Colon cancer exhibits a corresponding epigenetic pattern in mice and humans – Medical Xpress
By Dr. Matthew Watson
Colon cancer exhibits a corresponding epigenetic pattern in mice and humans Medical Xpress Scientists of the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin have now discovered a recurring pattern of more than 13,000 epigenetic alterations in young tumours of the mouse. This genome-wide pattern was found to be partly conserved in human ... |
LA Times: Stem Cell Agency Conflict-of-Interest Response Only a Bandage
By Dr. Matthew Watson
The Los Angeles Times yesterday modestly praised the $3 billion California stem cell agency for
taking some limited steps to deal with its longstanding conflict of
interest issues.
needed if the agency plans to have a life after 2017, when funds for
new awards run out.
“After years of resisting all
criticisms of its operations, the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine is finally listening — a little.“
“Yet the agency isn't exactly
embracing an ethical overhaul. It's doing just enough to address the
criticisms without triggering any oversight from the Legislature. The
modifications are more a bandage than a cure. Like a bandage, they
will probably do, but only for a limited time.”
members with ties to recipient institutions voluntarily refrain from
voting on any grants that come before the board, not just the ones to
their institutions.
report from the Institute of Medicine identified the make-up of the
board as the “single biggest problem” at the agency. The
editorial cited figures prepared by the California Stem Cell Report
that show that about 90 percent of the $1.8 billion that the board
has awarded has gone to institutions linked to current or past
members of the board. Fifteen out of the 29 current board members
have ties to recipient institutions.
“If the stem cell institute is just a
temporary agency that will last until its public funding runs out —
it plans to give its last grants with existing funds in 2017 — its
planned reforms will probably be enough. But if the institute wants
to be a permanent part of the research landscape — and possibly ask
for more public funding — voluntary recusals are an inadequate
patch. The agency's leaders should admit that the original setup was
flawed and seek a true fix. “
CIRM Director Prieto on Disclosure of Reviewer Financial Interests
By Dr. Matthew Watson
A member of the governing board of the
$3 billion California stem cell agency is weighing in on an item on
the California Stem Cell Report that called for public disclosure of the financial interests of the scientific reviewers, who make 98
percent of the decisions on awards by the agency.
physician and a patient advocate member of the board, said in an email:
“ It seems to me there's a bit
of 'damned if we do and damned if we don't' here. If the ICOC (the
agency governing board) decides to listen to some of the members of
the public who come to our meetings and overrule a recommendation of
the Grants Working Group(GWG), we're slammed for letting emotion trump
science, or bowing to special interests. If we just accept the
rankings of the GWG and approve all their recommendations, we're
criticized for not being truly independent. I think we don't do
it often (for good reason) but should and do retain the right to look
at other factors besides those our scientific reviewers do, and make
our own decisions about funding. We are ultimately responsible, not
the scientific reviewers.
“As for the issue of their
disclosure of personal conflicts of interest, from what I've read of
the NIH processes, ours are no less strict. The NIH requires that
reviewers disclose any conflicts to their institutions which I
believe must disclose them to the NIH, but I have not seen anything
requiring them to disclose all their personal financial & other
interests publicly, as we (ICOC members) have to. When we were
assembling our group of reviewers initially, the fear was that many
of the best scientists would turn us down if we required them to make
the kind of personal disclosures we have to. I don't know how many we
might actually lose if that were the case, but as you know we do
require them to disclose to CIRM, and they have to leave the room
when any application for which they have a conflict is discussed.”
board being perched on the horns of a dilemma, which has a lot to do
with Proposition 71, which created the agency, and American
scientific traditions, which place an extraordinary value on the
“integrity” of the review process. In this case, integrity refers
to adherence to reviewers' scientific judgments.
authority for grant approvals in the hands of the CIRM board, which
has overridden decisions by reviewers in only 2 percent of the cases
since 2005. However, that was enough, with at least one high profile
case coupled with public appeals, to cause the Institute of Medicine
to raise concerns about the integrity of the CIRM grant review
process. Traditionally, peer reviewers are deemed to be the most
capable of making the scientific decisions about grant applications,
rather than a board appointed by University of California chancellors
and elected state officials.
decisions to the grant reviewers, state law is likely to require
public disclosure of their financial interests, a move that the board
has opposed for years. Former CIRM Chairman Robert Klein repeatedly
advised the board during its public grant approval processes that
reviewers' actions were only ”recommendations” and that the board
was actually making the decisions. However, it has long been apparent
that the reviewers were making the de facto decisions. A CIRM memo in
January confirmed that, producing the 98 percent figure.
reviewers, integrity of peer reviews, the language of Proposition 71
and state law are difficult and may, in some cases, be at odds.
what the NIH is doing. It is a much different organization and has
had a history of conflict of interest problems that it has been
trying to work through.
scientific research community has been towards more public disclosure
rather than less because of many well-documented instances of
problems. What is at stake is the public's faith in scientific
research and the integrity of public institutions.
on this important subject.
