More Info on CIRM's Finances and its Federal Patent Lobbying Position

The California stem cell agency today posted several major background information pieces for its board meeting, including details and justification for its proposed budget and an analysis dealing with its endorsement of industry-backed patent protection legislation.

The documents came as the agency is scheduled to begin a two-day meeting tomorrow in San Diego, which can heard via the Internet(instructions on the agenda).

We have not had a chance to read all the material carefully, but the budget documents go a long way in answering the questions we raised on Friday and presumably the earlier requests for more details from CIRM board members.

The budget material includes more year-to-year comparisons, a commentary explaining some of the assumptions in the budget, a justification for extensive travel and more. All of the items can be found through links on the agenda

In addition, Nancy Koch, one of CIRM's outside attorneys, wrote a three-page analysis of a Federal Trade Commission report last week that dealt with many of the issues involved in the federal patent legislation on biotech therapies.

Koch wrote:

“Lengthy market exclusivity periods (like those proposed by Rep. (Anna) Eshoo in HR 1548), according to the FTC, are not necessary and could actually dampen innovation.”

The Eshoo bill has been endorsed by the CIRM board, which is likely to vote again on the measure during its meetings during the next two days.

Koch performed a careful analysis of the FTC study, reaction to it and its impact on the CIRM position, including exploration of the FTC report's assumptions and weaknesses.

She wrote that the FTC “analysis sidesteps the financially daunting circumstances faced by smaller companies.”

Koch said,

“For CIRM, this last point is particularly significant. Even if the FTC's prediction were generally correct, stem cell research and the market for stem cell therapies would seem to fall outside the agency's analysis.”

Whether you agree or disagree with Koch's analysis or the budget justification and plans, all are important tools for CIRM directors tomorrow. The information also adds significantly to the understanding of the public and parties interested in CIRM's $3 billion operation.

CIRM Goes to Washington: Patents, Tornados and Bench Warming

As California stem cell directors this week consider once again their federal lobbying efforts, the Wall Street Journal offers an insight into just what it takes to have an impact in the august halls of Congress.

Can you say $27.6 million?

That's what a coalition of financial services organizations spent during the first quarter to change an accounting rule – albeit an important one – and lobby on other issues. The coalition also pumped $286,000 into the campaign organizations of lawmakers on a key committee.

Compare that to the $240,000 CIRM is spending for a federal lobbyist for 10 months work.

The issue that is coming up this week is CIRM's support for industry-backed legislation dealing with creation of generic biotech therapies. The agency currently has endorsed a measure by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, but has taken no position on a competing measure by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, a far more important and powerful lawmaker.

The generic issue is complex enough on its own. But it apparently is going to be wrapped into the Obama administration's health plan, which Waxman will be carrying in the House. The rationale is that generic biotech therapies will cut costs, thus helping to trim the mammoth price of the health care deal. If the generic therapies are delayed because of industry-sought patent exclusivity, it means higher health care costs, according to supporters of the Waxman approach.

John Carroll of FierceBiotech recently wrote:

“Waxman has been pushing a bill that provides a five-year window of market exclusivity for biologics, something the biotech industry views with the kind of alarm a farmer feels when he sees a tornado heading for the barn. But there are a lot of numbers in play on the Hill. A competing bill offers 14 years of exclusivity and the president's budget proposal for 2010 pencils in a seven-year period.“

A Wall Street Journal blog this spring said the time may be ripe for a compromise and noted that some Big Pharma companies are warming to the idea of selling the copy-cat drugs themselves. The blog drew 18 comments, some of which indicated a high level of industry insight.

CIRM directors are oozing into a significant – for CIRM – federal lobbying role. But it is tiny in the world of Washington. Some on the board are concerned about mission creep and wasting time, money and focus on an effort where CIRM will never be more than a bench-warmer, if that. Directors are dealing with lobbying in what California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein calls an “incremental” fashion. Certainly CIRM can legally lobby Congress and probably should in some cases. But directors have never had a full-blown discussion on when, where and why.

