header logo image


Page 82«..1020..81828384..90100..»

Archive for the ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ Category

California Stem Cell Agency Okays $38 Million for Basic Research

Sunday, September 9th, 2012


Directors of the California stem cell agency today approved about $38 million for research into basic biology, including two appeals by researchers on applications initially rejected by reviewers.

The governing board turned down five appeals in the round, which attracted 357 applications in its "pre-app" process, 64 of which were invited to apply. Reviewers approved 25 applications.

The following appeals in the biology round were approved:

  • $1.3 million, Deborah Lieu of UC Davis. (Review summary here, appeal here.) 764
  • $1.4 million, Yanhong Shi  of the City of Hope. (See review summary here and appeal here.)

The board also approved another application that was rejected by reviewers based on a recommendation by CIRM President Alan Trounson.  It is very unusual for the board to approve rejected applications based on staff recommendations following a review. Trounson described the grant addressed a major bottleneck in stem cell science.

 The California stem cell agency is expected to post a press release shortly with the names of all recipients. The agency usually withholds names of applicants until the the board formally acts.
(An earlier version of this item reported that the board approved $37 million in grants.)

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

Read More...

Florida Researcher Wins $6.7 Million Grant to Come to Golden State

Sunday, September 9th, 2012


Dennis Steindler
UF Photo

The governing board of the California stem cell agency this morning approved a $6.7 million grant to recruit Dennis Steindler of the University of Florida to the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, Ca.

The grant was approved immediately following a 45-minute executive session with no further debate. (For more on this, see here, here and here.)

Steindler later told the California Stem Cell Report he would begin work in California as soon as possible.

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

Read More...

Board Concludes Private Session on Recruitment Grant

Sunday, September 9th, 2012


The governing board of the California stem cell agency has just concluded a 45 minute executive session on a $6.7 million grant to recruit a Florida scientist to the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, Ca.

It was the longest executive session ever on a recruitment grant, which are usually approved routinely with little serious discussion.

The board is now resuming discussion of the matter(see here and here.)

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

Read More...

CIRM Board Eyes Florida Researcher for $6.7 Million Grant

Sunday, September 9th, 2012


The board of the California stem cell agency is discussing a proposal to award $6.7 million to recruit a Florida scientist to the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, Ca.

The scientist is Dennis Steindler of the University of Florida. The recruitment award received a score of 57, although the scores ranged from 30 to 75.  Jeff Sheehy, a member of the grant review group and CIRM board member, said the score reflected two extremely divergent positions by two reviewers.

The board has awarded four grants in its recruitment round over the past couple of years, but this is the first extended discussion of an award recommended by reviewers. It is also the first to have a representative of the applicant institution speaking publicly for the grant.

CIRM directors have now moved into executive session to discuss matters they prefer to air in private.

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

Read More...

Dennis Steindler Application: Excerpt from Review Summary

Sunday, September 9th, 2012


The CIRM summary of the review on the
$6.7 million grant to recruit Florida scientist Dennis Steindler to
the Parkinson's Institute in California carried a strong minority report. However, the review itself drew fire this morning from some CIRM board members.
They included patient advocate Jeff Sheehy, co-vice chair of the grant review group, who supported approval of the grant. He noted that the low score reflected two extreme opinions. He said some of the reviewers were doing their research on the Parkinson's Institute on the Internet during the actual review.  Sheehy said that was not a "good way" to perform a review and reflected a "major short-coming." 
Here is an excerpt from the review.

"In summary, this is an
application from an established leader in NSC biology to pursue
research focused on disease mechanisms in PD. Strengths of the
proposal include the quality of the PI, the focus of the project on
an interesting hypothesis, and the leadership in basic science that
the candidate would bring to the applicant institution. Weaknesses
included deficiencies in the research plan, the limited track-record
of the PI in PD research and an institutional environment lacking
adequate support for basic science investigations."