California Stem Cell Agency Bonds On Sale in March
By Dr. Matthew Watson
Early next month, the state of
California will sell $2.7 billion in bonds, a tiny fraction of which will go
towards the California stem cell agency.
currently involves short-term borrowing as well to keep the cash
pipeline at CIRM properly filled.
subsists off money that the state borrows (bonds) instead of going to
the legislature annually for financial support. While that avoids
competing against school children, the poor, the University of
California, state colleges, parks, highways and other interests
seeking state funding, it also means that the cost of a $20 million
grant is something closer to $40 million because of the interest
expense.
week asked the state treasurer's office about the bond sale March
12-13 and what it means for the stem cell agency. Here is what Tom
Dresslar, spokesman for the treasurer, replied in an email.
“CIRM’s funding needs now are met
via the issuance of commercial paper (CP). They’re authorized
a certain amount of CP periodically. Then we work with them on
a regular basis to issue the commercial paper on an as-needed basis.
Last fall, they were authorized $160 million of CP. We will
issue the first $27 million under that authorization (this) week.
This spring, CIRM is scheduled to receive another $100 million
authorization. The Department of Finance , consulting with CIRM
officials, determined the $100 million would be needed to meet CIRM’s
funding requirements through the end of 2013.“Now, here’s where it gets a little
complicated. The state pays down the CP with bond proceeds.
The March ....bond sale includes $60 million of stem
cell bonds. Those proceeds won’t provide new money for CIRM,
but will pay down the CP proceeds CIRM already has used.”
cell agency in 2004, authorized bond sales for stem cell research for
only 10 years. CIRM's financial timekeepers say the clock started
running when the first bonds were sold. The upshot is that the agency
will run out of money for new grants in less than four years.
California Stem Cell Agency: Comparing the Critiques
By Dr. Matthew Watson
State Controller John Chiang has posted
a useful, side-by-side comparison of critiques of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, including the Institute of Medicine(IOM)
study, along with the responses from the agency.
has additionally posted the initial remarks Jan. 23 by CIRM Chairman
Jonathan Thomas before the stem cell agency governing board on his
plan to deal with the sweeping recommendations of the IOM.
board's response to the IOM, Thomas adroitly handled the discussion
and vote, not a small accomplishment given the size of the board (29
members) and the legal restrictions involving public meetings. Under
state law, Thomas could not lobby significant numbers of the board in
advance of the meeting. He was restricted to engineering the approval
in a public session, which can easily take on a life of its own given
the unwieldy size of the board and the necessity for public comment.
he is chairman of the Citizens Financial Accountability and Oversight
Committee, the only state body specifically charged with oversight of
the agency and its board. The web site for the committee is the only
location on the Internet where Thomas' prepared remarks and the
comparison can be found.
only the IOM study, but last year's performance audit and the Little
Hoover Commission study in 2009. Missing, however, is the state
auditor's report in 2007 and its recommendation that the agency seek an attorney general's opinion on whether scientific grant reviewers must file a public financial disclosure form.
documents: Thomas' prepared comments, Power Point chart used by Thomas,
comparison chart of various studies and the transcript of the Jan. 23 meeting during which the governing board approved its response.
FRC's Dr. David Prentice Congratulates Kansas Senate for Passing Ethical Stem Cell Therapy Bill
By Dr. Matthew Watson
WASHINGTON, March 1, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --Family Research Council (FRC) Senior Fellow Dr. David Prentice, a native Kansan, congratulated the Kansas state senate for passing S.B. 199, a bill that would establish the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center, a regional hub to advance and deliver adult and cord blood stem cell therapies to patients and serving as a resource for adult and cord blood stem cells for therapies. The Center would also inform professionals and the public about such therapies.
(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20080930/FRCLOGO)
Dr. Prentice, a cell biologist who was selected by George W. Bush's Council on Bioethics to write a comprehensive review of adult stem cell research in 2004, testified before the Kansas Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare in support of S.B. 199 on Feb. 25. Dr. Prentice additionally serves as adjunct professor of molecular genetics at the John Paul II Institute at the Catholic University of America, and formerly served as professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and adjunct professor of medical and molecular genetic at Indiana University School of Medicine.
