidelines to researchers. Funders must act
to ensure they fund researchers to produce high quality reproducible
research. One such way to do so, is to reward, or require,
independent validation of results. The reproducibility initiative
provides a mechanism for independent validation, allowing the
identification of high quality reproducible research. It is vital
that funders act now to address this problem, to prevent the wasted
time and money that is currently spent funding non-reproducible
research and to prevent the erosion of public trust and support for
research.”

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

Read More...

Probe sought into status of stem cell therapy in the Philippines

Sunday, September 23rd, 2012

The World News (WN) Network, has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to user privacy. The following discloses our information gathering and dissemination practices for wn.com, as well as e-mail newsletters.

We do not collect personally identifiable information about you, except when you provide it to us. For example, if you submit an inquiry to us or sign up for our newsletter, you may be asked to provide certain information such as your contact details (name, e-mail address, mailing address, etc.).

When you submit your personally identifiable information through wn.com, you are giving your consent to the collection, use and disclosure of your personal information as set forth in this Privacy Policy. If you would prefer that we not collect any personally identifiable information from you, please do not provide us with any such information. We will not sell or rent your personally identifiable information to third parties without your consent, except as otherwise disclosed in this Privacy Policy.

Except as otherwise disclosed in this Privacy Policy, we will use the information you provide us only for the purpose of responding to your inquiry or in connection with the service for which you provided such information. We may forward your contact information and inquiry to our affiliates and other divisions of our company that we feel can best address your inquiry or provide you with the requested service. We may also use the information you provide in aggregate form for internal business purposes, such as generating statistics and developing marketing plans. We may share or transfer such non-personally identifiable information with or to our affiliates, licensees, agents and partners.

We may retain other companies and individuals to perform functions on our behalf. Such third parties may be provided with access to personally identifiable information needed to perform their functions, but may not use such information for any other purpose.

In addition, we may disclose any information, including personally identifiable information, we deem necessary, in our sole discretion, to comply with any applicable law, regulation, legal proceeding or governmental request.

We do not want you to receive unwanted e-mail from us. We try to make it easy to opt-out of any service you have asked to receive. If you sign-up to our e-mail newsletters we do not sell, exchange or give your e-mail address to a third party.

E-mail addresses are collected via the wn.com web site. Users have to physically opt-in to receive the wn.com newsletter and a verification e-mail is sent. wn.com is clearly and conspicuously named at the point of

If you no longer wish to receive our newsletter and promotional communications, you may opt-out of receiving them by following the instructions included in each newsletter or communication or by e-mailing us at michaelw(at)wn.com

The security of your personal information is important to us. We follow generally accepted industry standards to protect the personal information submitted to us, both during registration and once we receive it. No method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage, is 100 percent secure, however. Therefore, though we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your personal information, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Originally posted here:
Probe sought into status of stem cell therapy in the Philippines

Read More...

Road to Commercialization: California Stem Cell Agency Seeking Top Level Product Development Execs

Sunday, September 16th, 2012


Looking for a good job at an
enterprise that is on the cutting edge of biotechnology?