The summary continued, 

"During programmatic discussion some GWG (grant review group) members cited a need to broaden stem cell leadership not only at the
large universities but also at the smaller institutions as well. They
felt that the candidate's recruitment would strengthen the applicant
institution and provide leadership and strength in basic research.
The need for increased research focused on Parkinson's Disease was
also cited by some reviewers. A motion to recommend the application
for funding carried with a majority vote. Because more than 35% of
GWG members opposed the motion, opponents have exercised their right
to have that position reported to the ICOC. The consensus statement
from this group is as follows: 'Despite the facts that the
applicant has many excellent attributes, that Parkinson's disease is
a key area of interest, and that the applicant institution may
deserve additional consideration, our opinion is that the application
clearly falls short in several critical scientific areas that
outweigh the programmatic concerns and do not justify a
recommendation for funding. We believe that the people of California
depend upon us to make recommendations based on our scientific
expertise, for outcomes that are most likely to impact medicine and
the health and treatment of their citizens. We believe that their
money can be better spent.'"

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

Read More...

Two Additional Appeals Rejected in Disease Team Round

Sunday, September 9th, 2012


The governing board of the California stem cell agency last night rejected appeals by two applicants -- OncoMed Pharmaceuticals of Redwood City and Albert Wong of Stanford -- in the $200 million disease team round.

Both petitions generated little discussion. You can find more on their petitions here and here.

The board also approved changes in its intellectual property and grant administration rules. Both proposals will now enter the state's official administrative law process for more comment and possible change.

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

Read More...

StemCells, Inc., Hails $40 Million in Awards from California Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, September 9th, 2012


StemCells, Inc., was quick this morning
with a press release about winning a $20 million award last night from the
California stem cell agency.

The publicly traded, Newark, Ca., firm
also pointed out that the CIRM board in July awarded another $20
million to the business.
The news release hailed the awards as
validating its science and business. Martin McGlynn, who personally
appeared before the CIRM board last night, said,

 "CIRM's approval of two
awards to StemCells illustrates the tremendous promise of
our neural stem cell technology and the high degree of confidence in
the world class team of scientists and clinicians who will be working
to translate this technology into potential treatments and cures for
these devastating diseases." 

On the Alzheimer's award last night,
McGlynn said,

 "With the recent spate of late-stage clinical
failures in Alzheimer's disease, it is clear that the field could
benefit from alternative approaches to lessen the huge burden on
families, caregivers and our healthcare system.

He continued,

"Our recently reported preclinical
data, which showed that our neural stem cells restored memory and
enhanced synaptic function in two animal models relevant to
Alzheimer's disease, shows our approach has promise. We greatly
appreciate the support from CIRM, which should help us accelerate our
efforts to test our HuCNS-SC cells in Alzheimer's disease."

The news release did not note that the
board has required that the firm must show proof that it has access
to $20 million in matching funds prior to receiving cash from the
agency on the Alzheimer's grant. The California Stem Cell Report is
asking CIRM whether that requirement extends to the earlier grant as
well.
One of the analysts who follows the
company released a special report on the firm this morning. Stephen
Dunn
of LifeTech Capital said,

 “We are reiterating our strong
speculative buy with a price target of $4.50 as StemCells Inc.
continues to distinguishing themselves as one of the most advanced
players in the stem cell space.”

At the time of this writing, the firm's
stock was trading at $2.20 up seven cents. Its 52 week high is $2.67
and its 52 week low is 59 cents.  

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

Read More...

StemCells, Inc., Wins Another $20 Million From California Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, September 9th, 2012


Following a second impassioned pitch by its former chairman, Robert Klein, the governing board of the California stem cell agency approved a $20 million award to a financially strapped biotech firm, StemCells, Inc., of Newark, Ca.

Approval came on a 7-5 vote with the condition that the company demonstrate it has access to $20 million in matching funds prior to funding.  It is the second $20 million award that the company has received in the disease team round, which now totals $214 million. Another disease team application has been tabled and will not be considered until October.

The current CIRM chairman, J.T. Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, asked for the financial proof because he said some concerns were expressed during an executive session that CIRM would now "account for such a large part of the assets of the company." Martin McGlynn, CEO of StemCells, Inc., also told the board that the company might have to drop its Alzheimer's research if it did not receive the CIRM award.

The StemCells, Inc., application was rejected twice by reviewers. The original rejection came before the July meeting at which Klein first appeared (see here and here). The proposal was then sent back for re-review, during which it was rejected again.

However, the 29-member board narrowly approved the application following discussion tonight and following its rejection of another Alzheimer's research proposal from USC. Both applicants produced a number of witnesses, including patients, on behalf of their appeals.

