Geriatrics – A Primary Care Approach to the Aging Population (Mar. 28-30, 2013, Orlando, Florida, USA, North America)

Cliquez pour écouter ce texte Following this course, the participant should be able toidentify causes of the disorders described; implement adifferential diagnosis and laboratory assessment plans;outline the therapeutic intervention, possible complicationsand preventive measures. This activity is expected to resultin increased confidence in making an appropriate diagnosisand providing effective treatment and referral or follow-upcare with the overall goal of improving patient outcomes.Source:
http://www.hon.ch/cgi-bin/confevent?aff2+CONF13428

11th AMWC 2013 (Apr. 04-06, 2013, Monaco, France, Europe)

Cliquez pour écouter ce texte As Scientific Directors, it is a great privilege to inviteyou to participate to the 11th Anti-Aging Medicine WorldCongress in Monte-Carlo to be held under the High Patronageof S.A.S. Le Prince Albert II de Monaco. We have prepared anoutstanding program in line with our commitment toinnovation, expertise, and excellence, sharing a wealth ofexperience as well as teaching-skills. This year, AMWC willbe honouring Russia and the countries of the FSU. TheScientific Committee of the AMWC has designed a large andmature program with international faculty members from over95 countries. As well as to keeping up with worldwidepractice, this will contribute to the enhancement of yourown savoir-faire. Constantly on the lookout for thedevelopment of Preventive and Anti-Aging Medicine, the AMWC2013 will propose accordingly numerous advanced academic andclinical sessions with lectures presented by prominentexperts in the field as well as from research centers anduniversities. We also hope and are confident that you willenjoy your visit of the very exclusive and elegantPrincipality of MONACO! We look forward to welcoming you tothe AMWC 2013.Source:
http://www.hon.ch/cgi-bin/confevent?aff2+CONF13779

World Health Summit, Regional Meeting â?? Asia, Singapore 2013 (Apr. 08-10, 2013, Singapore, Singapore, Asia)

Cliquez pour écouter ce texte Health is intrinsically linked to the well-being ofsocieties, and maintaining a healthy Asia will be beneficialto all in the region and the world. Yet, todayâ??s Asia faceschallenges such as rapidly aging populations, climatechange, increasing incidence of chronic non-communicablediseases and the recurring threat of global pandemics.Asiaâ??s need for affordable and accessible health care alsoencompasses many challenges that coalesce around thequestion of financing. Against this backdrop, an Asianmeeting of the WHS in 2013 will be an excellent opportunityfor reaching out to Health Ministers and senior governmentofficials from the region as well as many global health careleaders who will be attending this landmark meeting, therebyallowing us to develop innovative solutions to Asiaâ??scurrent and future health care problems.Source:
http://www.hon.ch/cgi-bin/confevent?aff2+CONF13748

Working on the Use of Decellularization to Make Pig Hearts Suitable for Human Transplantation

Decellularization involves taking a donor organ and stripping its cells, leaving just the shaped extracellular matrix behind. When new cells of the right types are seeded into the matrix, they will inhabit it, grow, and follow its cues to rebuild the tissue as it was. This might prove to be a shortcut to the future of organs grown to order - you can't use it to produce an organ such as the heart from scratch, but you can take animal organs and make it possible to transplant them into humans with minimal risk of rejection.

This, at least, is the goal. So far decellularization has worked for some human donor tissues, such as veins, replacing the donor's cells with those of the recipient to remove immune rejection issues. This suggests that it will work just fine for animal organs too. Researchers are working on opening the doors to widespread xenotransplantation of pig organs, for example, by turning porcine tissues into those of the organ recipient.

Saving lives with help from pigs and cells

One recent morning, a pig heart hung suspended in a clear homemade tank in the lab built for Taylor and her team. Filled with detergent, the heart had expanded to the size of a large man's fist, excess liquid dripping slowly out its sides.

Once the heart is thoroughly cleaned, hard-working human stem cells - immature cells found in our organs and tissues that help repair damage on a daily basis - will bring it to life. "We can take stems cells from bone marrow, blood or fat and place them onto a heart, liver or lung scaffold," Taylor explains. "My motto for a long time has been 'Give nature the tools and get out of the way.'?"

Taylor and her team will add stem cells to the heart one of two ways: by inserting a tube in the aorta and letting the cells drip inside, or by injecting the cells with a syringe through the wall of the heart. A heartbeat is perceptible after just a few days. Within a few weeks, the heart is strong enough to pump blood.

Taylor predicts that in the next two years, she and her team will approach the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and ask to do a first-in-human study with the bio-artificial hearts. "Will it be a whole heart? Probably not," Taylor says. "But it could be a cardiac patch or a valve. We might start with a piece to show the safety and efficacy of the technology."