CIRM Directors Consider Millions in Grants, Industry-backed Federal Legislation and Agency's Budget,

California stem cell researchers are likely to see millions of more dollars come their way next week at the San Diego meeting of the board of the state's $3 billion stem cell agency.

The grant approvals are likely to receive little notice in the media even though the rest of the state is struggling with a $24 billion budget deficit. Funding for CIRM cannot be touched by state lawmakers who are considering major cuts in programs to assist the poor and elderly.

Up for consideration are grants for training programs and early translational research efforts. Funding decisions on those programs were deferred earlier this year when CIRM faced its own financial crisis because of a lack of bond funding, the agency's source of cash. The tension eased this spring when CIRM received a $500 million infusion in the most recent bond sale.

Good arguments exist for a steady stream of cash for research, which cannot sustain itself on feast-and-famine funding. Good arguments also exist for rational state budgeting that is not crippled by ballot measures that have helped to create the state's current fiscal disaster. Prop. 71, which created CIRM, is only one of many measures that have tied the hands of those who are ultimately responsible for making state budget decisions.

Also on tap for the meeting June 17-18 is consideration of the 2009-2010 CIRM budget, which additionally comes before the Finance Subcommittee this Thursday. No information on its budget has been released to the public by CIRM with the Finance meeting only two business days away.

Perhaps the topic of funding CIRM with money from the biotech industry may surface. Certainly the topic of future funding is on the subcommittee agenda.

Directors are also going to take another whack at federal legislation, backed by the biotech industry, to create patent rights to prevent early development of generic biotech therapies. At one point this spring, the board voted to develop support for key principles behind such legislation. Most recently, it decided, however, to endorse an industry-backed bill. After questions were raised about the legality of the board vote, Chairman Robert Klein decided to ask the board to vote again on the matter this month.

Another agenda item: The touchy subject of leadership of the directors committee that will evaluate the performance of Klein, the two vice chairs and CIRM President Alan Trounson.

In April, Klein resisted a motion by board member Jeff Sheehy that the chairs of the Evaluation Committee be the two directors who developed the evaluation procedure, Sherry Lansing, former head of a Hollywood film studio, and Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine. Other directors were concerned about the composition of the Evaluation Committee, suggesting it provided an appearance of conflicts of interest and “self-dealing.”

Also on the agenda is consideration of new contract with Remcho, Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., which has been the outside counsel for CIRM since day one. The contract has never been put out to bid, based on an oral opinion from the State Department of Justice.

Another matter before the board involves guidelines for when the roll call should be held open on votes, a technique much used in the state Legislature but which also ensures that the chairman can find the votes needed when he needs them. More on that in the item below.

CIRM Backs Biotech Industry Legislation, Aiming for Greater Federal Influence

The California stem cell agency today performed something of a semi-reversal and endorsed industry-supported federal legislation that would set rules for creation of generic biotech drugs.

CIRM’s board of directors last month supported a move to develop a statement of principles on the legislation, declining to ratify a recommendation by its Legislative Subcommittee that it support the industry bill.

However, this morning the board decided to back the industry measure rather than acting on the statement of principles developed by its staff over the last two weeks. The vote was 16-2 with two abstentions.

The consensus was that the industry needed to be encouraged financially to develop therapies, generally following the arguments made at the board meeting April 28-29.

Board member Joan Samuelson of Healdsburg, Ca., a patient advocate representative on the board, today said,

“The overriding concern is getting therapies to patients.”

Board member Oswald Steward, chair and director, Reeve, Irvine Research Center, University of California, Irvine, said, however, the board “should not act like a political action committee.” He said it “should be respected as much as the National Academy of Sciences.”

Jeff Sheehy, another board member and director for communications, UCSF AIDS Research Institute, supported Steward’s position, declaring he had “a lot of problems supporting a particular bill.” He said it would take the board “fairly deeply into the legislative process.”

Several board members, including Chairman Robert Klein, argued that CIRM could not become a player on the legislation without taking a specific stand. A statement of principles was meaningless at this point, they said.

The bill backed by CIRM is HR 1548 by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, which is favored by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. The board took no position on a rival bill, HR 1427 by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, which BIO opposes. The Generic Pharmaceutical Association opposes the Eshoo bill.

