Search Immortality Topics:

Page 10,417«..1020..10,41610,41710,41810,419..10,43010,440..»


Meager Coverage of Yesterday's Bristling IOM-CIRM Meeting

Posted: December 16, 2012 at 7:51 am

Mainstream news coverage today was skimpy, to put it mildly, of the testy session yesterday involving the governing board of the California stem
cell agency and representatives of the prestigious Institute of
Medicine(IOM).

Only two pieces appeared, one in the
San Diego U-T and another on the web site of the Los Angeles Times. Both
discussed what the Michael Hiltzik of the Times column called “overt hostility” on the
part of several board members (see yesterday's item here). Bradley
Fikes of the San Diego paper said the patient advocates on the board
“strongly criticized” the IOM report on the grounds that it
“unfairly suggests that they have a conflict of interest.”
One of the recommendations of the IOM
is that the agency develop ways to manage personal conflicts of
interest dealing with patient advocates and others at the agency.
Fikes wrote,

"'I'm a
colon cancer survivor,' said Art Torres, vice chairman of the
oversight committee, and a patient advocate designate. 'Does having
colon cancer make me biased?'
“Jeff
Sheehy, another patient advocate designate, protested what he called
a 'defenestration' of patient advocates, whose interests often span
multiple diseases.”

Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business
Times skipped the IOM matter and wrote about the awarding of $36
million in grants. However, a list of the most popular stories on the
Business Times web site, ranked as No. 5 Leuty's story last week on the IOM
study, just below an article about Stanford's $111 million
concert hall.
Fikes also had a piece on ViaCyte,
which is in his area, receiving another $3 million from CIRM.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/sTuRbsA7d_w/meager-coverage-of-yesterdays-bristling.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Appeals at the California Stem Cell Agency: Worthwhile or Worthless?

Posted: December 16, 2012 at 7:51 am

Jon Shestack, a patient advocate member
of the governing board of the California stem cell agency, weighed in
today on the virtues of the grant application appeal process at the
$3 billion research enterprise.

His remarks came in a “comment”
filed on the Duchenne item that appeared yesterday on this site. (His
full comment can be found at the end of that item.)
Shestack said that the handling of the
$6 million CIRM grant involving Duchenne research is “a casebook
study on why the special(extraordinary) petition is worthwhile. There
was indeed new and relevant information that only became available
after grant review. Scientific staff and leadership flagged it.”
The utility of the petitions is one of
the reasons that we ran the story about Duchenne and the team at
UCLA. The extraordinary petition process is currently under fire by
both the Institute of Medicine and the stem cell agency itself, which
has appointed a task force to come up with changes. But, while the
petition process is certainly less than perfect, so is the peer
review/grant review process.
The Duchenne application is not the
only “case study.” An application by Karen Aboody of the City of
Hope is often cited as another case. There are undoubtedly others.
The petition process was adopted
several years ago by the board as a tool to manage willy-nilly
appearances of scientists before the CIRM governing board whose
applications were rejected by reviewers. Now the Institute of
Medicine has recommended the petitions be abandoned, saying they
undermine the integrity of grant review process. The IOM cited a
major controversy in Texas involving its cancer research agency as an
example of how grant reviews or the lack of them can go bad – not
to mention conflict of interest problems there. CIRM has already
started to look for better solutions regarding appeals. Many of its directors
are troubled by emotional presentations from patients in
connection with petitions and the lack of adequate information to
make informed decisions on the spot about the contested matters.
Whether appeals can be put in a tidy,
scientific box is debatable. Researchers have the right, under state
law, to address the board on any issue whatsoever. And at least some
of them will continue to do so -- regardless of any appeals changes --  when millions of dollars and their
careers are at stake.
Opinions and decisions of CIRM
reviewers are not holy writ. They can and do make mistakes, as we
all do. In making changes in the appeals process, the goal of the
agency should be to devise a public and transparent process rather
than enshroud it in more secrecy. CIRM also should find a way to do
a much better job of communicating to applicants the availability of
appeals and precisely how to appeal when it becomes necessary.   

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/ROhqJSUEC28/appeals-at-california-stem-cell-agency.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

LA Times: On the California Stem Cell Agency and Wasting $700,000

Posted: December 16, 2012 at 7:51 am

The headline on the Los Angeles
Times web site this afternoon read,

"Is California's stem cell program
preparing to waste $700,000?"

The question was raised by Pulitzer
Prize-winning columnist Michael Hiltzik, whowas commenting on the presentation today by the
prestigious Institute of Medicine's (IOM) on its sweeping
recommendations for changes at the state stem cell agency. 
Hiltzik wrote, 

"If you're betting that
the California
stem cell agency will spurn key recommendations of a
blue-ribbon review panel that criticized its leadership and
management structures, you might want to double that bet. Several
board members showed overt hostility to the panel's recommendations
during a public meeting today."

Harold Shapiro, chairman of the IOM
panel and former president of Princeton University, delivered
the briefing. The group's study took 17 months and cost the stem cell
agency $700,000.
Hiltzik's piece summarized the IOM
proposals, which echoed many criticisms that have been aired for
years in California.  Hiltzik wrote, 

"CIRM Chairman Jonathan
Thomas glided over those issues when he introduced Shapiro.
Thomas observed that the Institute of Medicine report included many
statements "validating CIRM, its process, what it was able to
achieve," which is a bit like launching the investigation of a
plane crash by focusing on all the planes that land safely every day.
Thomas did mention that the Institute of Medicine had made numerous
recommendation about how to "take something which is already a
great experience and improve it even further." 