Nine positions are open at the $3
billion California stem cell agency, headquartered in San Francisco.
Some of them could pay more than $200,000 a year.
Several of the new jobs are closely
aligned with the agency's fresh focus on commercializing stem cell
research and driving therapies into the clinic. Scientists and
lawyers are being recruited along with a business development
officer. For some of the positions, travel is required.
One new, high-level position is
described as a senior development officer. The job posting calls for
“expertise in product development for stem cell therapies.” The
person would “directly interact with investigators on CIRM’s
clinically applicable research programs to help provide product
development guidance from preclinical, manufacturing, and first in
human to early phase clinical regulatory perspectives.” An M.D. or
Ph.D. degree in a biomedical science is required. Pay tops out at
$232,891. This person would report to Ellen Feigal, senior vice
president for research and development.
A second, high-level position reporting to Feigal is senior medical officer, who would manage the
agency's portfolio aimed at commercialization of stem cell research,
specifically “focused on IND enabling and clinical development
projects.” This also requires an M.D. or Ph.D. and substantial professional experience in development of biomedical research and
products. Pay also could run as high $232.891 annually.
A third new job at CIRM is
business development officer. That person would help generate
“outside investment in stem cell research in California for both
CIRM-funded and not currently CIRM-funded programs by
biopharmaceutical strategic partners; equity investors (venture
capital and others); and disease foundations.” The salary range
hits $216,270 annually. It wouldn't be surprising if the person in
this job also became involved in developing a funding mechanism for
CIRM after it runs out of state cash in 2017 or so. 
This position reports to Elona Baum,
general counsel and vice president, business development.
And yet another new position is called
director of alliance management. The job deals with the agency's
extensive collaborative funding partnerships, many of which are
abroad. CIRM wants somebody with a law degree, experience in
intellectual property and business law along with strong negotiating
skills. The pay range for the post tops out at $232,891 annually. This position reports to CIRM President
Alan Trounson.
Other open positions include: deputy
general counsel, two science officers and office manager.

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

Read More...

StemCells, Inc., Discloses How it Will Generate $40 Million in Matching Funds

Sunday, September 16th, 2012


StemCells, Inc., said yesterday that it
will come up with the $40 million needed to match loans from the California
stem cell agency through “existing infrastructure and overhead”
and will not be issuing stocks or warrants to the agency.

In a statement to shareholders, Martin
McGlynn
, CEO of the publicly traded firm, discussed the $40 million in loans awarded by agency this summer, including $20 million last
week. The stem cell agency's governing board, after it emerged from
an executive session on the matter, last Wednesday night adopted a
motion requiring the company to demonstrate that it has the matching
funds.
CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, said that
concerns were expressed during the executive session that the agency
“would account for such a large part of the assets of the company.”
At his suggestion, the board approved the loan on the condition that
“it show it has access” to the $20 million in matching funds that
company offered during the application process. StemCells, Inc., also
offered a $20 million match on another loan approved in July by CIRM.
The latest financial reports from
StemCells, Inc., which is based in Newark, Ca., show that it had
assets of $17 million as of June 30 and liabilities of $11.6 million.
The company reported net income for the second quarter of $833,522
compared to a loss of $4 million for the same period a year ago.
In its filing with the SEC, the company
said,

“We have incurred significant
operating losses since inception. We expect to incur additional
operating losses over the foreseeable future. We have very limited
liquidity and capital resources and must obtain significant
additional capital and other resources in order to provide funding
for our product development efforts....”

In his statement yesterday, McGlynn
said the California stem cell agency had “doubled down” on
StemCells, Inc., in approving the two loans. He said the company is
not concerned about meeting the matching requirements. McGlynn said, 
Martin McGlynn
StemCells, Inc., Photo

“To be clear, we do not interpret the
diligence requirement as an obligation to raise a specific amount of
money in a particular period of time, and we wish to correct the
misstatements made by some uninformed third parties that the ICOC is
requiring us to raise $20 million in matching funds. In
point of fact, we expect that a substantial amount of our
contribution towards these projects will come from existing
infrastructure and overhead, salaries for our existing personnel, and
other contributions in kind. Furthermore, we will soon be
reviewing the budgets for both projects in detail with CIRM
staff. Because each disease team budget was prepared on a
stand-alone basis, we expect to see significant economies and
efficiencies now that the company has in fact been awarded funding
for both.”

McGlynn also said,

"Under this particular CIRM
program (RFA 10-05), funding for companies will be in the form of
unsecured, non-recourse, interest-bearing, term loans, which will be
forgivable in the event the funded research fails to result in a
commercialized product. On the other hand, should the product be
successfully commercialized, CIRM would earn milestone payments
depending on how successful the product becomes. Because CIRM
shares the downside risk, and could participate handsomely on the
upside, the structure makes the loan about as close to 'equity' as one could, without having to dilute existing shareholders in order
to gain access to significant amounts of capital.  The company
will not issue stock, warrants or other equity to CIRM in connection
with these awards. 