Some board members were concerned about irritating Waxman, including Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine. He said he did not “want to see CIRM caught in a political battle because we have enough of those.”

CIRM Vice Chairman Art Torres, a former state legislator who worked with Waxman, indicated that relations with Waxman would not be a problem as long the board did not directly oppose the Waxman bill.

Torres also indicated that the competing proposals may be wrapped into President Obama’s health initiative, which Waxman would carry.

A subtext of today’s session concerned the extent of CIRM’s role as a lobbyist at the federal level. The statement of principles on the legislation made a strong case for federal activities by CIRM as did Klein. CIRM recently hired a powerful Washington lobbyist, the Podesta Group, on a $240,000, 10-month contract, but the board has never had a full-blown discussion about how far it wants to go in lobbying at the federal level. The state of California has its own lobbyist, who works out of the governor’s office, but few, if any, state agencies engage in major federal lobbying efforts.

To be a significant player on the federal scene requires a hefty effort. Spending on lobbyists (nearly 11,000 in all) totaled $3.3 billion last year, and that figure does not reflect all expenditures made in attempts to influence federal legislation and regulations.

We invite comment on this subject or others. You can comment by clicking on the word "comment" below. Anonymous comments are permitted.

CIRM Debate on Federal Issues Available at Many Locations Throughout California

Federal biotech legislation and proposed NIH rules on hESC research are the topics early Tuesday morning at a meeting of the board of the California stem cell agency that will be accessible at teleconference locations throughout California and on the Internet.

Interactivity will not be available for the Internet audiocast, but will be possible at multiple locations, including San Francisco (4), Los Angeles(2), Sacramento, La Jolla(3), Pleasanton, Berkeley, Elk Grove, Healdsburg, Hillsborouugh, Irvine(2), Stanford and Beverly Hills. Specific addresses where the public can attend can be found on the agenda.

CIRM said that the meeting can be heard on the Internet by using this URL:
http://65.197.1.15/att/confcast

No background material has been posted yet for the meeting, but you can read more about the issues here.

Podesta, CIRM and the Biotech Industry

The federal lobbyist for the California stem cell agency is doing quite well financially so far this year, but the CIRM account represents only a tiny fraction of its business.

During the first quarter of this year, the Podesta Group raked in $5.2 million, up 50 percent from a year ago, according to a story by Kevin Bogardus of The Hill Web site. The Washington, D.C., lobbyist won a $240,000, 10-month contract from CIRM earlier this year. In addition to California's publicly funded stem cell research effort, Podesta counts some major players in the pharmaceutical industry among its clients.

Federal lobbying is a big business. Total spending in 2008 hit $3.27 billion (yes, Billion) in 2008, up from $2.84 billion the previous year, according to Opensecrets.org. But the number of federal lobbyists is down to 10,785 from 15,287 last year.

Podesta accounted for only $16 million of the 2008 total. Most of its clients paid the firm less than $500,000 last year. They include Amgen, $240,000; Amylin, $180,00; Cubist Pharamceuticals, $150,000; Millenium Pharmaceuticals, $200,000; Novartis, $210,00; Reed Elsevier, $690,000; Roche, $240,000; Sereno, $350,000; Sunshine in Government Initiative, $200,000, and the University of Texas Anderson Medical Center, $300,000.

One of the issues currently being lobbied hard in Washington involves the financial future of the biotech industry. Competing legislation is before Congress that would set the rules for creation of generic biotech drugs -- biosimiliars.

It is also an issue on which CIRM is scheduled to take a position on May 12, although the CIRM board has backed away from a stand on specific bills.

J.K. Wall of the Indianapolis Business Journal on March 23 wrote about the lobbying efforts of Eli Lilly on biosimiliars.

Wall wrote:

"Indeed, generic biotech drugs represent a big threat to the large pharmaceutical companies, which increasingly have turned to biotech drugs for growth as their most successful chemical-pill-form medicines cruise toward the end of their patent lives."