The re-review on the StemCells, Inc., application said in reference to a statement by Klein to board in July,

“The reviewers did not feel there was compelling data for neuron migration in the submitted manuscript. This is the manuscript specifically referenced at the ICOC (CIRM governing board) meeting (in July) that prompted the call for additional analysis. The manuscript is not yet accepted, it is 'potentially acceptable' but requires 'major revisions' according to the journal editor note. In addition, however, the studies in this manuscript used mouse NSCs, not the human NSCs proposed for the disease team award....”

In July, Klein said, “....(W)e have brand-new data that demonstrates and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.” 

A footnote: The CIRM staff said that as a result of two StemCells application, a proposal is being prepared to limit applications to one per entity in later rounds.

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

Read More...

Gloria Arroyo to have stem cell treatment Monday

Saturday, September 8th, 2012

Former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will undergo stem cell therapy on Monday with an alternative medicine doctor.

Arroyo, in a post on her Twitter account Saturday morning, said Monday's session will be her fourth intravenous treatment.

"This Monday I will have my fourth stem cell intravenous treatment with my alternative medicine doctor," she said.

Also she said, "It's cultured stem cell and much more modest in price than the one coming from sheep or one's own body."

But she did not elaborate on how much the treatment will cost.

Stem cell therapy is type of intervention strategy that introduces new adult stem cells into damaged tissue in order to treat disease or injury.

Earlier this week, Arroyo said she continues to search for alternative solutions to an anatomic problem that prompted her to be rushed to a government hospital last month.

Arroyo said she had seen at least two "alternative medicine practitioners," and has initiated communication with a "neurocervical spine purist."

She said she also had her thrice-weekly therapy at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center (VMMC) in Quezon City Thursday.

Arroyo underwent treatment last August for an anatomic problem that caused her to choke on her food.

See the article here:
Gloria Arroyo to have stem cell treatment Monday

Read More...

Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute awarded $1.3 million to study cardiac stem cells

Saturday, September 8th, 2012

Public release date: 6-Sep-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Sally Stewart Sally.stewart@cshs.org 310-248-6566 Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

LOS ANGELES Sept. 6, 2012 A team of Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute stem cell researchers today was awarded a $1.3 million grant from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to continue study of an experimental stem cell therapy that treats heart attack patients with heart-derived cells. Earlier this year, data from the first clinical trial of the stem cell treatment showed the therapy helped damaged hearts regrow healthy muscle.

To date, this cell therapy, developed by Eduardo Marbn, MD, PhD, director of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute and Mark S. Siegel Family Professor, is the only treatment shown to regenerate the injured human heart. In this therapy, human heart tissue is used to grow specialized heart stem cells, which then are injected back into the patient's heart. The new research will focus on understanding the cellular mechanisms that have produced favorable outcomes.

"We have seen encouraging results in patients with this treatment, and it has the potential to revolutionize how we treat heart attack patients," Marbn said. "This further study will allow us to better understand how it works, which we hope will lead us to even more stem-cell based treatments for the heart."

During a heart attack, clots form suddenly on top of cholesterol-laden plaques, which block the flow of blood to the heart muscle. This causes living heart tissue to die and be replaced by a scar. The larger the scar, the higher the chance of death or disability from the heart attack.

Conventional treatments aim to limit the initial injury by opening the clogged artery and prevent further harm with medications. Regenerative therapy aims to regrow healthy heart muscle and dissolve the heart tissue -- an approach that, according to a study by Marbn published in The Lancet, led to an average 50 percent reduction in scar size.

Early study by Cedars-Sinai researchers indicates that much of the benefit in the experimental therapy is due to an indirect effect of the transplanted cardiac-derived cells. These cells seem to stimulate proliferation of the surrounding undamaged heart cells -- a previously unrecognized means of cardiac regeneration in response to cell therapy.

"This is vital basic science work that we believe will ultimately open pathways to new treatments in the fight against heart disease, the leading cause of premature death and disability," Marbn said.

The process to grow the cardiac-derived stem cells involved in the study was developed by Marbn when he was on the faculty of Johns Hopkins University. The university has filed for a patent on that intellectual property, and has licensed it to a company in which Dr. Marbn has a financial interest.

See original here:
Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute awarded $1.3 million to study cardiac stem cells

Read More...