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/02/working-on-the-use-decellularization-to-make-pig-hearts-suitable-for-human-transplantation.php

A Podcast Interview With Aubrey de Grey

From a few weeks back, an audio interview with Aubrey de Grey of the SENS Research Foundation:

Anti-aging scientist and biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey told [the host] about his work with the SENS Foundation, an organization he founded with the purpose of defeating aging. According to him, aging is treated as a disease that should be defeated by targeting the 7 cellular activities that cause us to age. Dr. de Grey discussed the science that researchers at SENS are studying to back up the claim that we could live to 1000 years some day soon. "The problem is the funding," de Grey said. "We've been trying to fight what we've described as the pro-aging trance." The pro-aging trance, according to Dr. de Grey, is the social conception we have that death is inevitable. "No one wants to keep cancer, no one wants to keep heart disease, so what would we want to keep aging?" de Grey asks. Part of Aubrey de Grey's work is marketing his ideas and helping to diminish the acceptance society has of death. Citing his long beard which [the interviewer] said looked "like Rasputin's," de Grey said, "This is something my team and I have discussed. It's something that helps me stick in people's minds."

[The interviewers] briefly talked about the social, economic, and cultural consequences of a longer life extension. When [the interviewers] pressed de Grey on these issues, Aubrey reiterated that his work is not a "longevity issue, but a health care issue, so stop thinking of it that way please." Aubrey pressed that the key for his scientific success lies in his publicity: getting more exposure and raising money through his foundation.

Link: http://glucksolutions.podomatic.com/entry/index/2013-01-18T12_39_16-08_00

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/02/a-podcast-interview-with-aubrey-de-grey.php

Wrapping Nanoparticles in Cell Membranes

Here is another small step on the way towards the creation of artificial cells as medical devices. If you can wrap nanoparticles in cell membranes, then its not hard to see that disguising any arbitrary nanomachinery that way is on the agenda - such as those that can dispense or create proteins, or perform other tasks inside our tissues.

By cloaking nanoparticles in the membranes of white blood cells, [scientists] may have found a way to prevent the body from recognizing and destroying them before they deliver their drug payloads. "Our goal was to make a particle that is camouflaged within our bodies and escapes the surveillance of the immune system to reach its target undiscovered. We accomplished this with the lipids and proteins present on the membrane of the very same cells of the immune system. We transferred the cell membranes to the surfaces of the particles and the result is that the body now recognizes these particles as its own and does not readily remove them."

Nanoparticles can deliver different types of drugs to specific cell types, for example, chemotherapy to cancer cells. But for all the benefits they offer and to get to where they need to go and deliver the needed drug, nanoparticles must somehow evade the body's immune system that recognizes them as intruders. The ability of the body's defenses to destroy nanoparticles is a major barrier to the use of nanotechnology in medicine. Systemically administered nanoparticles are captured and removed from the body within few minutes. With the membrane coating, they can survive for hours unharmed.

"Being able to use synthetic membranes or artificially-created membrane is definitely something we are planning for the future. But for now, using our white blood cells is the most effective approach because they provide a finished product. The proteins that give us the greatest advantages are already within the membrane and we can use it as-is."

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130131144114.htm

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/02/wrapping-nanoparticles-in-cell-membranes.php

Learning More About the Role of SIRT3 in Aging

One of the side-effects resulting from members of the research community now being far more willing to talk openly about engineering human longevity or building therapies for aging is that university publicity offices are now far more willing to write materials that sound like something the "anti-aging" market would come up with. That's not great, but it is what it is - as for the mass media and marketing, the primary incentives for these folk have nothing to do with truth, accuracy, or helping the public understand the actual relevance of a particular research result. If any of those things happen, it's either by accident or because they help achieve the real goals of the publicity group. Bear that in mind while reading the release materials linked below.

Sirtuins have been a hot topic in aging research - largely undeservedly as it turned out - for some years, the large sums of money flowing into that field of research helping to drive enthusiasm for the slow, expensive road of slowing aging by metabolic manipulation. Most of the relevant research community, those who might be working on SENS or other rejuvenation biotechnologies if the money was there, work towards similar goals. They are producing knowledge rather than applications that can influence human lifespan, and have little expectation of producing anything more than knowledge for decades to come. Knowledge is never useless, but this path is not likely to deliver meaningful extension of human life in time to matter to us, nor is it likely to produce technologies that will help people who are already aged.

There are a number of different sirtuins, and while research initially focused on SIRT1, it is SIRT3 and SIRT6 that have generated the more interesting results in the past couple of years. SIRT3 is the topic for today, a mitochondrial protein - it is noteworthy to see just how many longevity-related genes and proteins are connected to the mitochondria in some way. Calorie restriction is noted to boost levels of SIRT3, and SIRT3 is thought to promote antioxidant activity in cells, reducing damage in the places where oxidants are produced as a side-effect of the operation of metabolism - something that you can't achieve by ingesting antioxidants, I should add.