"Of course, we realize that CIRM
prefers that applicants from industry provide evidence of their
ability to secure whatever additional funds may be needed to complete
any CIRM-funded project, in this case the filing of an IND for each
indication. This is stated in the text of RFA 10-05 itself and
was repeated in various comments by CIRM staff during the application
process. When making the second award on September 5, the
ICOC naturally recognized the sizeable commitment it was making
to StemCells, so it instructed CIRM staff to satisfy themselves
of the company's ability to access the capital needed to fund the
project, namely the Alzheimer's program through to the filing of the
IND.”

McGlynn also said firm's bid for
another $10 million from CIRM could come in the form of a grant
instead of a loan. He said,

"Finally, I can confirm that in
June of this year the Company applied for up to $10
million under CIRM's Strategic Partnership I program
(RFA 12-05). Unlike the disease team awards under RFA
10-05, if companies are approved for funding under RFA 12-05, they
may elect to take such funding in the form of a grant, not a
loan. Our application under RFA 12-05 is for a controlled Phase
II clinical trial of HuCNS-SC cells in Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease
(PMD), a rare myelination disorder. StemCells completed a Phase
I study in PMD in February 2012 and in April announced that
all of the patients from that study showed evidence of cell-derived
myelination and three of the four patients in the study showed
measurable gains in motor and/or cognitive function.”

According to CIRM, the awards in the strategic partner round will be approved either next month or in December. 
StemCells, Inc. stock was trading at
$1.85 at the time of this writing. Last week, it rose to $2.43.
During the last 12 months, its high was $2.67 and its low was 59
cents.

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

Read More...

California Stem Cell Firsts: From Emotional Appeals to $40 Million Awards

Sunday, September 16th, 2012


During the last few months, the $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which is approaching its eight-year anniversary, has chalked up a
number of important firsts.

Most of them came during the July and
September meetings of its 29-member governing board and were related to strenuous efforts by researchers to win approval of awards of up to
$20 million each. Several firsts involved the agency's former
chairman, Robert Klein, who could be considered the father of the
state's stem cell research effort.
So here is the California Stem Cell
Report's
list of firsts at the California Institute of Regenerative
Medicine
(as CIRM, the stem cell agency, is formally known) for the
summer of 2012.
It was the first time that a single
company – in this case, StemCells, Inc. , of Newark, Ca. –
received two awards in the same round.
It was the first time any company has
been awarded as much as $40 million. Again, StemCells, Inc.
It was the first time that Klein has lobbied his former board (see here and here) on
behalf of a particular grant application. That occurred in both July
and September with one of StemCells, Inc.'s application.
It was the first time that the board
has approved an application that has been rejected twice by
reviewers, again the StemCells, Inc., proposal backed by Klein.
It was the first time that board has
received such a large outpouring of appeals by rejected applicants.
It was the first time that the board
has received such lengthy presentations of emotional appeals by
patient advocates on behalf of rejected applicants.
It was the first time that action on a
grant round has been extended over three months(see here and here). The disease team
round began in July. Action will not be completed until the end of
October.
It was the first time that the
governing board has sent so many applications back for re-review –
five, six if the one to be acted on in October is included.
It was also the first time that the
board has ordered a full-blown review of its grant appeal process
with an eye to making making major changes in it.
Several reasons exist for the number of
firsts racked up by CIRM. One is the high stakes involved in the
disease team round that began in July and the low number approved by reviewers – six compared to the 12 approved by the board, as of
today, out of 21 applications. Another reason involves the
increasing understanding on the part of many scientists that they can
appeal directly to the board when reviewers reject their
applications. However, it is also clear that not all applicants
grasp the full range of appeal possibilities. A third reason involves
the agency's muddled appeal process, which has been a problem for
years. And a fourth reason involves the board's push to drive research into
the clinic and commercialization, which applicants are quickly
learning how to exploit.
Readers should feel free to add their
own firsts to this list. They can do so – even, anonymously – by
clicking on the word “comments” at the end of this item.