Wall continued,

"Trouble is, biotech has become a synonym for exorbitant. For example, Herceptin, a biotech breast cancer treatment introduced 11 years ago by Genentech Inc, costs $40,000 for one year of treatment.

"'Excessive exclusivity means that it will be decades before patients have access to affordable biogeneric medicines,' said Kathleen Jaeger, CEO of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, in a statement. 'Timely access to affordable biogenerics will save lives and save consumers and state and federal governments billions of dollars.'"

At its board meeting last month, some CIRM directors exhibited considerable discomfort at entering the fray with specific endorsements of competing legislation. Some questioned not only the appropriateness of CIRM taking a position, but whether it could have any significant impact on the legislative process. Mission creep was one complaint.

But the need to "protect" the biotech industry carried the day, and CIRM is scheduled to approve a statement of principles on generic biotech drugs on May 12.

No doubt exists that this is an important issue, affecting the industry and the development of drugs that could potentially ease much misery and suffering.

But one wonders whether California voters, in approving Prop. 71, envisioned hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars being spent for lobbying on behalf of any industry.

One also wonders about CIRM's relationship with Podesta and its array of drug industry clients. Which is the dog and which is the tail? Do CIRM's interests become subsumed in the pharmaceutical mix? And how can California taxpayers know for sure? Perhaps they can ask one of Podesta's other clients: The Sunshine in Government Initiative.

CIRM Takes on Federal Chores

The California stem cell agency will be dealing with federal stem cell and biotech matters over the next couple of weeks, including the proposed NIH rules on hESC research.

The agency has created a task force that will meet publicly this Thursday to hear comments on the rules. The panel is preparing a report that will be submitted to the full CIRM board on May 12 with the intent of getting the comments to the NIH later this month.

You can find CIRM's preliminary work on the subject here and our report here. Comments for CIRM can also be submitted via email at info@cirm.ca.gov.

Also on tap for the May 12 board meeting is consideration of a statement of principles dealing with federal legislation on production of biosimiliars, which would be copies of biotech drugs following expiration of their patents.

Teleconference locations are available for the May 12 meeting in San Francisco, Los Angeles(2), Sacramento, La Jolla(2), Pleasanton, Berkeley, Elk Grove, Healdsburg, and Irvine(2). Specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

Five teleconference locations exist for Thursday's meeting: San Francisco Elk Grove, Los Angeles, Healdsburg and Duarte. You find the addresses on the agenda.

CIRM Debates Federal Legislation; $60 Million Grant Approvals Scheduled for Today

LOS ANGELES -- The board of the California stem cell agency last night backed away from endorsing industry-supported federal legislation dealing with biosimiliars, which would be copies of original biotechnological drugs following expiration of patent protection.

The board did not go along with its Legislative Subcommittee recommendation to support HR 1548 by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, which is favored by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. The subcommittee took no position on a rival bill, HR 1427 by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, which BIO opposes.

Instead of endorsing the Eshoo measure, the board voted to seek development of a statement of principles that it would like to see in any such legislation. That statement could come up before the full board during a telephonic meeting May 12.

Robert Price, who sits on the board as an alternate for UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, questioned the value of CIRM taking any position at all on the legislation.

Price, who is associate vice chancellor for research at UC Berkeley, asked,

"Do we really matter that much? I think we don't. Let's not engage in hubris here."

A number of other members of the board spoke both on behalf of the legislation and the need to protect businesses that put up the cash to develop new drugs.

Board member Ed Penhoet, former president of Chiron and a member of the National Academcy Sciences Board on Science, Technoloogy and Economic Policy, said the two pieces of legislation deal with the balance between the cost of therapies and the cost of innovation. He said it was "the most important issue in health care today."

Board member Sherry Lansing, the former head of a Hollywood film studio and a University of California regent, said,

"There will be no drugs unless we protect the people who take the risk."

As for the argument over high costs denying access to drugs, CIRM Vice Chairman Art Torres, former chairman of the California state Democratic Party, said,

"You can't have accessibility unless you have something to access."

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., characterized the push for CIRM to become a player in Congress as a "little bit of mission creep."

In other business, CIRM communications chief Don Gibbons previewed the agency's new website, which he said should be up in a few days. He said it was designed to offer more information that will be better organized and accessible.