Here, researchers demonstrate a modest reversal of one small aspect of the breadth of aging biology by boosting levels of SIRT3 in old mice:

Discovery opens the door to a potential 'molecular fountain of youth'

The researchers first observed the blood system of mice that had the gene for SIRT3 disabled. Surprisingly, among young mice, the absence of SIRT3 made no difference. It was only when time crept up on the mice that things changed. By the ripe old age of two, the SIRT3-deficient mice had significantly fewer blood stem cells and decreased ability to regenerate new blood cells compared with regular mice of the same age.

What is behind the age gap? It appears that in young cells, the blood stem cells are functioning well and have relatively low levels of oxidative stress, which is the burden on the body that results from the harmful byproducts of metabolism. At this youthful stage, the body's normal anti-oxidant defenses can easily deal with the low stress levels, so differences in SIRT3 are less important.

"When we get older, our system doesn't work as well, and we either generate more oxidative stress or we can't remove it as well, so levels build up. Under this condition, our normal anti-oxidative system can't take care of us, so that's when we need SIRT3 to kick in to boost the anti-oxidant system. However, SIRT3 levels also drop with age, so over time, the system is overwhelmed."

To see if boosting SIRT3 levels could make a difference, the researchers increased the levels of SIRT3 in the blood stem cells of aged mice. That experiment rejuvenated the aged blood stem cells, leading to improved production of blood cells.

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/01/learning-more-about-the-role-of-sirt3-in-aging.php

Vegetarianism Associated With Lower Risk of Heart Disease

Vegetarianism is associated with health benefits such as reduced risk of age-related disease. It is also associated with carrying less of the visceral fat shown to cause harm to long-term health - which on balance probably means a lower calorie intake. As we all know by now, calorie intake has a disproportionate effect on measures of health. So that would seem to be a more plausible mechanism than, say, reduced dietary intake of AGEs or lower levels of methionine.

Here, however, researchers are claiming that differences in body mass index - a not-so-great proxy measure for the amount of body fat - between vegetarians and non-vegetarians are not terribly important in comparison to blood pressure and cholesterol measures. That is not a particularly intuitive result:

The risk of hospitalisation or death from heart disease is 32% lower in vegetarians than people who eat meat and fish, according to a new study. "Most of the difference in risk is probably caused by effects on cholesterol and blood pressure, and shows the important role of diet in the prevention of heart disease."

This is the largest study ever conducted in the UK comparing rates of heart disease between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. The analysis looked at almost 45,000 volunteers from England and Scotland enrolled in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Oxford study, of whom 34% were vegetarian. Such a significant representation of vegetarians is rare in studies of this type, and allowed researchers to make more precise estimates of the relative risks between the two groups.

The Oxford researchers arrived at the figure of 32% risk reduction after accounting for factors such as age, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, educational level and socioeconomic background.

Participants were recruited to the study throughout the 1990s, and completed questionnaires regarding their health and lifestyle when they joined. These included detailed questions on diet and exercise as well as other factors affecting health such as smoking and alcohol consumption. Almost 20,000 participants also had their blood pressures recorded, and gave blood samples for cholesterol testing. The volunteers were tracked until 2009, during which time researchers identified 1235 cases of heart disease. This comprised 169 deaths and 1066 hospital diagnoses, identified through linkage with hospital records and death certificates.

The researchers found that vegetarians had lower blood pressures and cholesterol levels than non-vegetarians, which is thought to be the main reason behind their reduced risk of heart disease. Vegetarians typically had lower body mass indices (BMI) and fewer cases of diabetes as a result of their diets, although these were not found to significantly affect the results. If the results are adjusted to exclude the effects of BMI, vegetarians remain 28% less likely to develop heart disease.

Link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/uoo-vcr012913.php

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/01/vegetarianism-associated-with-lower-risk-of-heart-disease.php

Potent growth-inhibitory effect of a dual cancer-specific oncolytic adenovirus expressing apoptin on prostate carcinoma.

Potent growth-inhibitory effect of a dual cancer-specific oncolytic adenovirus expressing apoptin on prostate carcinoma.
Int J Oncol. 2013 Mar;42(3):1052-60
Authors: Zhang M, Wang J, Li C, Hu N, Wang K, Ji H, He D, Quan C, Li X, Jin N, Li Y
Abstract
Apoptin is a chicken anemia virus-derived, p53-independent, bcl-2-insensitive apoptotic protein with the ability to specifically induce apoptosis in various human tumor cells, but not in normal cells. To explore the use of apoptin in tumor gene therapy, we assessed a recombinant adenovirus expressing the apoptin protein (Ad-hTERTp-E1a-Apoptin) in order to determine its lethal and growth-inhibitory effects on PC-3 and RM-1 cells in vitro and its antitumor effect on solid tumors in vivo....

MedWorm Sponsor Message: Find the best Christmas presents and January Sales in the UK with this simple shopping directory.

Source:
http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=7005905&cid=c_449_6_f&fid=36721&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2FPubMed%2F23338489%3Fdopt%3DAbstract

Ocular gene delivery systems using ternary complexes of plasmid DNA, polyethylenimine, and anionic polymers.

Authors: Kurosaki T, Uematsu M, Shimoda K, Suzuma K, Nakai M, Nakamura T, Kitahara T, Kitaoka T, Sasaki H
Abstract
In this experiment, we developed anionic ternary complexes for effective and safe ocular gene delivery. Ternary complexes were constructed by coating plasmid DNA (pDNA)/polyethylenimine (PEI) complex with anionic polymers such as ?-polyglutamic acid (?-PGA) and chondroitin sulfate (CS). The cationic pDNA/PEI complex showed high gene expression on the human retinal pigment epithelial cell line, ARPE-19 cells. The pDNA/PEI complexes, however, also showed high cytotoxicity on the cells and aggregated strongly in the vitreous body. On the other hand, the anionic ternary complexes showed high gene expression on ARPE-19 cells without such cytotoxicity and aggregation. Afte...

MedWorm Sponsor Message: Find the best Christmas presents and January Sales in the UK with this simple shopping directory.

Source:
http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=7013349&cid=c_449_13_f&fid=32516&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2FPubMed%2F23302641%3Fdopt%3DAbstract

Sacramento Bee: Stem Cell Agency Falling Short on IOM Recommendations

It's exceedingly rare when the
California stem cell agency makes the front page of any newspaper.

So it is worthy of note that The
Sacramento Bee
this morning carried a lengthy piece on its page one
about the agency and its response to the blue-ribbon Institute of
Medicine
(IOM) report.
The headline said,

 “Analyst: Stem
cell agency reforms fall short.”

The analyst is the Institute of
Medicine, more specifically Harold Shapiro, chairman of the panel that
studied California's $3 billion research effort for 17 months at
a cost of $700,000 to the agency.
Bee reporter Cynthia Craft wrote that
Shapiro said the stem cell agency is “falling short” in its
response to the IOM recommendation.
Craft wrote,

"'There certainly is a gap between
what we recommended and what they responded with,' said Shapiro,
president emeritus at Princeton
University
. ' I wish they had moved closer to our
recommendations.'"

Craft said the IOM made sweeping recommendations “emphasizing the need for new blood on a governing
board that has been plagued by the appearance of conflicts of
interest, cronyism and sluggishness in getting stem-cell products to
market.”
Craft also interviewed Jonathan
Thomas
, chairman of the stem cell agency, who said some of the IOM
recommendations would take legislative action. But Thomas said that
was “out of the question.”
Craft wrote,

“The process would take years, he
said. The first opportunity to get on the ballot, for instance, would
be in the fall of 2014.”

The agency will run out of cash for new
grants in less than four years.
Craft's story was the first major news
article in years about the agency in the Bee, the only daily
newspaper in the state's capital. She reviewed a bit of the history
of the agency and concerns about conflicts of interest. She
concluded,

“Shapiro said he stands firmly behind
his committee's report. 

"'I think our recommendations sit
together and interrelate to each other well – and should have been
moved along as quickly as possible,' Shapiro said. 

"'It might have been helpful if
they indicated to us what they were willing to do and what they
weren't,' he said."

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/tEEJz8_Jcds/sacramento-bee-stem-cell-agency-falling.html

Hyping the Economic Impact of the California Stem Cell Agency

The $3 billion California stem cell agency today served up a warmed-over version of a study that would have the
public believe that the research program has had a major economic
impact on the state.

The latest study was prepared last
August by a firm that was hired under an RFP in 2010 that said it must execute "a vibrant and aggressive strategy to support the goals and initiatives of CIRM.” 
The agency paid $300,000 for the
original study but contends the report is “independent” of CIRM.
According to the CIRM press release
today, the latest version of the study by Jose Alberro of the
Berkeley Research Group claims creation of 38,000 “job years” and
$286 million in “new tax revenue” from the award of $1.5 billion. Those awards actually cost something in the neighborhood of $3 billion, given that state taxpayers must pay interest the borrowed funds that finance the agency. 
The Institute of Medicine's recent
blue-ribbon report on the stem cell agency carried remarkably different
information than the economic figures reported today. The institute's study was also financed by CIRM but at a cost of
$700,000. The report said,

“In the short term, CIRM’s
expenditures are supporting approximately 3,400 jobs and their
innovative efforts have also attracted substantial additional private
and institutional resources to this research arena in California
CIRM’s long-term impact on such critical aspects of the California
economy as state tax revenues and health care costs beyond the
shorter-term and temporary impact of its direct expenditures cannot
be reliably estimated at this point in CIRM’s history."

Here is what the California Stem Cell Report wrote in 2011 when the first study was released:

“No doubt exists that the stem cell
spending has had a beneficial economic impact. But whether it has had
a 'significant' impact on the California economy is in the eye of the
beholder. The state's economy runs to something like $1.7 trillion a
year. If California were a nation, it would rank among one of the
larger economies in the world. The workforce totals around 18
million, making 25,000 jobs statistically less than a hiccup. Keep in
mind as well that CIRM, until 2009,  paid the interest on its
borrowing with more borrowed funds, all of which adds to the total
cost of the borrowing, which is about $3 billion on top of the $3
billion CIRM is handing out.”

By ballyhooing economic impact reports
the stem cell agency would seem to be inviting assessment of its
efforts as an industrial development enterprise, which involve
criteria significantly different than that of a research enterprise.
A few years ago, we asked the agency's then Chairman Robert Klein
whether he wanted to have CIRM assessed as industrial development
effort. His quick response was a very emphatic no. Klein nonetheless
frequently touted the figures produced under the contract with the
agency.
The latest figures are undoubtedly
likely to be cited as the agency begins a road trip around the state
to meet with newspaper editorial boards to trumpet CIRM's reponse to
the Institute of Medicine study.
See below for a full copy of the
report. We have asked CIRM for a copy of the contract with the group
that prepared it. We will carry it when we receive it.
   

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/l9y8li36Cn8/hyping-economic-impact-of-california.html

Los Angeles Times Columnist: Stem Cell Agency Still Saddled with Conflict of Interest Problems

The governing board of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency will remain dominated by “special
interests” even with the adoption of a plan last week responding to
the far-reaching recommendations of a blue-ribbon Institute of
Medicine (IOM)
study, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times said today.

Michael Hiltzik, Pulitzer Prize winning
writer and author, wrote that IOM study showed the agency “the path
to cleansing itself of its aura of connivance and influence trading.
That the board can't even bring itself to place the proposals before
the voters or their elected representatives only shows how much money
it's willing to waste to keep living in its own little world.”
Hiltzik's column in California'slargest circulation newspaper included fresh comments from both
Harold Shapiro, who chaired 17-month IOM study, which was
commissioned by CIRM, and Jonathan Thomas, the chairman of CIRM and
who drew up the response.
Hiltzik wrote that the study “concluded
that the CIRM board members were saddled with 'almost unavoidable
conflicts of interest, whether actual or perceived.'” He continued,

“That's because by law, 23 of the 29
members must be representatives of California institutions eligible
for CIRM grants or of disease advocacy groups with their own interest
in steering money toward their particular concerns. 

“As a remedy, the panel proposed
eliminating some board slots reserved for grant-receiving
institutions by Proposition
71,
 the 2004 initiative that created the agency. The idea
was to fill those slots with truly independent members free of any
stake in CIRM funding, even indirectly.”

 Hiltzik wrote,

 "Thomas told me his proposal dealt
with even perceived conflicts of interest on the board in such
"definitive fashion" that it won't be necessary to bother
the Legislature, much less the voters, with such big changes as
remaking the board with a majority of independent members. He pointed
out, not without some pride, that one board member called his
proposed changes 'draconian.'"

Hiltzik had some praise for Thomas.

“Let's stipulate that Thomas has, in
CIRM terms, moved a mountain by jostling the board even this far.
Since its inception, the board has set records for arrogance. That's
a direct legacy from Proposition 71, which exempted the stem cell
program, uniquely among California government bodies, from any
practical oversight by the Legislature or elected officials.”

The Times columnist continued,

“Shapiro told me from his Princeton
office that Thomas' proposals were 'a significant step in the right
direction, which at least indicates that they haven't ignored the
report.' But he doesn't share Thomas' view that voluntary recusals
solve the conflict of interest problem. That can be done, Shapiro
said, only by replacing stake-holding board members with
independents.

"'The more you can reduce the
inherent conflicts, the better off everyone is going to be,' he said.
The board will 'have to go further over time, in my view.'"

Hiltzik wrote,

“The Shapiro panel said it didn't
find any instances of inappropriate behavior by board members or
specific conflicts, but there are two reasons for that: It didn't
search for any, and Proposition 71 defined certain conflicts out of
existence. The measure states that it's no conflict for a board
member to also be an officer of an academic institution or private
corporation that might be applying for grants.

“One of the CIRM board's enduring
self-delusions is that its conflicts of interest are purely a matter
of 'perception.' But there have been documented instances
of favoritism shown to well-connected grant or loan applicants, and
at least one overt attempt by a board member to overturn a rejection
of his institution's project. So much of the board's discussion takes
place behind closed doors or informally that the opportunities for
mutual back scratching are incalculable.

“Thomas' 'draconian' proposals won't
change this state of affairs. Special interests will still dominate
the board. Will barring 13 members from voting on grants while giving
them full rein to participate in discussions really eradicate even
the perception of conflicts? You'd have to be terminally naive to
think so.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/I_jSJSpM3nU/los-angeles-times-columnist-stem-cell.html

Loring on Patient Advocates and Their Role at the California Stem Cell Agency

The following statement by stem cell researcher Jeanne
Loring
was read at the January 23, 2013, meeting of the governing board of the California stem cell agency. Loring is director
of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the Scripps Research
Institute
in La Jolla, CA.

“I am sorry that I
cannot attend this important meeting of the ICOC. I'm in Toronto
reviewing stem cell grants for Japan and Canada. I've asked (patient advocate) Don Reed
to read my statement.
“I am a California
stem cell scientist whose research is funded by the NIH, private
foundations, and CIRM. I am the director of one of CIRM's shared
laboratories, which has provided formal training in research and
ethics to hundreds of young stem cell scientists. My CIRM funding
supports the stem cell genomics research that is the main focus of
the lab. We have also been funded by CIRM to investigate stem cell
therapies for Alzheimer disease and multiple sclerosis. I have
leveraged CIRM grant support to obtain funding for studies of autism
through the NIH, and for Parkinson's disease from a private
foundation.
“The IOM report
recommended a number of changes in CIRM's policies. One of these
recommendations is of especially great concern to me: the suggestion
that patient advocates should have much less influence in CIRM's
decisions about what research should be funded.
“Patient advocates
are extremely valuable to us researchers. Most of us stem cell
researchers had never met a patient advocate- and perhaps not even a
patient- before CIRM was founded. In my 20 years of being funded by
the NIH, the funding agency never once suggested that I should talk
to people who have the disease, or have relatives with a disease that
I was receiving funding to study.
“With my first CIRM
grant, I started meeting patient advocates, and now I can't imagine
pursuing a disease-related research project without them. I've
learned a great deal from the advocates on the ICOC, and I greatly
enjoy talking with them. They are wonderful sources of knowledge:
Jeff Sheehy taught me about HIV/AIDS and patient activism, I learned
about Parkinson's disease from Joan Samuelson, autism from John
Shestack, and David Serrano-Sewell, Diane Winoker have educated me
about MS and ALS.
“Professional
research scientists are competitive by nature- a conversation between
scientists is often constrained by our secrecy- we need to publish,
or perish. But advocates have no such constraints, which makes ICOC
meetings more enjoyable and informative than many scientific
meetings.
“Patient advocacy has
made me a better scientist. Advocacy makes CIRM-funded research
breathtakingly relevant and uniquely powerful to change the course of
medicine.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/l-jQiD3JTec/loring-on-patient-advocates-and-their.html

CIRM's Thomas: Conflicts 'Put to Bed' at Stem Cell Agency

The chairman of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, Jonathan Thomas, today hailed board
action last week as putting “to bed once and for all” questions
about financial conflicts of interest by members of the agency's
governing board.

Writing on the agency's blog, Thomas
pointed to board approval of a new policy that would bar 13 of the 29
members of the governing board from voting on any grants whatsoever.
The 13 are the members who are “appointed from an institution that
is eligible to receive money.” Three other board members have ties
to institutions that receive money. Two are employees of the institutions and one is the
chair of the University of California board of regents, Sherry
Lansing
. All three are appointed as patient advocate members of the
board. Currently all 16 are barred individually from voting on grants
to their institutions, but they can vote for awards to other
institutions.
Thomas proposed the plan last week to
the governing board, which approved it on a 23-0 vote with one
abstention. Thomas advanced the proposal in response to the
recommendations of a 17-month study by the Institute of Medicine(IOM).
CIRM paid $700,000 for the blue-ribbon report, hoping that it would
serve as the basis for continued financing of the agency beyond 2017,
when funds for new grants run out.
The IOM's far-reaching recommendations
included creation of a majority of independent members on the board,
which would mean some current members of the board would lose their
seats. No institutions would be guaranteed seats on the board.
Currently five members are appointed from the University of
California.
The Thomas plan does not deal with those recommendations.
The IOM said “far too many” members
of the board have ties to institutions that receive funds from CIRM.
Compilations by the California Stem Cell Report show that about 90
percent of the $1.7 billion that the board has awarded has gone to
institutions linked to directors.
Thomas said that the board last week
“endorsed a framework of proposals that would dramatically change
the way the board works, and directly addresses the concerns and
recommendations of the IOM, in particular their feeling that the way
our Board works could create a perception of conflict of interest.”
Concerning the change in voting for the
13 board members, Thomas wrote,

“It was not an easy change to propose
and certainly not an easy one for our board members to approve. They
all care deeply about our mission and devote a great deal of thought,
time and energy to helping us do our work. So for 13 of them to agree
to abstain from a key aspect of their work was difficult to say the
least. And yet they did it because they felt it was important for the
overall goal of the agency.”

Thomas continued,

“So why did we take this approach?
It's simple. We want people to focus on the great work we do, on the
groundbreaking research we fund, and the impact we are having on the
field of regenerative medicine not just in California but throughout
the U.S. and around the world. As long as there are perceptions of
conflict of interest hanging over the Board, this will continue to be
difficult.”

Thomas said,

“This puts the economic conflicts
issue to bed once and for all.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/GHXrGjkYixw/cirms-thomas-conflicts-put-to-bed-at.html

CIRM’s Thomas: Conflicts ‘Put to Bed’ at Stem Cell Agency

The chairman of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, Jonathan Thomas, today hailed board
action last week as putting “to bed once and for all” questions
about financial conflicts of interest by members of the agency's
governing board.

Writing on the agency's blog, Thomas
pointed to board approval of a new policy that would bar 13 of the 29
members of the governing board from voting on any grants whatsoever.
The 13 are the members who are “appointed from an institution that
is eligible to receive money.” Three other board members have ties
to institutions that receive money. Two are employees of the institutions and one is the
chair of the University of California board of regents, Sherry
Lansing
. All three are appointed as patient advocate members of the
board. Currently all 16 are barred individually from voting on grants
to their institutions, but they can vote for awards to other
institutions.
Thomas proposed the plan last week to
the governing board, which approved it on a 23-0 vote with one
abstention. Thomas advanced the proposal in response to the
recommendations of a 17-month study by the Institute of Medicine(IOM).
CIRM paid $700,000 for the blue-ribbon report, hoping that it would
serve as the basis for continued financing of the agency beyond 2017,
when funds for new grants run out.
The IOM's far-reaching recommendations
included creation of a majority of independent members on the board,
which would mean some current members of the board would lose their
seats. No institutions would be guaranteed seats on the board.
Currently five members are appointed from the University of
California.
The Thomas plan does not deal with those recommendations.
The IOM said “far too many” members
of the board have ties to institutions that receive funds from CIRM.
Compilations by the California Stem Cell Report show that about 90
percent of the $1.7 billion that the board has awarded has gone to
institutions linked to directors.
Thomas said that the board last week
“endorsed a framework of proposals that would dramatically change
the way the board works, and directly addresses the concerns and
recommendations of the IOM, in particular their feeling that the way
our Board works could create a perception of conflict of interest.”
Concerning the change in voting for the
13 board members, Thomas wrote,

“It was not an easy change to propose
and certainly not an easy one for our board members to approve. They
all care deeply about our mission and devote a great deal of thought,
time and energy to helping us do our work. So for 13 of them to agree
to abstain from a key aspect of their work was difficult to say the
least. And yet they did it because they felt it was important for the
overall goal of the agency.”

Thomas continued,

“So why did we take this approach?
It's simple. We want people to focus on the great work we do, on the
groundbreaking research we fund, and the impact we are having on the
field of regenerative medicine not just in California but throughout
the U.S. and around the world. As long as there are perceptions of
conflict of interest hanging over the Board, this will continue to be
difficult.”

Thomas said,

“This puts the economic conflicts
issue to bed once and for all.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/GHXrGjkYixw/cirms-thomas-conflicts-put-to-bed-at.html

Patient Advocate Reed Defends Patient Advocates on Stem Cell Board

Patient advocate Don Reed, declaring that the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 17-month study of the $3 billion California stem cell agency is "grossly misguided," this weekend nonetheless said the agency took "the high road" in its response to the study's recommendation.

Reed, of Fremont, Ca., was particularly incensed about the IOM's recommendations concerning patient advocates on the board. The IOM said that none of the board members, including patient advocates, should vote on grant applications secretly in grant review groups. The IOM said their votes should be recorded in public at full board meetings. Other patient advocates would still have seats on the grant review group, under the IOM recommendations. But they would not also be members of the governing board.

The IOM also said that CIRM should also revise its conflict of interest standards to regulate personal conflicts of interest, such as those involving particular diseases and patient advocates. Some members of the CIRM governing board bristled at the recommendation, and the board did not act on it last week.

Last Wednesday, the CIRM board acted to permit board members who are patient advocates to continue to participate in the closed door grant review sessions, but not vote on the grants at that stage. Previously patient advocates had two cuts at applications, one in the grant review group and one at the public board meeting.

Writing on the Daily Kos blog, Reed also said that no real conflicts of interest currently exist on the board, although 90 percent of the $1.7 billion that has awarded has gone to institutions tied to board members.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/SmmFtyc1zXo/patient-advocate-reed-defends-patient.html

IOM's Shapiro Wants to See More Changes from California Stem Cell Agency

Additional mainstream media news
coverage surfaced last Friday involving the California stem cell
agency's response to the blue-ribbon report from the Institute of
Medicine(IOM)
, whose concerns about the agency ranged from conflicts of interest to grant
appeals by rejected researchers.

One of the more interesting pieces was
done by Stephanie O'Neill of Los Angeles radio station KPCC. To her
credit, she contacted the chairman of the IOM panel, Harold Shapiro,
for his fresh take on what the stem cell agency's board did on
Wednesday.
His comments were somewhat different
than those read Wednesday at the CIRM board meeting. On Friday, Shapiro was quoted as
saying the board action was “an important first step forward,”
but he added a caveat. O'Neill wrote,

“'I’m encouraged by this,' Shapiro
told KPCC. 'Presumably in the future they’ll take other steps. But
these are steps they could take without any legislative approval and
…I think it does respond in a pretty significant way to the spirit
of the report.'
“But Shapiro expressed concern that
the agency is making only 'small moves' to address a recommendation
that CIRM separate operations from oversight. Currently, the ICOC
functions 'both as an executor and as an overseer—competing duties
that compromise the ICOC’s critical role of providing independent
oversight and strategic direction,' according to the December IOM
report.
“'But  I do understand… that
would be a move that they would have to take over time so we’ll
have to wait and see,' Shapiro said.
“Thomas agreed and said that while
CIRMs recommendations more clearly define the roles of chairman and
president, more refinements will be likely over time.”

From the Los Angeles Times, came a
piece from Eryn Brown. Her article was brief and she referred her
readers to the California Stem Cell Report for details. Her first
paragraph said,

“Changes may be on the way at
California’s stem cell funding agency.”

In coverage outside the mainstream media,
the Burrill Report carried an article by Daniel Levine. The Burrill
Report is produced by Burrill & Co., a San Francisco life
sciences financial firm. Levine's straight-forward account was
largely based on the CIRM press release and the IOM report.
Two bloggers surfaced with some
coverage. UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler, who is a CIRM
grantee, called the Thomas plan a “bold one-year experiment” and
“biggest development for CIRM in many years.” Knoepfler said,

“I’m still not sure I’m a fan of
all of the proposed changes, but I would say the plan is bold and
creative.”

On livingbiology.com, an unidentified
CIRM grantee carried a few brief items live from the meeting.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/A2ayEbm2Se0/ioms-shapiro-wants-to-see-more-changes.html

IOM’s Shapiro Wants to See More Changes from California Stem Cell Agency

Additional mainstream media news
coverage surfaced last Friday involving the California stem cell
agency's response to the blue-ribbon report from the Institute of
Medicine(IOM)
, whose concerns about the agency ranged from conflicts of interest to grant
appeals by rejected researchers.

One of the more interesting pieces was
done by Stephanie O'Neill of Los Angeles radio station KPCC. To her
credit, she contacted the chairman of the IOM panel, Harold Shapiro,
for his fresh take on what the stem cell agency's board did on
Wednesday.
His comments were somewhat different
than those read Wednesday at the CIRM board meeting. On Friday, Shapiro was quoted as
saying the board action was “an important first step forward,”
but he added a caveat. O'Neill wrote,

“'I’m encouraged by this,' Shapiro
told KPCC. 'Presumably in the future they’ll take other steps. But
these are steps they could take without any legislative approval and
…I think it does respond in a pretty significant way to the spirit
of the report.'
“But Shapiro expressed concern that
the agency is making only 'small moves' to address a recommendation
that CIRM separate operations from oversight. Currently, the ICOC
functions 'both as an executor and as an overseer—competing duties
that compromise the ICOC’s critical role of providing independent
oversight and strategic direction,' according to the December IOM
report.
“'But  I do understand… that
would be a move that they would have to take over time so we’ll
have to wait and see,' Shapiro said.
“Thomas agreed and said that while
CIRMs recommendations more clearly define the roles of chairman and
president, more refinements will be likely over time.”

From the Los Angeles Times, came a
piece from Eryn Brown. Her article was brief and she referred her
readers to the California Stem Cell Report for details. Her first
paragraph said,

“Changes may be on the way at
California’s stem cell funding agency.”

In coverage outside the mainstream media,
the Burrill Report carried an article by Daniel Levine. The Burrill
Report is produced by Burrill & Co., a San Francisco life
sciences financial firm. Levine's straight-forward account was
largely based on the CIRM press release and the IOM report.
Two bloggers surfaced with some
coverage. UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler, who is a CIRM
grantee, called the Thomas plan a “bold one-year experiment” and
“biggest development for CIRM in many years.” Knoepfler said,

“I’m still not sure I’m a fan of
all of the proposed changes, but I would say the plan is bold and
creative.”

On livingbiology.com, an unidentified
CIRM grantee carried a few brief items live from the meeting.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/A2ayEbm2Se0/ioms-shapiro-wants-to-see-more-changes.html