Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy

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

The $3 billion California stem cell agency likes to align itself with the very best science. And as of today it is also hooked up with the best lobbyist in California – at least based on earnings.

CIRM hires many firms to perform work, given its unusual needs, rather than building a large and relatively permanent staff. The tasks of the outside contractors range from publishing the annual report to grant review matters. Today Laurel Rosenhall of The Sacramento Bee reported that one of the firms that CIRM has hired now ranks as the No. 1 lobbyist in California, based on its earnings.

The firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni pulled down nearly $5 million during the first three quarters of this year. The firm knocked KP Public Affairs out of the top spot, which it had held for at least the last 10 years.

Nielsen has had a contract with CIRM since its earliest days in 2005, but it doesn't amount to much in the scope of Nielsen's business. According to the latest CIRM report on outside contracting, Nielsen was paid $79,984 during the fiscal year 2010-2011 for services that also extended into the current fiscal year. The report did not list payments for earlier years, but it is our recollection that Nielsen was paid about $50,000 every year since 2005. It is not known whether the firm continues to hold a contract for the current fiscal year.

One of Nielsen's partners, Gene Erbin, was one of the drafters of Prop. 71, the ballot initiative that created the California stem cell agency in 2004. Merck and Pfizer, in addition to CIRM, are among the firm's clients.

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

The $3 billion California stem cell agency likes to align itself with the very best science. And as of today it is also hooked up with the best lobbyist in California – at least based on earnings.

CIRM hires many firms to perform work, given its unusual needs, rather than building a large and relatively permanent staff. The tasks of the outside contractors range from publishing the annual report to grant review matters. Today Laurel Rosenhall of The Sacramento Bee reported that one of the firms that CIRM has hired now ranks as the No. 1 lobbyist in California, based on its earnings.

The firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni pulled down nearly $5 million during the first three quarters of this year. The firm knocked KP Public Affairs out of the top spot, which it had held for at least the last 10 years.

Nielsen has had a contract with CIRM since its earliest days in 2005, but it doesn't amount to much in the scope of Nielsen's business. According to the latest CIRM report on outside contracting, Nielsen was paid $79,984 during the fiscal year 2010-2011 for services that also extended into the current fiscal year. The report did not list payments for earlier years, but it is our recollection that Nielsen was paid about $50,000 every year since 2005. It is not known whether the firm continues to hold a contract for the current fiscal year.

One of Nielsen's partners, Gene Erbin, was one of the drafters of Prop. 71, the ballot initiative that created the California stem cell agency in 2004. Merck and Pfizer, in addition to CIRM, are among the firm's clients.

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

The prestigious Institute of Medicine earlier this month kicked off its $700,000 study of the California stem cell agency minus an important perspective – the view directly from California.

None of the persons on the 13-member panel evaluating the performance of the $3 billion enterprise comes from California. The reasons for that are not clear. The IOM is all but mum on the matter.

One could argue that it is not necessary to be geographically located in California to determine whether CIRM is working at peak performance. However, some conditions do exist in California that are difficult for many others to grasp. They include its state budget crisis that has now placed the once Golden State at the bottom of the heap in terms of its credit. Some even liken it to Greece. Obviously that situation can be understood in the abstract by reading The Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times. But the intensity and emotion surrounding that issue and others are difficult to comprehend for many folks living in more blessed states.

Count among the other volatile issues the cutbacks in the state's once vaunted higher education system, including the University of California, which showed its back to students by increasing tuition by nearly 18 percent this fall. Couple that with a visceral antipathy -- and that is putting it mildly -- among some Californians to what they regard as execessive state salaries, including those at the stem cell agency.

What does all this have to with financing stem cell research through an agency that was supposed to have a guaranteed stream of income isolated from mischief that could be wreaked by the governor or legislature. It turns out that CIRM's cash flow is not as guaranteed as its backers believed. Instead of issuing bonds, the state is going to finance the agency over the next 18 months with commercial paper, if necessary. That's because Gov. Jerry Brown wants to reduce the interest costs on state borrowing, which have risen sharply and now consume 8 percent of the state budget along with funds that could otherwise go to educate California's children, among other things.

Brown's parsimony is famous. During his first term in office, he denied pay raises to state college professors, saying they are amply rewarded through "psychic income." More recently, he objected to out-of-state travel by CIRM staff. Too much "lollygagging in London on the taxpayer's dime," a Brown spokesman said. CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas promptly cut travel in the chairman's office by 50 percent and asked CIRM President Alan Trounson to do the same for the rest of the staff.

It is an environment that can be difficult to navigate under the best of circumstances. It places limitations on the stem cell agency and tends to focus its operations and funding in different directions than might be the case if California's economic climate were rosier.

The IOM has no real response to the question of why no Californian is on the panel. The California Stem Cell Report last week asked the institute whether an overt decision had been made to exclude persons from California. The IOM did not answer directly. Instead it referred to a generic description of how panel members are selected. The institute's unwillingness to address the specific question does not speak well for the openness and transparency of the IOM examination of CIRM.

Currently the IOM does have a comment period available on the selection of the panel members, who will not become official for another three days. Interested parties can make their views known to the IOM by using this link.

A Californian or two on the IOM panel would help to bring a valuable, broader perspective to this important study, which is sure to affect the future of the state's stem cell research and voter approval of another possible multibillion dollar bond issue in the next few years.

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