The bill will now go to the Kansas House of Representatives for consideration.
In his testimony Dr. Prentice said:
"There are significant opportunities right now for Kansas to benefit from the establishment of a center of excellence specializing in the application of adult stem cell therapies for certain diseases, as well as educating physicians as well as the public about the advantages and availability of stem cell treatments.
"Kansas is moving forward as a potential leader in the area of adult and cord blood stem cell therapies. Estimates are that KU Med has done over 1,000 adult stem cell transplants, from bone marrow as well as a growing number from umbilical cord blood. These include stem cell transplants for various cancers and leukemias, but also initiating clinical trials to treat heart damage. Much more is possible.
"Kansas is well-positioned to become a leader in this area, and a global resource. The potential benefits for patients are incalculable. I urge you to support S.B. 199."
To read Dr. Prentice's testimony, click here: http://www.frc.org/testimony/testimony-of-dr-david-prentice-before-the-committee-on-public-health-and-welfare-kansas-senate
SOURCE Family Research Council
Read more here:
FRC's Dr. David Prentice Congratulates Kansas Senate for Passing Ethical Stem Cell Therapy Bill
Biotechnology Competition: Winners – HispanicBusiness.com
By Dr. Matthew Watson
![]() HispanicBusiness.com | Biotechnology Competition: Winners HispanicBusiness.com Business, law, science and medical students from top universities around the nation converged at the Wake Forest University Schools of Business on February 8-9 for the 4th Annual Biotechnology Conference and Case Competition. The eight student teams ... |
Crop biotechnology: A ‘continuing success’ globally – Business Mirror
By Dr. Matthew Watson
Crop biotechnology: A 'continuing success' globally Business Mirror CROP biotechnology has been achieving “continuing success” globally as the number of farmers who use it and the farms planted to biotech crops are increasing, recording 17.3 million farmers who planted the crops in 170.3 hectares in 28 countries in ... |
USDA announces movement of biotechnology approvals – Agri-Pulse
By Dr. Matthew Watson
USDA announces movement of biotechnology approvals Agri-Pulse 22, 2013— U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) today announced several biotechnology regulatory actions sent to the Federal Register for publication. According to APHIS, the agency is making the ... USDA ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY ...PoliticalNews.me (press release) |
Concerns over spread of antibiotic resistant genes – Horsetalk
By Dr. Matthew Watson
![]() Horsetalk | Concerns over spread of antibiotic resistant genes Horsetalk ... known as ARGs, some at levels 192 to 28,000 times higher than the control samples, said study co-author James Tiedje, Michigan State University Distinguished Professor of microbiology and molecular genetics and of plant, soil and microbial sciences. |
W.Va. fisheries biologists using new methods – San Francisco Chronicle
By Dr. Matthew Watson
W.Va. fisheries biologists using new methods San Francisco Chronicle "With the techniques developed in the field of molecular genetics, we are able to tell why some strains of fish do better than others. It started in the early 1980s when people started studying Florida-strain largemouth bass, and it just exploded from ... |
Never a better time to eat a burger – Irish Times
By Dr. Matthew Watson
![]() Irish Times | Never a better time to eat a burger Irish Times There has never been a better time to dust down your CV if you have experience in animal or molecular genetics. DNA testing laboratories, such as Identigen in Dublin, cannot keep up with the demand for testing from the industry and regulators. DNA ... |
Cure for Common Hangover? ‘Pill’ Mimics Action of Human Liver in Fighting … – Science Daily (press release)
By Dr. Matthew Watson
Cure for Common Hangover? 'Pill' Mimics Action of Human Liver in Fighting ... Science Daily (press release) Additional authors of the research include Wei Wei of UCLA Engineering; Ming Yan of UCLA Engineering and the UCLA Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics; Mo Yin Lau, Jay Hu, Hui Han and Cheng Ji of the Keck School of ... |
Speaking for "Answers in Genesis," Creationist Georgia Purdom Hits a Nail on … – Discovery Institute
By Dr. Matthew Watson
![]() Discovery Institute | Speaking for "Answers in Genesis," Creationist Georgia Purdom Hits a Nail on ... Discovery Institute That's a distinction that many Darwinists egregiously and intentionally muddle, leaving the media and much of the public confused. Dr. Purdom, who has her degree in molecular genetics, works with the organization Answers in Genesis. In a brief video ... |
Silicon Valley Tycoons Bestow Surprise $33 Million Prize On 11 Unsuspecting … – Popular Science
By Dr. Matthew Watson
![]() Popular Science | Silicon Valley Tycoons Bestow Surprise $33 Million Prize On 11 Unsuspecting ... Popular Science Hans Clevers, Professor of Molecular Genetics at Hubrecht Institute; For describing the role of Wnt signaling in tissue stem cells and cancer. Titia de Lange, Leon Hess Professor, Head of the Laboratory of Cell Biology and Genetics, and Director of the ... Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Other Tech Moguls Launch 'Breakthrough Prize ...Huffington Post Breakthrough Prize: Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin And Others Launch Huge ...Huffington Post UK |
Know Your Neighors: Understanding the Muslim Community in Twin Falls – Twin Falls Times-News
By Dr. Matthew Watson
Know Your Neighors: Understanding the Muslim Community in Twin Falls Twin Falls Times-News He holds a doctorate degree in plant molecular genetics from University of Helsinki in Finland and the Scottish Crop Research Institute. Eujayl immigrated to the United States when his name was drawn in the U.S. Diversity Immigrant Visa program (Visa ... |
City of Hope Exec Will Leave California Stem Cell Agency Board
By Dr. Matthew Watson
![]() |
Michael Friedman City of Hope photo |
California stem cell agency will lose another one of its veteran
members this year – Michael Friedman, the CEO of the City of Hope
in the Los Angeles area.
the board. Pomeroy is resigning as vice chancellor of Human Health
Services at UC Davis this spring to become president of the Lasker Foundation in New York.. Friedman is retiring at the end of this year.
its first meeting in December 2004. Pomeroy was appointed by the UC
Davis chancellor. Friedman was appointed by the state treasurer.
likely successors. However, the UC Davis chancellor is required by
law to appoint an executive officer from the campus. The new dean at
the UCD medical school would seem to be the most likely candidate.
Lockyer must appoint an executive officer from a California research
institute. The tradition on the board has been for particular
institutes to hold particular seats on the board. The major exception
is the Salk Institute, which lost a seat on the board a few years
back.
benefited enormously from CIRM largess. UC Davis has received $131
million and the City of Hope $51 million. Although Friedman and
Pomeroy have not been allowed to vote on grants to their
institutions, their presence and the presence on the board of other executives
from beneficiary institutions has triggered calls for sweeping changes at the agency.
of Medicine said “far too many” board members are linked to
institutions that receive money from CIRM. The institute recommended
that a new majority of independent members be created on the board.
California Stem Cell Report, about 90 percent of the $1.8 billion the
board has awarded has gone to institutions with ties to past and
present board members. Fifteen of the 29 members of the board, which
has no independent members along the lines suggested by the IOM, are
linked to recipient institutions.
before money for new awards runs out in less than four years.
Monitoring the Cash and IP at the California Stem Cell Agency
By Dr. Matthew Watson
The $3 billion California stem cell
agency appears unlikely to make any changes in who gets the cash from
any commercial products that its research grants help finance despite
recommendations from the Institute of Medicine(IOM).
during a meeting of the intellectual property subcommittee of the
governing board of the stem cell agency. Intellectual property (IP) simply
determines ownership rights and the share of any revenue from
therapies that result from research.
teleconference locations in La Jolla, Los Angeles, two in Irvine
along with the main site in San Francisco.
recommendations in this fashion:
“Because CIRM is a new institution
without a track record to reassure stakeholders, and because its
finite funding timeline means as yet unknown agencies will be
enforcing these policies years down the road, CIRM should “propose
regulations that specify who will have the power and authority to
assert and enforce in the future rights retained by the state” in
CIRM IP, specifically referring to march-in rights, access plans and
revenue sharing....
“Second, as other sources of funding
become more prevalent, the agency should “reconsider whether its
goal of developing cures would be better served by harmonizing CIRM’s
IP policies wherever possible with the more familiar policies of the
BayhDole Act.”
recommendations.
“CIRM staff has engaged in
preliminary discussions several years ago with other agencies
regarding future enforcement of CIRM’s regulations and agreements.
Staff proposes to restart those discussions and return to the
Subcommittee (or the Board) with a formal proposal to address future
enforcement of CIRM’s IP regulations.”“In light of the IOM’s own
recognition that it may be premature to assess whether CIRM’s
regulations will act as a deterrence to future investment, the fact
that a number of CIRM’s regulations have been codified in statutes
and CIRM’s positive progress in its industry engagement efforts to
date, although quite early, CIRM staff proposes to continue to
monitor this area and not to pursue any changes at this time.”
to diverge significantly from the staff proposal, which was dated
Feb. 14 but not posted on the CIRM website until Feb. 20.
Half-full, Half-empty Editorial on California Stem Cell Agency
By Dr. Matthew Watson
The California stem cell agency's
editorial road show paid off a bit again this week with a mildly
approving editorial in the Oakland Tribune.
of Jonathan Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, as chairman of the
$3 billion agency has improved things, compared to the reign of Bob
Klein, who “built a protective shield” around the agency's
governing board and prevented action to deal with obvious
conflict-of-interest problems.
extent” the agency has brought “cutting edge” scientists to the
state and helped boost the stem cell field.
editorial. The half-empty side included the headline.
“California
must get its stem cell house in order”
“...{T)he agency must prove that it
understands how to properly handle the public's money. …. If
the stem cell agency can establish a record as a good steward of
public dollars to finance brilliant science, it can continue to play
a useful role in stimulating and guiding research to bring the
potential cures from stem cell research to fruition.
“If it cannot do that, it will be
just another expensive Tyrannosaurus rex.”
editorial doors around the state in hopes of building support for the
board's modest – some might say inadequate – response to
recommendations for sweeping changes at the agency.
Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/tMt6gs55Yvs/half-full-half-empty-editorial-on.html
Time For Public Disclosure of Financial Interests of Stem Cell Agency Reviewers
By Dr. Matthew Watson
Should the scientists who evaluate
and score the applications for $3 billion in taxpayer funds be
required to publicly disclose their financial interests?
agency, despite concerns by the state auditor and the state's Fair
Political Practices Commission (FPPC) that date back at least six
years. The agency says that its governing board makes the decisions
on the applications – not the grant reviewers – and that the
members of the board fully disclose their economic interests.
a document that sheds new light on the issue. The document confirms
that the board rubber-stamps virtually all the reviewers' decisions,
going along with their actions 98 percent of the time. The board
exercised independent judgment on 28 out of 1,355 applications.
“(T)he FPPC believes that, under
state regulations, working group members (including grant reviewers)
may act as decision makers if they make substantive recommendations
that are, over an extended period, regularly approved without
significant amendment or modification by the committee. Thus, as
decision makers, working group members would need to be subject to
the conflict-of-interest code. This would mean that working groups
would be subject not only to the (public) financial disclosure requirements of
the Political Reform Act but also to the prohibition against a member
participating in a government decision in which that member has a
disqualifying financial interest and may be subject to the penalties
that may be imposed on individuals who violate that act.”
cell agency seek an attorney general's opinion on the matter, a
recommendation the agency agency summarily dismissed seven months later..
President Richard Murphy, a former member of the agency's board and
former president of the Salk Institute, replied to the auditor:
"We have given careful
consideration to your recommendation and have decided it is not
appropriate to implement at this time. In almost three years of
operation and approval of four rounds of grants, the recommendations
of the CIRM working groups have never been routinely and/or regularly
adopted by the ICOC. Until the time that such a pattern is detected,
the question you suggest we raise with the attorney general is
entirely hypothetical, and is therefore not appropriate for
submission. We will, however, continue to monitor approvals for such
a pattern and will reconsider our decision if one emerges."
Murphy's response, 100 percent of reviewer decisions were
rubber-stamped by the board. In the other two rounds, the percentage
was 95 and 96 percent.
of interest in private to selected CIRM officials. (See policy here.)
From time to time, grant reviewers are excused from evaluating
specific applications.
requiring public disclosure of the interests of reviewers. The subject
has come up several times, but board members have been concerned
about losing reviewers who would not be pleased about disclosing
their financial interests. Nonetheless, disclosure of interests among researchers is becoming routine in scientific research articles. Many universities, including
Stanford, also require public disclosure of financial interests of
their researchers. Stanford says,
“No matter what the circumstances --
if an independent observer might reasonably question whether the
individual's professional actions or decisions are determined by
considerations of personal financial gain, the relationship should be
disclosed to the public during presentations, in publications,
teaching or other public venues.”
of interest rules are under review by the FPPC. They do not include
any changes in public disclosure for grant reviewers. In view of the
new information that confirms that reviewers are making 98 percent of
the decisions on who gets the taxpayers' dollars, it would seem that it is long past due for public disclosure of both financial and professional
interests of reviewers. Indeed, given the nature of scientific
research and the tiny size of the stem cell community, disclosure of
professional interests may be more important than financial
disclosures.
said concerning his organization's own strengthening of disclosure requirements,
"The public trust in what we do is
just essential, and we cannot afford to take any chances with the
integrity of the research process."
reviewers' decisions and governing board action. The table has not
been posted on the CIRM website, but it was prepared for last month's
meeting dealing with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations for
sweeping changes at the agency, especially related to conflicts of
interest.