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

Read More...

Road to Commercialization: California Stem Cell Agency Seeking Top Level Product Development Execs

Sunday, September 16th, 2012


Looking for a good job at an
enterprise that is on the cutting edge of biotechnology?

Nine positions are open at the $3
billion California stem cell agency, headquartered in San Francisco.
Some of them could pay more than $200,000 a year.
Several of the new jobs are closely
aligned with the agency's fresh focus on commercializing stem cell
research and driving therapies into the clinic. Scientists and
lawyers are being recruited along with a business development
officer. For some of the positions, travel is required.
One new, high-level position is
described as a senior development officer. The job posting calls for
“expertise in product development for stem cell therapies.” The
person would “directly interact with investigators on CIRM’s
clinically applicable research programs to help provide product
development guidance from preclinical, manufacturing, and first in
human to early phase clinical regulatory perspectives.” An M.D. or
Ph.D. degree in a biomedical science is required. Pay tops out at
$232,891. This person would report to Ellen Feigal, senior vice
president for research and development.
A second, high-level position reporting to Feigal is senior medical officer, who would manage the
agency's portfolio aimed at commercialization of stem cell research,
specifically “focused on IND enabling and clinical development
projects.” This also requires an M.D. or Ph.D. and substantial professional experience in development of biomedical research and
products. Pay also could run as high $232.891 annually.
A third new job at CIRM is
business development officer. That person would help generate
“outside investment in stem cell research in California for both
CIRM-funded and not currently CIRM-funded programs by
biopharmaceutical strategic partners; equity investors (venture
capital and others); and disease foundations.” The salary range
hits $216,270 annually. It wouldn't be surprising if the person in
this job also became involved in developing a funding mechanism for
CIRM after it runs out of state cash in 2017 or so. 
This position reports to Elona Baum,
general counsel and vice president, business development.
And yet another new position is called
director of alliance management. The job deals with the agency's
extensive collaborative funding partnerships, many of which are
abroad. CIRM wants somebody with a law degree, experience in
intellectual property and business law along with strong negotiating
skills. The pay range for the post tops out at $232,891 annually. This position reports to CIRM President
Alan Trounson.
Other open positions include: deputy
general counsel, two science officers and office manager.

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

Read More...

California Stem Cell Firsts: From Emotional Appeals to $40 Million Awards

Sunday, September 16th, 2012


During the last few months, the $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which is approaching its eight-year anniversary, has chalked up a
number of important firsts.

Most of them came during the July and
September meetings of its 29-member governing board and were related to strenuous efforts by researchers to win approval of awards of up to
$20 million each. Several firsts involved the agency's former
chairman, Robert Klein, who could be considered the father of the
state's stem cell research effort.
So here is the California Stem Cell
Report's
list of firsts at the California Institute of Regenerative
Medicine
(as CIRM, the stem cell agency, is formally known) for the
summer of 2012.
It was the first time that a single
company – in this case, StemCells, Inc. , of Newark, Ca. –
received two awards in the same round.
It was the first time any company has
been awarded as much as $40 million. Again, StemCells, Inc.
It was the first time that Klein has lobbied his former board (see here and here) on
behalf of a particular grant application. That occurred in both July
and September with one of StemCells, Inc.'s application.
It was the first time that the board
has approved an application that has been rejected twice by
reviewers, again the StemCells, Inc., proposal backed by Klein.
It was the first time that board has
received such a large outpouring of appeals by rejected applicants.
It was the first time that the board
has received such lengthy presentations of emotional appeals by
patient advocates on behalf of rejected applicants.
It was the first time that action on a
grant round has been extended over three months(see here and here). The disease team
round began in July. Action will not be completed until the end of
October.
It was the first time that the
governing board has sent so many applications back for re-review –
five, six if the one to be acted on in October is included.
It was also the first time that the
board has ordered a full-blown review of its grant appeal process
with an eye to making making major changes in it.
Several reasons exist for the number of
firsts racked up by CIRM. One is the high stakes involved in the
disease team round that began in July and the low number approved by reviewers – six compared to the 12 approved by the board, as of
today, out of 21 applications. Another reason involves the
increasing understanding on the part of many scientists that they can
appeal directly to the board when reviewers reject their
applications. However, it is also clear that not all applicants
grasp the full range of appeal possibilities. A third reason involves
the agency's muddled appeal process, which has been a problem for
years. And a fourth reason involves the board's push to drive research into
the clinic and commercialization, which applicants are quickly
learning how to exploit.
Readers should feel free to add their
own firsts to this list. They can do so – even, anonymously – by
clicking on the word “comments” at the end of this item.