California Stem Cell Agency: A New Board Member and a New Vacancy

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


The chairs are shifting a tad on the
governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency as a
French immigrant is added, a Latino leaves and a veteran patient
advocate is reappointed.


Coming on board for next week's meeting
is Anne-Marie Duliege, chief medical officer of Affymax Inc., of
Palo Alto, a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company that deals
with kidney disease. Leaving is David Serrano Sewell, who has been
named to the state Medical Board by Gov. Jerry Brown. Reappointed is
Jeff Sheehy, an HIV/AIDs patient advocate who may be the most public face
of patient advocates on the stem cell agency.
Anne-Marie Duliege
Affymax Photo

State Controller John Chiang appointed
Duliege to the CIRM post, saying

“Dr. Duliege brings
first-hand knowledge of what is required to take a drug from research
phase through FDA approval.”

In May, Duliege made a presentation to
the Bioscience Forum in South San Francisco called “Beating the
Odds,” a discussion of Affymax's first commercial product.
According to information posted by the group, Duliege led the way by
shepherding it through a 10-month gauntlet at the FDA.
Duliege has been with Affymax since
2007. Her prior positions included time at Chiron and Genentech. She
is a practicing physician, working part-time, and received her
medical degree from Paris Medical School.
Affymax has had a previous tie to the
stem cell agency. Ted Love, one of the initial members of the CIRM board, also sits on the Affymax board of directors. Indeed, Duliege fills the seat
vacated by Love when he resigned from the CIRM board. The position must be
filled by an officer of a California life science company.  
David Serrano Sewell
CIRM Photo

Serrano Sewell, who has also served on
the CIRM board since its inception, is apparently resigning to accept
an appointment to the board that regulates
California physicians. Apparently – because the stem cell agency
has not confirmed that he is leaving, although this morning it placed a resolution honoring him on the agenda for next week's meeting.  That almost invariably means a board member is departing.

Serrano Sewell, an attorney for the
city of San Francisco, was one of 10 patient advocate members on the
29-member board. Sewell was apppointed by the California lieutenant
governor. His seat will remain vacant until the current lieutenant
governor, Gavin Newsom, makes an appointment, who must also be a patient advocate.
Jeff Sheehy
CIRM Photo

Sheehy was reappointed recently by
state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg. Sheehy is a
communications manager at UC San Francisco and a nationally known
HIV/AIDS advocate. He is co-chairman of CIRM's Science Subcommittee
and vice chairman of the grants review group. Sheehy leads the
discussion of grant applications when they come before the full board
in public session.

With the latest shuffling, the board has essentially lost its only African-American member – Ted Love.
Eugene Washington, dean of the UCLA medical school, is a member of
the board but never attends the meetings. Instead he sends a
surrogate. Serrano Sewell's departure brings the number of Hispanics
to three, co-vice chairman Art Torres, Francisco Prieto and Marcy
Feit
. No Asians sit on the board.

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

Read More...

Bob Klein, "Lobbying" and Reader Reaction

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


A robust discussion has arisen
concerning Bob Klein and his appearance last month before the
governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, a body
that he once chaired and an enterprise that he once oversaw.

The comments were triggered by the original "unseemly performance" item on the California Stem Cell Report and a subsequent comment by Francisco Prieto, a longtime member of the board.
The comments discussed whether Klein
was manipulated and whether he was engaged in so-called “revolving
door” activity – the practice of former government officials,
such as Klein, becoming paid representatives of enterprises that were
involved with their former agency.
The comments raise a number of
interesting questions that we will discuss on the California Stem
Cell Report during the next few days.
You can read the remarks by going to this item and scrolling down to the end of the piece.
(Editor's note: Our apologies to some
of those who commented for the delay in posting their remarks.)

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

Read More...

Nearly $6 Million Sought: Four Scientists Seek to Overturn Rejection by CIRM Reviewers

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


Four researchers are appealing
rejection of their proposals to win millions of dollars from the
California stem cell agency just as the agency is moving to curb such
reconsideration efforts by scientists.