CIRM officials also officially confirmed for board members the news on the California Stem Cell Report that the agency's financial woes are over for some time. The agency will receive $505 million from the recent state bond sale. However, cash will get tight again by the end of 2010 unless CIRM raises more funds through the sale of state bonds.

In light of the good financial news, the board indicated that it wanted to reconsider its one-year delay in a training grant program. That topic is expected to come up in June. Additionally put off was an update on CIRM grantee progress report monitoring. Earlier a CIRM official had said said grants would be pulled because of a lack of progress, but he did not say when that would be announced.

Also on the board agenda last night were applications for $60 million in grants, including four petitions to overturn negative recommendations from reviewers. However, that was put off until this morning along with a request for $200,000 to co-sponsor the annual convention of the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Another item scheduled to be acted on today is the performance evaluation process for the Chairman Robert Klein, President Alan Trounson and Vice Chairs Torres and Duane Roth. It is the first time the CIRM board has officially promulgated publicly an evaluation procedure for the positions. But until recently the chair and vice chairs did not receive compensation. Roth has declined a salary, but Torres is receiving one.

This morning's meeting can be heard via the Internet. Details for the Web access are here. Teleconference locations for listening and participating are available in Sacramento, Pleasanton and at Stanford. Specific addresses can be found here.

Translational Grant Reviews Now Available From CIRM

The California stem cell agency has posted the reviews of grant applications for $60 million for early translational research that will be awarded at next week's meeting of CIRM's board of directors in Los Angeles.

Ten grants are scheduled to be approved by directors. However, grant reviewers have given the okay to 15 totaling about $68 million. If the directors want to stay within their original budget, they will have to take the rare step of rejecting a positive decision on grants by reviewers.

The grants that have won reviewer approval include proposals dealing with cartilage regeneration and osteoarthritis, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and macular degeneration. You can find the reviews here along with their scores.

The names of the applicants have been withheld by CIRM, but the identities of some may be discerned from the reviews by persons familiar with stem cell research.

Also now available on the directors' agenda is a side-by-side comparison of two federal bills dealing with biosimiliars, which are copies of the original biotechnological drugs following the expiration of patent protection. Directors are expected to be asked to take a position on the measures, but they will first be discussed Monday morning by the Legislative Subcommittee.

One of the bills, HR 1548, by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, is supported by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which opposes a rival bill, HR 1427 by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles. It would be interesting to know whether CIRM's $240,000, federal lobbyist, the Podesta Group, is lobbying for or against either one of the bills.

With three business days remaining before the directors meeting, CIRM has not posted any background material on its possible position on the proposed NIH rules on hESC research and several other items. They include the monitoring of CIRM grantees, the agency's statewide education program and evaluation procedures for the chair, vice chair and president.

Fresh Comment

Lawrence Ebert has filed a comment on the "Sharing the Weath" item. Among other things, he says,

"An issue with the 'paying for things twice' viewpoint is that the costs of 'making the invention' (the research and patenting costs) are generally DWARFED by the development/marketing costs. If someone can't get return on THOSE costs, they won't invest."

Fresh Comment

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., has filed a comment on the "AIG Share-The-Weath." Among other things, he invokes the late Adm. Hyman Rickover in support of requiring recipients of federal research grants to share any profits that might result. And he cites Jennifer Washburn's book, "University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education." Simpson also wrote on the blog on his organization's web site that a change away from the old, business-first political mood "is necessary if we're to restore economic equality in this country."

Zach Hall on Monday Morning at the White House

Zach Hall, the first president of the California stem cell agency and now a director of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, attended the ceremonies at the White House on Monday. Here is his account of the event and some of its implications. Our thanks to Hall (pictured at left) for providing the article.