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

Read More...

StemCells, Inc., Discloses How it Will Generate $40 Million in Matching Funds

Sunday, September 16th, 2012


StemCells, Inc., said yesterday that it
will come up with the $40 million needed to match loans from the California
stem cell agency through “existing infrastructure and overhead”
and will not be issuing stocks or warrants to the agency.

In a statement to shareholders, Martin
McGlynn
, CEO of the publicly traded firm, discussed the $40 million in loans awarded by agency this summer, including $20 million last
week. The stem cell agency's governing board, after it emerged from
an executive session on the matter, last Wednesday night adopted a
motion requiring the company to demonstrate that it has the matching
funds.
CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, said that
concerns were expressed during the executive session that the agency
“would account for such a large part of the assets of the company.”
At his suggestion, the board approved the loan on the condition that
“it show it has access” to the $20 million in matching funds that
company offered during the application process. StemCells, Inc., also
offered a $20 million match on another loan approved in July by CIRM.
The latest financial reports from
StemCells, Inc., which is based in Newark, Ca., show that it had
assets of $17 million as of June 30 and liabilities of $11.6 million.
The company reported net income for the second quarter of $833,522
compared to a loss of $4 million for the same period a year ago.
In its filing with the SEC, the company
said,

“We have incurred significant
operating losses since inception. We expect to incur additional
operating losses over the foreseeable future. We have very limited
liquidity and capital resources and must obtain significant
additional capital and other resources in order to provide funding
for our product development efforts....”

In his statement yesterday, McGlynn
said the California stem cell agency had “doubled down” on
StemCells, Inc., in approving the two loans. He said the company is
not concerned about meeting the matching requirements. McGlynn said, 
Martin McGlynn
StemCells, Inc., Photo

“To be clear, we do not interpret the
diligence requirement as an obligation to raise a specific amount of
money in a particular period of time, and we wish to correct the
misstatements made by some uninformed third parties that the ICOC is
requiring us to raise $20 million in matching funds. In
point of fact, we expect that a substantial amount of our
contribution towards these projects will come from existing
infrastructure and overhead, salaries for our existing personnel, and
other contributions in kind. Furthermore, we will soon be
reviewing the budgets for both projects in detail with CIRM
staff. Because each disease team budget was prepared on a
stand-alone basis, we expect to see significant economies and
efficiencies now that the company has in fact been awarded funding
for both.”

McGlynn also said,

"Under this particular CIRM
program (RFA 10-05), funding for companies will be in the form of
unsecured, non-recourse, interest-bearing, term loans, which will be
forgivable in the event the funded research fails to result in a
commercialized product. On the other hand, should the product be
successfully commercialized, CIRM would earn milestone payments
depending on how successful the product becomes. Because CIRM
shares the downside risk, and could participate handsomely on the
upside, the structure makes the loan about as close to 'equity' as one could, without having to dilute existing shareholders in order
to gain access to significant amounts of capital.  The company
will not issue stock, warrants or other equity to CIRM in connection
with these awards. 