The latest appeals come in what the
agency calls its basic biology round. The agency's governing board
meets next Wednesday and Thursday to hand out as much as $35 million
to as many as 25 scientists competing for the research dollars.
The four appeals follow a record outpouring last month of attempts at reconsideration in another
round. One upshot has been a proposal that would tighten the review process. That plan also comes before directors next week.
In three of the latest appeals, the
applications were given scientific scores that exceeded those of some
proposals that were approved by reviewers. The lower scoring
proposals were given the go-ahead on the basis of “programmatic
review,” which one CIRM document says is designed to allow
“consideration of issues beyond scientific merit, such as disease
representation and societal impact.” 
The latest appeals – formally known
as extraordinary petitions – were filed by Michael Teitell of UCLA,
Deborah Lieu of UC Davis, Tony Hunter of Salk and Hanna Mikkola, also
of UCLA. In all, their applications seek nearly $6 million from CIRM.
Hunter's $1.8 million application had the highest scientific score, 70,  of the four appeals. It ranked above three grants approved by reviewers. 
In his appeal, Hunter said “no major scientific issues were found” by reviewers concerning his application. He also reported new data involving a “major concern” of reviewers. Hunter said the information was developed after the application was submitted April 25.

In the case of Lieu, reviewers
said she was “relatively inexperienced.” Lieu's appeal said she
has “24 publications with over 6 years of experience in the
differentiation of cardiac muscle cells from human pluripotent stem
cells, 12 publications (3 co-corresponding author) on human
pluripotent stem cells and their cardiac derivatives, and 3
publications on the engineering of pacemaker cells” in addition to
other related professional experience.
She is seeking $1.3 million. Her
application received a score of 68, ranking it above two other grants
approved by reviewers and equal to a third also approved by
reviewers.
Mikkola said her application built on work previously funded by CIRM. She also cited new data that the
reviewers did not have access to. Mikkola's application for $1.4 million
received a score of 65, which ranks it above one grant approved by
reviewers.
Teitell's letter to the board also cited new data that is scheduled to published in November that deals with one of the concerns of reviewers. Teitell additionally disputed some of the critical information in the summary of reviewer comments.

He is seeking $1.4 million. CIRM did not release a score on his application, although it appears to be below 63, the lowest score disclosed publicly by the agency.

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

Read More...

Stem Cell Agency Moving to Curb Free-Wheeling Appeals by Researchers

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


The $3 billion California stem cell
agency on Tuesday released details of proposed, major changes in how
scientists are allowed to appeal decisions when their
applications for millions of dollars are rejected by grant reviewers.

The agency posted on its web site a 4 ½ page plan to curb the free-wheeling pitches that reached a record level at last month's governing board meeting. Some of the changes
would formalize ad hoc procedures that have emerged over the last
several years. The plan would also make it clearer exactly what can
and cannot be done or expected under the agency's appeal process,
which is poorly understood by at least some researchers.
The agency's proposal, due to be acted
on at the CIRM board meeting next Wednesday and Tuesday, is heavily
nuanced, dealing with such matters as “supplemental information,”
an “additional analysis option,” “criteria for material dispute
of fact,” “criteria for material new information” – not to
mention the old standby – “extraordinary petition.”
CIRM also reiterates in a footnote its
distinction between an “appeal” and an “extraordinary
petition.” However, it is a distinction without a difference except
to those in thrall of bureaucratic jargon. Both are appeals. Their
purpose is to provide a method for overturning reviewers' decision under certain conditions.
Details on CIRM's proposed changes came
only four business days prior to next week's governing board meeting
– a little late to generate thoughtful comment and constructive
suggestions from those most likely to be affected by the changes –
the 500 or so recipients of $1.6 billion in CIRM funding. Before final action on the changes, the board may well want to send out the proposal to all of its grant recipients and ask them for written comment that could then be considered at a public meeting of its Science Subcommittee.
The CIRM board has been bedeviled by
the appeal process for more than four years, including the
presentations at its public meetings by scientists. Ironically, the
first such public appearance was made by Bert Lubin, who is now a member of the CIRM
board  and CEO of Childrens Hospital in Oakland, Ca..
As the California Stem Cell Report
wrote at the time, the pitch by Lubin, who was unsuccessful,
disturbed some board members. Gerald Levey, then dean of the UCLA
medical school and a member of the board, said,

"I don't think we can run a board
this way. If we do, it would be chaos." 

Lubin was later quoted in the journal
Nature as saying that his rejected application did not come from “the
in crowd” of stem cell researchers or organization.

“So a project that was really going
to go into patients was essentially triaged.”