----

On a soft spring morning, a distinguished and festive group gathered at the East Entrance to the White House. It was a gathering of the tribe of embryonic stem cell research supporters – scientists, Washington officials, patients, and patient advocates, many of whom had been working for years for the day when the Presidential restrictions on stem cell research would be lifted. As we waited, we greeted colleagues, shared our excitement about the event, and began the first round of picture-taking. California was well-represented, with stem cell scientists Irv Weissman and Renee Reijo-Pera from Stanford; Bob Klein, Chairman of CIRM and author of Proposition 71; and CEO Tom Okarma from Geron. Leading stem cell scientists Jamie Thomson from Wisconsin, Shinya Yamanaka from the Gladstone Institute and Japan, John Gearhart from Pennsylvania and George Daley from Harvard were there, as were several Nobel Prize winners (Mike Bishop from UCSF, Steven Chu, the new Secretary of Energy, Robert Horvitz, Eric Kandel, Harold Varmus, Peter Agre) and other scientific notables (Bruce Alberts, Eric Lander, Francis Collins). Among the California patient advocates were long-time stem cell advocates, Roman Reed and his parents, Gloria and Don, and Katie Hood of the Michael J. Fox Foundation. A number of those present (Alta Charo, Clive Svenson, John Wagner, Janet Rowland) are well-known to CIRM as members of its Working Groups.

After passing through security, we entered the White House and, after a brief wait, streamed into the East Room where we were joined by a Congressional delegation including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Henry Waxman from California, Senators Tom Harkin and Orrin Hatch, and Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette. One entire wall was packed with TV cameramen, journalists and photographers, whose presence was made evident throughout the event by the constant chorus of camera clicks.

The ceremony began with the entry of seven distinguished scientists, Nobelists and others, who would stand behind President Obama as he signed the Executive Order for embryonic stem cell research and the Memorandum on scientific integrity, their presence a clear signal of the importance of science to his administration.

The President entered, bounding onto the stage to a prolonged standing ovation. His first words were: “Well, I’m excited, too.” His speech was firm, clear and thoughtful, with the eloquence that we have come to expect from him. He was enthusiastic, but appropriately cautious about the promise of stem cell research, recognizing that “there is no finish line in the work of science.” He acknowledged and expressed respect for those who oppose the research, but cited the strong majority of Americans who believe the research should go forward. President Obama then adroitly tied the reversal of the presidential restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research to his effort to restore scientific integrity to government, to listen to scientists even when (“especially when,” as he added) it is inconvenient, and to “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” Needless to say, these words were warmly received by those present. The President ended with a tribute to Christopher and Dana Reeve and to the many people who have worked tirelessly on behalf of embryonic stem cell research.

The President then moved to the desk and signed the documents using multiple pens, as is the custom. “I’ve learned to extend my signature,” he said. After shaking the hands of those near the front (I was delighted to be one of them), the President left. Still excited and savoring the moment, the group lingered, reluctant to leave, until White House attendants pointed us to the door.

The President’s remarks, as well as the stem cell document itself, contained several small surprises. The general expectation among the stem cell community was that the Executive Order would permit federal funding of research on stem cell lines as long as they were made from surplus IVF embryos using money from private or state sources. The Executive Order, however, makes no specific mention of what can and cannot be funded, but directs the NIH to provide guidance on that point within 120 days, in light of “widely recognized guidelines.” This leaves open the possibility that the NIH could fund research on embryonic stem cell lines made by other means, including somatic cell nuclear transfer, as long as federal money was not used to make the lines. The use of federal funds to actually make stem cell lines is, in any case, illegal under the Dickey-Wicker amendment which prohibits any research that results in harm or destruction of a human embryo.

The second issue concerns whether or not legislation is desirable. The White House had indicated previously that this was a matter for the Congress to decide, but in his speech he suggested that his former colleagues “still have plenty of work to do.” Presumably this is encouragement to pass a new version of the Castle-DeGette bill, which allows federal funding for new lines made from IVF embryos, but might be taken as a reference to the Dickey-Wicker amendment. A legislative battle over Dickey-Wicker would be much more difficult and more polarizing than a revised Castle-DeGette bill.

In the end, one can only admire the President’s eagerness to engage the scientific community in solving the many problems that the nation faces, the use of stem cells among them. To be there as a scientist, among so many distinguished colleagues and supporters of biomedical research, and to see the President demonstrate his commitment to our shared enterprise, both in word and deed, was truly inspiring. I felt privileged to be at the White House on this historic occasion.