"Shapiro got only a few minutes
into his presentation before board members started interrupting him
with objections to the Institute of Medicine's recommendation for a
majority of independent members."

Hiltzik concluded, 

"Thomas promised to stage a public
workshop on the Institute of Medicine report soon and to subject them
to 'lengthy discussion.' 

"Does that sound as if the board
will be taking seriously the advice that it change the way it does
business? Stay tuned, but don't hold your breath."

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/9CY8_m5Reqo/la-times-on-california-stem-cell-agency.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Winners From Today’s Awards by the California Stem Cell Agency

Posted: December 16, 2012 at 7:51 am

The 12 winners in the latest round of grants from the California stem cell agency all come from institutions linked to directors on the agency's governing board. Board members with conflicts of interest are not allowed to vote on the grants or participate in the debate. Since the inception of the agency, more than 90 percent of its awards have gone to institutions linked to the directors. Here is a link to the CIRM press release on today's meeting.

Here is the list of researchers who won awards today.

New Faculty Physician Scientist Translational Research Awards

RN3-06530Robert BalohCedars-Sinai Medical Center $3,031,737.00
RN3-06378Reza ArdehaliUniversity of California, Los Angeles $2,930,388.00
RN3-06504Jason PomerantzUniversity of California, San Francisco $3,084,000.00
RN3-06396Mana ParastUniversity of California, San Diego $3,013,252.00
RN3-06425Tracy GrikscheitChildren's Hospital of Los Angeles $3,408,000.00
RN3-06532Tippi MacKenzieUniversity of California, San Francisco $2,661,742.00
RN3-06479Ann Capela ZoveinUniversity of California, San Francisco $3,084,000.00
RN3-06529Alan ChengStanford University $3,091,595.00
RN3-06455Ali NsairUniversity of California, Los Angeles $3,004,315.00
RN3-06460Emanual MaverakisUniversity of California, Davis $2,964,000.00
RN3-06510Michelle MonjeStanford University $2,800,536.00
RN3-06525Ophir KleinUniversity of California, San Francisco $3,084,000.00
Total   $36,157,565.00

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/QdM4BZ5hPnc/winners-from-todays-awards-by.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Winners From Today's Awards by the California Stem Cell Agency

Posted: December 16, 2012 at 7:51 am

The 12 winners in the latest round of grants from the California stem cell agency all come from institutions linked to directors on the agency's governing board. Board members with conflicts of interest are not allowed to vote on the grants or participate in the debate. Since the inception of the agency, more than 90 percent of its awards have gone to institutions linked to the directors. Here is a link to the CIRM press release on today's meeting.

Here is the list of researchers who won awards today.

New Faculty Physician Scientist Translational Research Awards

RN3-06530Robert BalohCedars-Sinai Medical Center $3,031,737.00
RN3-06378Reza ArdehaliUniversity of California, Los Angeles $2,930,388.00
RN3-06504Jason PomerantzUniversity of California, San Francisco $3,084,000.00
RN3-06396Mana ParastUniversity of California, San Diego $3,013,252.00
RN3-06425Tracy GrikscheitChildren's Hospital of Los Angeles $3,408,000.00
RN3-06532Tippi MacKenzieUniversity of California, San Francisco $2,661,742.00
RN3-06479Ann Capela ZoveinUniversity of California, San Francisco $3,084,000.00
RN3-06529Alan ChengStanford University $3,091,595.00
RN3-06455Ali NsairUniversity of California, Los Angeles $3,004,315.00
RN3-06460Emanual MaverakisUniversity of California, Davis $2,964,000.00
RN3-06510Michelle MonjeStanford University $2,800,536.00
RN3-06525Ophir KleinUniversity of California, San Francisco $3,084,000.00
Total   $36,157,565.00

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/QdM4BZ5hPnc/winners-from-todays-awards-by.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

ViaCyte Wins Another $3 Million from California Stem Cell Agency

Posted: December 16, 2012 at 7:51 am

The California stem cell agency, which
has awarded ViaCyte, Inc., $36 million, today pumped another $3
million in the firm following the collapse of an alliance between the
San Diego firm and GlaxoSmithKline.

The now failed ViaCyte-Glaxo-CIRM
arrangement was ballyhooed by the CIRM in October because it would
have been the first deal involving Big Pharma and the stem cell
agency. The resources of Big Pharma are needed to pursue the
expensive path of turning stem cell research into cures.
Meeting in Los Angeles, the CIRM
governing board approved the additional funds on a 13-0 vote with two abstentions.  The action came following a closed door session to discuss how the funds would be spent. No details were provided publicly on that matter.

ViaCyte
has also told Biocentury that it is pursuing even more funding after
the alliance with Glaxo broke down. CIRM President Alan Trounson said ViaCyte is likely to receive another $3 million from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Trounson also said that other sources are being examined as well. 

Patricia Olson, executive director of
CIRM, scientific activities said the agency's advisors continue to have faith in ViaCyte's effort to develop a treatment for diabetes. The company plans to start a clinical trial on its product in
2014.
The ViaCyte-Glaxo-CIRM deal was cause for
celebration last fall. Alan Trounson, CIRM's president, said the
deal would “resound” globally. He told directors,

 “This is
verification of our program. To have (the head of Glaxo regenerative
medicine program) join us through a partnership arrangement with GSK
means that a project that we've shepherded from the basic science
through to the preclinical work and is heading to the clinic we're
now going to do in partnership with a very major organization.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/qtxtQt3nhU0/viacyte-wins-another-3-million-from.html

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko


Page 10,417«..1020..10,41610,41710,41810,419..10,43010,440..»