A final note: CIRM's proposal for changes in
the appeal process also uses language that obfuscates exactly what
researchers can do under state law. The document says that scientists
“may” make oral and written comments to the board, which is a
state government entity. In fact, state law makes it clear that
researchers as well as any member of the public have the “right”
to comment. The board legally cannot prevent them from speaking or
making comments. And the board, to its credit, has always allowed
ample public comment even when it slows the board's work.  

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

Read More...

USC Researchers Appeal Rejection of $20 Million Proposal

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


Researchers from the University of
Southern California
are making a pitch to overturn rejection of their
$20 million grant application by reviewers in one of the signature
commercialization rounds of the California stem cell agency.

The appeal by Roberta Diaz Brinton and
Lon Schneider will be taken up one week from tomorrow by the
governing board of the $3 billion state enterprise.
The USC application deals with Alzheimer's. It came in the $243
million disease team round that was considered last month during a
record-breaking outpouring of appeals and a day of emotion-filled
appearances by patients. CIRM directors adjourned their meeting
without completing action on a number of items, leaving open the possibility of additional appeals such as the one from USC.
The Brinton-Schneider application
received a score of 63 from reviewers. They said in a letter to
the board,

“We are submitting the petition at
this time as we are new to the CIRM ICOC(governing board) process and after listening
to the July 26 ICOC meeting deliberations now understand that the
petition process allows the ICOC to further consider our proposal.
We noted that the proposal scored one point above ours and another
two points below ours, each utilized the extraordinary petition
strategy to gain ICOC review which resulted in funding approval in
the former, and reconsideration in the latter instance.”

Their statement reinforced a concern
expressed by CIRM Director Oswald Steward, director of the Reeve Center at UC Irvine,  at last month's board
meeting about fairness in the grant process. He said,

“I'm not really quire sure that all
of the applicants clearly understood that they could come back to us
to address the criticisms(of reviewers).”

Concerns about whether all applicants fully understand the appeal process have surfaced on a number of occasions over the last several years. The CIRM board, however, is generally reluctant to overturn negative recommendations by reviewers. It also almost never reverses positive recommendations.

Next week the board is scheduled to
make unspecified changes in the appeal process. No further details on
those changes have yet been released by the agency although the
meeting is just four business days away.
In the Brinton-Schneider letter to the
CIRM board, the scientists defended their scientific approach and
responded to criticism by reviewers, especially those related to
sedation. Reviewers expressed reservations about over-sedation, which
the researchers said were erroneous.
It is not clear whether other scientists will
be making appeals during next week's board meeting.

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

Read More...

Researcher Alert: Troubling CIRM Grant Appeal Process Up for Revision

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


Directors of the California stem cell
agency next week are expected to make unspecified changes in how
scientists can appeal denials of their applications for millions of
dollars in research grants.

The move follows a jam-packed and
emotional meeting last month in which the CIRM governing board faced a record outpouring of appeals of negative decisions by grant
reviewers. The board is the ultimate arbiter on applications. While it almost never overturns positive decisions by reviewers, it sometimes
approves applications that they have rejected. 
No details of the proposed changes in
the appeal process are yet available for the meeting Sept. 5-6 in
Burlingame, Ca. All that is known at this point is the following item
from the board agenda: “consideration of modifications to the
extraordinary petition policy and adoption of additional
information policy.” Extraordinary petitions are the key vehicle
for appeals.
The appeals process has long troubled the CIRM board. It has made changes in the procedures, but last
month's high stakes, $243 million round posed new challenges and
consumed so much time that the board was unable to complete action on
several items.
As a result of the July appeals, the
board sent five applications back for re-review. (See here, here and
here.) Some of those are expected to come up next week and others at
the end of October. The board agenda, however, did not specify which
applications would be considered next week. Nor did it specify how many additional appeals have been filed in the round that was up for
approval in July.

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

Read More...

California Stem Cell Agency: A New Board Member and a New Vacancy

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


The chairs are shifting a tad on the
governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency as a
French immigrant is added, a Latino leaves and a veteran patient
advocate is reappointed.