"Of course, we realize that CIRM
prefers that applicants from industry provide evidence of their
ability to secure whatever additional funds may be needed to complete
any CIRM-funded project, in this case the filing of an IND for each
indication. This is stated in the text of RFA 10-05 itself and
was repeated in various comments by CIRM staff during the application
process. When making the second award on September 5, the
ICOC naturally recognized the sizeable commitment it was making
to StemCells, so it instructed CIRM staff to satisfy themselves
of the company's ability to access the capital needed to fund the
project, namely the Alzheimer's program through to the filing of the
IND.”

McGlynn also said firm's bid for
another $10 million from CIRM could come in the form of a grant
instead of a loan. He said,

"Finally, I can confirm that in
June of this year the Company applied for up to $10
million under CIRM's Strategic Partnership I program
(RFA 12-05). Unlike the disease team awards under RFA
10-05, if companies are approved for funding under RFA 12-05, they
may elect to take such funding in the form of a grant, not a
loan. Our application under RFA 12-05 is for a controlled Phase
II clinical trial of HuCNS-SC cells in Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease
(PMD), a rare myelination disorder. StemCells completed a Phase
I study in PMD in February 2012 and in April announced that
all of the patients from that study showed evidence of cell-derived
myelination and three of the four patients in the study showed
measurable gains in motor and/or cognitive function.”

According to CIRM, the awards in the strategic partner round will be approved either next month or in December. 
StemCells, Inc. stock was trading at
$1.85 at the time of this writing. Last week, it rose to $2.43.
During the last 12 months, its high was $2.67 and its low was 59
cents.

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

Read More...

StemCells, Inc., Gunning for Another $10 Million from California Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, September 9th, 2012


Fresh from winning $40 million from the
California stem cell agency, StemCells, Inc., is shooting for
another, $10 million award from the state research effort.

The latest proposal comes as the
publicly traded firm also faces the task of raising $40 million that it
has promised the agency to match the earlier awards. That figure
could well rise to $50 million given the new application.
Martin McGlynn, CEO of the
well-connected Newark, Ca., firm, disclosed StemCells, Inc.'s,
latest proposal in an article by Catherine Shaffer in BioWorld. She
wrote,

“Already looking ahead, StemCells has
set its sights on one more CIRM initiative designed to fund early
stage clinical trials over a four-year period. StemCells has applied
for that grant, worth up to $10 million, to fund a Phase II trial in
PMD(Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease).”

The article did not disclose the timing on the new application.
StemCells, Inc.'s lobbying efforts with the stem cell agency were vigorously aided by the former chairman of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, Robert Klein (see here and here). And Wednesday evening, the company convinced
the state agency's board to overturn two successive reviewer rejections of a
$20 million proposal for Alzheimer's research. The vote was 7-5.
Klein's efforts came in a record-breaking round of appeals and emotional presentations by patient advocates, which triggered complaints from the board this week about "arm-twisting" and politicking. 
StemCells, Inc., was founded by the
eminent Stanford stem cell researcher Irv Weissman, who helped to
raise millions for the ballot initiative that created the stem cell
agency. He additionally appeared in in the campaign's TV advertising.
The campaign was headed by Klein, who ultimately raised $35 million
to convince voters to create the agency. Weissman is currently on the board
of the StemCells, Inc. His wife is executive vice president.
In July, the stem cell agency board
approved the first $20 million award to the firm for research involving spinal injury.
McGlynn told BioWorld,

"We're the only company that has
programs going on in all three regions of the central nervous system:
the brain, the spinal cord and the eye."

Not discussed in the BioWorld article
was a requirement, imposed by the CIRM board, that StemCells, Inc.,
show it can deliver $20 million in matching funds on the Alzheimer's
award before receiving any state funds. CIRM said no such board
requirement existed on the spinal award, but the firm has promised to
match the $20 million on that award as well.
BioWorld described the awards as
grants. In fact, they are loans. But under the terms of the loans, if
the research is not successfully commercialized, it will be
forgiven.  

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

Read More...

Page 80«..1020..79808182..90100..»


2024 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick