Search Immortality Topics:

Page 10,212«..1020..10,21110,21210,21310,214..10,22010,230..»


Stem Cell Agency Chair Pressing for Consensus on IOM Recommendations

Posted: January 20, 2013 at 7:48 am

The chairman of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, Jonathan Thomas, yesterday outlined how
he intends to proceed next week when the agency's governing board
considers the far-reaching recommendations of a blue-ribbon Institute
of Medicine panel.

“While some of the IOM’s
recommendations are administrative in nature and can be implemented,
others are much more complex and would require changes in (governing)
board policy or legislative changes.” 

Jonathan Thomas, chairman of CIRM governing board at far right. Art
Torres (center), co-vice chair and former state Democratic party chairman,
who would  play key role in dealing with lawmakers. Robert Klein is at the
 left in this 2011 meeting, Klein's last as chairman of the agency and the one
 in which Thomas was elected chairman. 
He continued,

“My goal is to strive to reach
consensus on a course of action on the 23rd. However, if the board
isn’t able to choose a course of action at this time we will
continue the conversation and bring it up at future board meetings
until we reach agreement.”

It is worth noting that Thomas did not
mention the possibility of having to ask the people of California to
amend the state constitution, which would require a statewide election. Opponents to change at the agency have
used that possibility to discourage action. (See here and here.) An
election would be costly, politically difficult and could open the
door to additional unwelcome changes at the eight-year-old research
enterprise.
Thomas' desire for a consensus among
the 29 board members – instead of a simple majority – could be a
stumbling block as the board becomes snarled internally, perhaps for
months or more. The board normally meets only about once a month and
has a full slate of regular business on those occasions. The agency
will run out of money for new grants in less than four years, and
action on the IOM recommendations seems a necessary prelude to
winning continued financial support.
While four years would appear to an ample
period of time, making the sort of changes the IOM recommends would
require legislative action, which probably would take a minimum of a
year. Timing is important as well. The current leaders in the state
Senate and Assembly will be termed out in 2014. Starting all over
with novice leadership, changes in key committee chairmanships and so
forth would make the task even more difficult. Then there is the need
to address strategies for continued financial support. Should the
agency seek a new statewide bond measure (the current funding
mechanism)? If so campaign committees need to be formed, electoral
strategies planned and tested and tens of millions of dollars raised
for campaign expenses. If private funds instead are to be raised to
the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars(the agency spends about
$300 million a year), such an effort would also require considerable time.
To keep the funding pipeline full, all of this should be completed
well before the money runs out in 2017.
Dilly-dallying this year in drawn-out, fruitless debate over
the IOM proposals would be an unfortunate beginning should CIRM
directors actually want to continue the existence of the
organization.
In his blog item, Thomas sounded this
final note.

“It’s likely the debate will be
passionate – everyone involved in this work cares deeply about it –
and there will undoubtedly be disagreements, but ultimately we all
share the same goal, a desire to make sure that whatever we decide
helps make the stem cell agency even stronger and more effective, and
is in the best interests of the people of California.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/xriRP02aekU/stem-cell-agency-chair-pressing-for.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

UC Davis Stem Cell Researcher: 'Ivory Tower' IOM Recommendations Harmful to California Stem Cell Agency

Posted: January 20, 2013 at 7:48 am

The $3 billion California stem cell
agency has funded in the neighborhood of 500 to 600 scientists and
institutions, reviving and starting careers and stimulating
construction of $1 billion in new research labs around the state.

None of those recipients, as far as we
know, has come forward to comment publicly on the sweeping recommendations by Institute of Medicine for changes at the agency.
Until today, that is.
UC Davis researcher Paul Knoepfler, who
may be the only stem cell scientist in the United States with a stem
cell blog, weighed in with his thoughts today, which do not align
with those of the blue-ribbon IOM panel.
“Harmful” is one word that Knoepfler, who is a stem cell agency grant recipient,  used to describe the recommendations. He predicted “extremely negative repercussions” that “would
actually make CIRM less effective and less responsive to patients and
California citizens.”
He wrote that the IOM report, which
will come before stem cell agency governing board next week “...seems more like an ivory tower
intellectual exercise than an operative, realistic guide to a dynamic
agency that must operate in the real world.”
He defended the CIRM governing board,
which came under fire from the IOM for conflicts of interest.
Institutions linked to board members have received about 90 percent
of the $1.7 billion that the board has awarded, according to compilations by the California Stem Cell Report. The IOM said,

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

Knoepfler said,

“(The) IOM itself admits there is no
evidence that any conflicts of interest have ever guided (the agency's governing board) decisions. Not one example.”

Knoepfler also wrote,

“Interestingly, highlighting the
extremely sensitive nature of this issue, while I’ve been talking
with many bigwigs about this, at this point no one is wiling to go on
the record with an opinion about it except one courageous soul, Don
Reed (see
his piece here).”