Waiting for Obama, Chapter 5 -- Be Careful What You Wish For

Some of the California reaction today to President Obama's action on stem cell research indirectly highlighted potential side effects that might make the state's stem cell agency uneasy – not to mention the biotech industry.

With the feds back in the game, they may not look kindly on wildcat activities out in fringy California and elsewhere. Turf does, in fact, matter. Moreover, with Congress now back in the stem cell legislation business, to borrow from one oldtime political commentator, no one is safe.

Consider the comment from John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca. He issued a call for the feds to act to ensure that taxpayers share in any profit generated by stem cell therapies developed with government funds.

In a letter to President Obama, Consumer Watchdog cited the profit-sharing model at CIRM and said,

“Celebrating the change in policy is not enough, however. It is now necessary, more than ever, to examine the regulations governing the way federal funds are distributed to researchers. A change in those rules is needed and we call on you to work with Congress to implement reform of the Bayh-Dole Act.”

Businesses in California have taken issue with CIRM's profit-sharing rules, but the state agency has now broken the Bayh-Dole ice. The precedent in California will help fuel efforts to make changes in the federal law.

From Oakland, Ca., came another call for federal action that could have an impact on CIRM. Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, said the national government should enact enforceable rules for all stem cell research, public and private. Such rules would supersede those in California.

Jesse Reynolds, policy director of the center, said,

"We've seen what happens with inadequate regulation and oversight in the financial sector. The human biotechnology sector also needs effective public policy."

The Dickey-Wicker amendment is already on the table in Congress. It could become the vehicle for a host of challenges to the established order in the biotech business.

Waiting for Obama Chapter 4 -- Political Thorns and hESC

The No. 2 story this evening on the web site of the New York Times is not one that will necessarily please the most avid advocates of human embryonic stem cell research.

Written by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, the article said,

“President Obama intends to avoid the thorniest question in the debate: whether taxpayer dollars should be used to experiment on embryos themselves, two senior administration officials said Sunday.”

Stolberg wrote about a legal prohibition that is generally subsumed in mainstream media reports on hESC research. She said,

“The ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, first became law in 1996, and has been renewed by Congress every year since. It specifically bans the use of tax dollars to create human embryos — a practice that is routine in private fertility clinics — or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury."

Stolberg continued,

“Mr. Obama has not taken a position on the ban and does not intend to, Melody C. Barnes, his chief domestic policy adviser, said Sunday. The president believes stem cell research 'should be done in compliance with federal law,' she said, adding that Mr. Obama recognizes the divisiveness of the issue.

“'We are committed to pursuing stem cell research quite responsibly but we recognize there are a range of beliefs on this,' Ms. Barnes said.”

Stolberg wrote,

“A senior House Democratic leadership aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue, said overturning the ban 'would be difficult, but not impossible,' adding, 'It’s not something that we would do right away, but it’s something that we would look at.”

Operator Error on Loring Comment

A kindly reader pointed out that the Loring comment could not be found on "Obama Chapter Two." That was an error on the part of this operator. Her comment is now available.

Fresh Comment

Jeanne Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at Scripps, has posted a comment on the "Obama: Chapter Two" item. Among other things, she says that legislative is needed to change federal law on stem cell research.

Waiting for Obama -- The Stem Cell Delay

Wondering what Obama is wating for? When will he revoke George Bush's rules on human embryonic stem cell research?

It might be in a few weeks or perhaps even much longer, based on a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Reporter Marie McCullough wrote earlier this week,

"Rep. Mike Castle (R., Del.), a congressional champion of the research, said that last week, he explicitly asked White House officials about it.

"'I believe there will be an executive order lifting the funding ban,' Castle said. 'My speculation is that it will happen in a few weeks. . . . They've had a lot of things to deal with. I see no bump in the road.'"

She continued,

"Not until four days before the inauguration, during a CNN interview, did Obama say he would 'prefer' that Congress pass legislation removing Bush's restrictions, 'because those are the people's representatives.'