Coming on board for next week's meeting
is Anne-Marie Duliege, chief medical officer of Affymax Inc., of
Palo Alto, a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company that deals
with kidney disease. Leaving is David Serrano Sewell, who has been
named to the state Medical Board by Gov. Jerry Brown. Reappointed is
Jeff Sheehy, an HIV/AIDs patient advocate who may be the most public face
of patient advocates on the stem cell agency.
Anne-Marie Duliege
Affymax Photo

State Controller John Chiang appointed
Duliege to the CIRM post, saying

“Dr. Duliege brings
first-hand knowledge of what is required to take a drug from research
phase through FDA approval.”

In May, Duliege made a presentation to
the Bioscience Forum in South San Francisco called “Beating the
Odds,” a discussion of Affymax's first commercial product.
According to information posted by the group, Duliege led the way by
shepherding it through a 10-month gauntlet at the FDA.
Duliege has been with Affymax since
2007. Her prior positions included time at Chiron and Genentech. She
is a practicing physician, working part-time, and received her
medical degree from Paris Medical School.
Affymax has had a previous tie to the
stem cell agency. Ted Love, one of the initial members of the CIRM board, also sits on the Affymax board of directors. Indeed, Duliege fills the seat
vacated by Love when he resigned from the CIRM board. The position must be
filled by an officer of a California life science company.  
David Serrano Sewell
CIRM Photo

Serrano Sewell, who has also served on
the CIRM board since its inception, is apparently resigning to accept
an appointment to the board that regulates
California physicians. Apparently – because the stem cell agency
has not confirmed that he is leaving, although this morning it placed a resolution honoring him on the agenda for next week's meeting.  That almost invariably means a board member is departing.

Serrano Sewell, an attorney for the
city of San Francisco, was one of 10 patient advocate members on the
29-member board. Sewell was apppointed by the California lieutenant
governor. His seat will remain vacant until the current lieutenant
governor, Gavin Newsom, makes an appointment, who must also be a patient advocate.
Jeff Sheehy
CIRM Photo

Sheehy was reappointed recently by
state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg. Sheehy is a
communications manager at UC San Francisco and a nationally known
HIV/AIDS advocate. He is co-chairman of CIRM's Science Subcommittee
and vice chairman of the grants review group. Sheehy leads the
discussion of grant applications when they come before the full board
in public session.

With the latest shuffling, the board has essentially lost its only African-American member – Ted Love.
Eugene Washington, dean of the UCLA medical school, is a member of
the board but never attends the meetings. Instead he sends a
surrogate. Serrano Sewell's departure brings the number of Hispanics
to three, co-vice chairman Art Torres, Francisco Prieto and Marcy
Feit
. No Asians sit on the board.

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

Read More...

Bob Klein, “Lobbying” and Reader Reaction

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


A robust discussion has arisen
concerning Bob Klein and his appearance last month before the
governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, a body
that he once chaired and an enterprise that he once oversaw.

The comments were triggered by the original "unseemly performance" item on the California Stem Cell Report and a subsequent comment by Francisco Prieto, a longtime member of the board.
The comments discussed whether Klein
was manipulated and whether he was engaged in so-called “revolving
door” activity – the practice of former government officials,
such as Klein, becoming paid representatives of enterprises that were
involved with their former agency.
The comments raise a number of
interesting questions that we will discuss on the California Stem
Cell Report during the next few days.
You can read the remarks by going to this item and scrolling down to the end of the piece.
(Editor's note: Our apologies to some
of those who commented for the delay in posting their remarks.)

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

Read More...

Nearly $6 Million Sought: Four Scientists Seek to Overturn Rejection by CIRM Reviewers

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


Four researchers are appealing
rejection of their proposals to win millions of dollars from the
California stem cell agency just as the agency is moving to curb such
reconsideration efforts by scientists.

The latest appeals come in what the
agency calls its basic biology round. The agency's governing board
meets next Wednesday and Thursday to hand out as much as $35 million
to as many as 25 scientists competing for the research dollars.
The four appeals follow a record outpouring last month of attempts at reconsideration in another
round. One upshot has been a proposal that would tighten the review process. That plan also comes before directors next week.
In three of the latest appeals, the
applications were given scientific scores that exceeded those of some
proposals that were approved by reviewers. The lower scoring
proposals were given the go-ahead on the basis of “programmatic
review,” which one CIRM document says is designed to allow
“consideration of issues beyond scientific merit, such as disease
representation and societal impact.” 
The latest appeals – formally known
as extraordinary petitions – were filed by Michael Teitell of UCLA,
Deborah Lieu of UC Davis, Tony Hunter of Salk and Hanna Mikkola, also
of UCLA. In all, their applications seek nearly $6 million from CIRM.
Hunter's $1.8 million application had the highest scientific score, 70,  of the four appeals. It ranked above three grants approved by reviewers. 
In his appeal, Hunter said “no major scientific issues were found” by reviewers concerning his application. He also reported new data involving a “major concern” of reviewers. Hunter said the information was developed after the application was submitted April 25.

In the case of Lieu, reviewers
said she was “relatively inexperienced.” Lieu's appeal said she
has “24 publications with over 6 years of experience in the
differentiation of cardiac muscle cells from human pluripotent stem
cells, 12 publications (3 co-corresponding author) on human
pluripotent stem cells and their cardiac derivatives, and 3
publications on the engineering of pacemaker cells” in addition to
other related professional experience.
She is seeking $1.3 million. Her
application received a score of 68, ranking it above two other grants
approved by reviewers and equal to a third also approved by
reviewers.
Mikkola said her application built on work previously funded by CIRM. She also cited new data that the
reviewers did not have access to. Mikkola's application for $1.4 million
received a score of 65, which ranks it above one grant approved by
reviewers.
Teitell's letter to the board also cited new data that is scheduled to published in November that deals with one of the concerns of reviewers. Teitell additionally disputed some of the critical information in the summary of reviewer comments.

He is seeking $1.4 million. CIRM did not release a score on his application, although it appears to be below 63, the lowest score disclosed publicly by the agency.

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

Read More...

Stem Cell Agency Moving to Curb Free-Wheeling Appeals by Researchers

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012


The $3 billion California stem cell
agency on Tuesday released details of proposed, major changes in how
scientists are allowed to appeal decisions when their
applications for millions of dollars are rejected by grant reviewers.

The agency posted on its web site a 4 ½ page plan to curb the free-wheeling pitches that reached a record level at last month's governing board meeting. Some of the changes
would formalize ad hoc procedures that have emerged over the last
several years. The plan would also make it clearer exactly what can
and cannot be done or expected under the agency's appeal process,
which is poorly understood by at least some researchers.
The agency's proposal, due to be acted
on at the CIRM board meeting next Wednesday and Tuesday, is heavily
nuanced, dealing with such matters as “supplemental information,”
an “additional analysis option,” “criteria for material dispute
of fact,” “criteria for material new information” – not to
mention the old standby – “extraordinary petition.”
CIRM also reiterates in a footnote its
distinction between an “appeal” and an “extraordinary
petition.” However, it is a distinction without a difference except
to those in thrall of bureaucratic jargon. Both are appeals. Their
purpose is to provide a method for overturning reviewers' decision under certain conditions.
Details on CIRM's proposed changes came
only four business days prior to next week's governing board meeting
– a little late to generate thoughtful comment and constructive
suggestions from those most likely to be affected by the changes –
the 500 or so recipients of $1.6 billion in CIRM funding. Before final action on the changes, the board may well want to send out the proposal to all of its grant recipients and ask them for written comment that could then be considered at a public meeting of its Science Subcommittee.
The CIRM board has been bedeviled by
the appeal process for more than four years, including the
presentations at its public meetings by scientists. Ironically, the
first such public appearance was made by Bert Lubin, who is now a member of the CIRM
board  and CEO of Childrens Hospital in Oakland, Ca..
As the California Stem Cell Report
wrote at the time, the pitch by Lubin, who was unsuccessful,
disturbed some board members. Gerald Levey, then dean of the UCLA
medical school and a member of the board, said,

"I don't think we can run a board
this way. If we do, it would be chaos." 

Lubin was later quoted in the journal
Nature as saying that his rejected application did not come from “the
in crowd” of stem cell researchers or organization.

“So a project that was really going
to go into patients was essentially triaged.”

A final note: CIRM's proposal for changes in
the appeal process also uses language that obfuscates exactly what
researchers can do under state law. The document says that scientists
“may” make oral and written comments to the board, which is a
state government entity. In fact, state law makes it clear that
researchers as well as any member of the public have the “right”
to comment. The board legally cannot prevent them from speaking or
making comments. And the board, to its credit, has always allowed
ample public comment even when it slows the board's work.  

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

Read More...

Page 82«..1020..81828384..90100..»


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