There is a reason for that. The IOM is the most prestigious organization of its sort. Its studies are
described as the gold standard. And it has a rareified membership
that many scientists seek to join. So few are ready to give the
organization a smack on the nose. Likewise, California researchers
are loath to publicly criticize the stem cell agency because it
holds the strings to the purse that finances their careers.
California scientists, however, should
be asking themselves a bottom-line question. Do they want to see the
stem cell agency continue for another 10 to 20 years? Under the best
of circumstances, that may be unlikely given the other pressing needs
that the state faces. But if CIRM directors do not forthrightly
address the recommendations of the IOM panel, the fate of the stem
cell agency is exceedingly uncertain.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/pW_1A2nkyrM/uc-davis-stem-cell-researcher-ivory.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Patient Advocate Says IOM Recommendations Would ‘Destroy’ California Stem Cell Agency

Posted: January 20, 2013 at 7:48 am

California's “beloved,” $3 billion
stem cell research program should not be altered despite
recommendations from the most prestigious scientific organization of
its kind. So says longtime patient advocate Don Reed of Fremont, Ca.

Reed says the recommendations by the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) are a “threat” that would “destroy” an
agency that “is like nothing else on earth.” Reed is urging other
patient advocates to turn out at next week's critical meeting of the stem cell agency's board and lobby against alterations in how it does
business.
Reed and CIRM's Amy Adams
World Stem Cell Summit photo
Reed is a fixture in stem cell circles
nationally and in California and has been a regular at the stem cell
agency's public meetings since 2004. He is also vice president of
Americans for Cures, a private stem cell lobbying group created by
Robert Klein when he was chairman of the stem cell agency,  formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM).
Reed has written twice about the IOM
report on his blog with duplicate publication on the Huffington Post.
Yesterday, he said IOM “defies” the voters' will when they
created the stem cell agency in 2004. On Dec. 19, he said the
$700,000, 17-month study was “staggeringly misguided.” He wrote,

“If its recommendations were enacted,
they would silence stem cell patient advocate involvement, eliminate
public debate on funding proposals, and delegate the real decisions
to secret proceedings by an out-of-state-controlled board.”

Reed described the stem cell agency as
“fantastic” and wrote,

“So why mess with it, in such a
brutal and insulting manner?”

This writer has known Reed since the
early days of the stem cell agency and respects him. But in this
case he has many of his facts wrong. To mention just a few key
points: Patient advocates would not be silenced; their role would be
changed. Public comment would not be eliminated. Scientists could
still appeal negative decisions by reviewers to the full board if
they so choose, although the “extraordinary petition” process
would be eliminated. The voters' will would not be defied; they provided for a mechanism for making changes in the stem cell program.
While Bob Klein has not been heard from
publicly on the IOM report, some of Reed's comments reflect Klein's
past positions against altering the agency. Klein, an attorney and
real estate investment banker, might well be considered the father of
the agency. He directed the writing of the 10,000-word measure, Prop. 71, that created the program and wrote much of ballot initiative himself. The initiative contained a detailed description of the
qualifications for the chairman, which fit only one person in
California. It was no surprise when he won the post.
In years past, Klein has been extraordinarily protective of the ballot measure, at one point boxing
in the board on earlier proposals for changes that he disliked and that the IOM report now echoes.
In 2010, he was the prime
advocate for commissioning the IOM report which he expected
to serve as the basis for continued funding of the agency. It will
run out of cash for new grants in 2017.
To keep the money rolling in, Klein
said the IOM report would constitute a “gold standard” that would
generate increased enthusiasm for the research.
According to the transcript of the Aug.18, 2010, governing board meeting, Klein declared,

“(We will) never convince the people
that are adamant against us. But for the public and for the
constituent groups that are reasoned and prepared to look at
evidence, this is a very important validation that they can look to
to separate out what is a false claim from real performance.”

Also writing yesterday about the IOM
study was Bradley Fikes of the San Diego U-T, the dominant daily
newspaper in that area.
He summarized Reed's latest item as well as this on the California Stem Cell Report yesterday. Fikes
plans to file his own story within the next few days.
Feel free to file your own comments by
clicking on the word “comment” below or with the stem cell agency
at info@cirm.ca.gov. Anonymous
comments are permitted on this blog.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/wX7BEi46lc8/patient-advocate-says-iom.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Live Audiocast Available for Next Week’s CIRM-IOM Meetings

Posted: January 20, 2013 at 7:48 am

The California stem cell agency will
provide a live audiocast of next week's critical discussions of
action on the sweeping recommendations proposed for the agency by the
Institute of Medicine.
Instructions for hooking into the
telephonic arrangement can be found on the agendas for Wednesday and
Thursday. Also expected to be posted soon on the Wednesday agenda are
recommendations by CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas.
The audiocast will only provide the
opportunity to listen and no opportunity to provide testimony. If you
are interesting in making suggestions or comments ahead of the
meeting, email them to info@cirm.ca.gov. The public can also testify at the board meeting.
The meeting is scheduled for the
Claremont Hotel in the Berkeley hills across the bay from CIRM's San
Francisco headquarters.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/XiZzHp3Zp_s/live-audiocast-available-for-next-weeks.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Patient Advocate Says IOM Recommendations Would 'Destroy' California Stem Cell Agency

Posted: January 20, 2013 at 7:48 am

California's “beloved,” $3 billion
stem cell research program should not be altered despite
recommendations from the most prestigious scientific organization of
its kind. So says longtime patient advocate Don Reed of Fremont, Ca.

Reed says the recommendations by the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) are a “threat” that would “destroy” an
agency that “is like nothing else on earth.” Reed is urging other
patient advocates to turn out at next week's critical meeting of the stem cell agency's board and lobby against alterations in how it does
business.
Reed and CIRM's Amy Adams
World Stem Cell Summit photo
Reed is a fixture in stem cell circles
nationally and in California and has been a regular at the stem cell
agency's public meetings since 2004. He is also vice president of
Americans for Cures, a private stem cell lobbying group created by
Robert Klein when he was chairman of the stem cell agency,  formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM).
Reed has written twice about the IOM
report on his blog with duplicate publication on the Huffington Post.
Yesterday, he said IOM “defies” the voters' will when they
created the stem cell agency in 2004. On Dec. 19, he said the
$700,000, 17-month study was “staggeringly misguided.” He wrote,

“If its recommendations were enacted,
they would silence stem cell patient advocate involvement, eliminate
public debate on funding proposals, and delegate the real decisions
to secret proceedings by an out-of-state-controlled board.”

Reed described the stem cell agency as
“fantastic” and wrote,

“So why mess with it, in such a
brutal and insulting manner?”

This writer has known Reed since the
early days of the stem cell agency and respects him. But in this
case he has many of his facts wrong. To mention just a few key
points: Patient advocates would not be silenced; their role would be
changed. Public comment would not be eliminated. Scientists could
still appeal negative decisions by reviewers to the full board if
they so choose, although the “extraordinary petition” process
would be eliminated. The voters' will would not be defied; they provided for a mechanism for making changes in the stem cell program.
While Bob Klein has not been heard from
publicly on the IOM report, some of Reed's comments reflect Klein's
past positions against altering the agency. Klein, an attorney and
real estate investment banker, might well be considered the father of
the agency. He directed the writing of the 10,000-word measure, Prop. 71, that created the program and wrote much of ballot initiative himself. The initiative contained a detailed description of the
qualifications for the chairman, which fit only one person in
California. It was no surprise when he won the post.
In years past, Klein has been extraordinarily protective of the ballot measure, at one point boxing
in the board on earlier proposals for changes that he disliked and that the IOM report now echoes.
In 2010, he was the prime
advocate for commissioning the IOM report which he expected
to serve as the basis for continued funding of the agency. It will
run out of cash for new grants in 2017.
To keep the money rolling in, Klein
said the IOM report would constitute a “gold standard” that would
generate increased enthusiasm for the research.
According to the transcript of the Aug.18, 2010, governing board meeting, Klein declared,

“(We will) never convince the people
that are adamant against us. But for the public and for the
constituent groups that are reasoned and prepared to look at
evidence, this is a very important validation that they can look to
to separate out what is a false claim from real performance.”

Also writing yesterday about the IOM
study was Bradley Fikes of the San Diego U-T, the dominant daily
newspaper in that area.
He summarized Reed's latest item as well as this on the California Stem Cell Report yesterday. Fikes
plans to file his own story within the next few days.
Feel free to file your own comments by
clicking on the word “comment” below or with the stem cell agency
at info@cirm.ca.gov. Anonymous
comments are permitted on this blog.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/wX7BEi46lc8/patient-advocate-says-iom.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Live Audiocast Available for Next Week's CIRM-IOM Meetings

Posted: January 20, 2013 at 7:48 am

The California stem cell agency will
provide a live audiocast of next week's critical discussions of
action on the sweeping recommendations proposed for the agency by the
Institute of Medicine.
Instructions for hooking into the
telephonic arrangement can be found on the agendas for Wednesday and
Thursday. Also expected to be posted soon on the Wednesday agenda are
recommendations by CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas.
The audiocast will only provide the
opportunity to listen and no opportunity to provide testimony. If you
are interesting in making suggestions or comments ahead of the
meeting, email them to info@cirm.ca.gov. The public can also testify at the board meeting.
The meeting is scheduled for the
Claremont Hotel in the Berkeley hills across the bay from CIRM's San
Francisco headquarters.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/XiZzHp3Zp_s/live-audiocast-available-for-next-weeks.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko


Page 10,212«..1020..10,21110,21210,21310,214..10,22010,230..»