"That comment prompted some patients' groups to gripe that Obama was backpedaling on his campaign promise.

"But leading scientists also believe that research policy is better set by a comprehensive law than by a revocable directive.

"'I would agree with that,' said John Gearhart, a stem-cell-research pioneer who was wooed last year from Johns Hopkins University to the University of Pennsylvania. 'As researchers, we need a stable base.'"

Legislation can require many months, if not longer, to work its way through Congress, depending on other competing priorities, of which there are many, in Washington.

The Bush Veto: 'Strong Words From the Government of California'

California today received prominent mention on an ABC News blog by science correspondent Ned Potter concerning the presidential veto.

Here are some excerpts:

"Surprisingly strong words from the government of California, which, for lack of federal funding, is the largest backer of research on embryonic stem cells.

Potter continued:

"Dale Carlson of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which handles the $3 billion California has pledged for research over ten years: "California has 25 percent of the biomedical research capability in this country. We need the other 75 percent fully engaged and pursuing these therapies.

"If therapies are going to be discovered we need labs all over the country working on this project. So we’re going to have to wait for a new president and hopefully a new policy to really achieve the potential."

Potter also said Arnold Kriegstein of UC San Francisco expressed "polite frustration" with Bush's position that research can be done without embryonic stem cells. Potter quoted Kriegstein as saying,

"There's been a great deal of discussion about alternative sources for embryonic stem cells, for example using amniotic fluid or umbilical blood and so forth. But the truth is none of these alternatives really have the potential embryonic stem cells do to create cells of different types--heart cells, muscle cells, nerve cells and so forth."

Klein on Bush

President Bush's predictable veto of the federal stem cell bill generated the following response from Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine:

"The President has again dashed the hopes of millions of Americans suffering from chronic diseases and conditions, despite the overwhelming support for stem cell research in this country. If we're going to realize the potential of stem cells to treat Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and 70 other debilitating conditions, we need scientists in every state carrying on this research. California cannot reach the potential of this medical research alone.

"It is a tragedy for patient families throughout this country that this critical new frontier of medical research has been so severely handicapped by the President’s personal religious positions. The Congressional leadership clearly understands the historic potential of stem cell research to reduce human suffering. The Congressional leadership should be commended for serving as the champion of stem cell research in this historic opportunity to impact the devastating medical impact of these terrible, chronic diseases and injuries on America’s children and families."

Stem Cell Snippets: Labs, Cha and Pomeroy

Wasteful Lab Duplication – Reporter Nicole Gaouette of the Los Angeles Times wrote about how George Bush's stem cell funding edict has resulted in wasteful efforts in stem cell research. The article indirectly raises a question about how much money NIH spends chasing down possible violations of the ambiguous and dubious directive. Gaouette uses examples from UC San Francisco and Advanced Cell Technology in Alameda, Ca.

Cash for Large Stem Cell Facilities – Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that CIRM hopes to have $225 million available for large stem cell research labs. Applications could be ready this summer. Recipients would have match at least 20 percent of the grant, according to the initial proposal.

CHA – The Scientist magazine has the latest on the Cha affair with a statement from Alan DeCherney that the publications committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine will meet Friday to discuss the matter. Also now available onine is the full text of the British Medical Journal article concerning the case.

Pomeroy – Claire Pomeroy, a member of the CIRM Oversight Committee and dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, discusses stem cell issues in the Sacramento News and Review. Among other things, she worries about stem cell tourism – the practice of folks seeking stem cell therapies abroad. In many cases, inadequate oversight exists. She also reviews the status of stem cell research at the UC Davis campus. The Cal Aggie campus newspaper also carried a piece on a presentation to the Oversight Committee Tuesday on vascular disease research.

CIRM Litigation – The folks seeking to put CIRM out of business have filed with the State Supreme Court their request to overturn two earlier decisions against them. The court has until June 5 to make its decision.

State of Affairs – Reporter David Louie broadcast a piece on San Francisco TV station KGO on April 10 that reviewed the stem state of affairs in California. He said that thanks to CIRM, the state is
"is already well on the way to making its own breakthroughs in stem cell research."