Page 586«..1020..585586587588..600610..»

Epigenetics Underpins Homosexuality – Genetic Engineering News

By Dr. Matthew Watson


Genetic Engineering News
Epigenetics Underpins Homosexuality
Genetic Engineering News
Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News | http://www.genengnews.com. Biotechnology from bench to business. Follow GEN on: Follow GEN on Facebook · Follow GEN on YouTube · Follow GEN on Twitter · Follow GEN on LinkedIn · Login | Register | Subscribe ...

and more »

Source:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNH7cijlyqOuHbHTwuTz9STfzrQM8g&url=http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/epigenetics-underpins-homosexuality/81247763/

To Read More: Epigenetics Underpins Homosexuality – Genetic Engineering News
categoriaUncategorized commentoComments Off on Epigenetics Underpins Homosexuality – Genetic Engineering News | dataDecember 16th, 2012
Read All

Cliff Spells Danger for Biotechs – Genetic Engineering News

By Dr. Matthew Watson


Genetic Engineering News
Cliff Spells Danger for Biotechs
Genetic Engineering News
Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News | http://www.genengnews.com. Biotechnology from bench to business. Follow GEN on: Follow GEN on Facebook Follow GEN on YouTube Follow GEN on Twitter Follow GEN on LinkedIn · Login | Register | Subscribe ...

Source:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNF4P1b2fnxqUN8o_y924hIvW3Q8KQ&url=http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/cliff-spells-danger-for-biotechs/77899735/

To Read More: Cliff Spells Danger for Biotechs – Genetic Engineering News
categoriaUncategorized commentoComments Off on Cliff Spells Danger for Biotechs – Genetic Engineering News | dataDecember 16th, 2012
Read All

Should Genetically Engineered Food Be Labeled? Florida Legislators Agree to … – New Times Broward-Palm Beach (blog)

By Dr. Matthew Watson


New Times Broward-Palm Beach (blog)
Should Genetically Engineered Food Be Labeled? Florida Legislators Agree to ...
New Times Broward-Palm Beach (blog)
Since genetic engineering (GE) is not disclosed on product labels, consumers have no idea what kind of scientific tinkering has been done to those apples, oranges, or turkeys they're about to ingest. The folks behind Food & Water Watch want to change that.

and more »

Source:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHWsdNuIcBSzIcVKe_m_elQ7emQgQ&url=http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/11/genetically_engineered_food_florida.php

To Read More: Should Genetically Engineered Food Be Labeled? Florida Legislators Agree to … – New Times Broward-Palm Beach (blog)
categoriaUncategorized commentoComments Off on Should Genetically Engineered Food Be Labeled? Florida Legislators Agree to … – New Times Broward-Palm Beach (blog) | dataDecember 16th, 2012
Read All

N.C. Biotechnology Center awards $1.37 million in grants – Winston-Salem Journal

By Dr. Matthew Watson


TheNewsTribune.com
N.C. Biotechnology Center awards $1.37 million in grants
Winston-Salem Journal
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK - The N.C. Biotechnology Center awarded Tuesday more than $1.37 million in grant awards for its first quarter for fiscal year 2012-13, or July through September. The awards went to institutions and organizations across the ...
NC Biotech Center awards $1.37M in grants, other funding :: Editor's Blog at ...WRAL Tech Wire

all 27 news articles »

Source:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHgLZh1-01gt9wGrAFMME02cplAhA&url=http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/article_03fbbafe-43fc-11e2-b001-0019bb30f31a.html

To Read More: N.C. Biotechnology Center awards $1.37 million in grants – Winston-Salem Journal
categoriaUncategorized commentoComments Off on N.C. Biotechnology Center awards $1.37 million in grants – Winston-Salem Journal | dataDecember 16th, 2012
Read All

Genes Are Not The Only Drivers Of Colon Cancer – Medical News Today

By Dr. Matthew Watson


Globe and Mail
Genes Are Not The Only Drivers Of Colon Cancer
Medical News Today
... and relapse. Dick, who is also a Professor in the Department of Molecular Genetics at the University of Toronto, says in a press statement that the study represents a "a major conceptual advance in understanding tumor growth and treatment response".
Scientists Explore Resistance to Colon-Cancer TreatmentEndoNurse

all 41 news articles »

Source:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNFFVPFNEreuDw8TT0LmBJEybpgAew&url=http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/254043.php

To Read More: Genes Are Not The Only Drivers Of Colon Cancer – Medical News Today
categoriaUncategorized commentoComments Off on Genes Are Not The Only Drivers Of Colon Cancer – Medical News Today | dataDecember 16th, 2012
Read All

Of mice and men – Prague Post

By Dr. Matthew Watson


Prague Post
Of mice and men
Prague Post
In the south of Prague, the Institute of Molecular Genetics, part of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (AV?R), is building a vast resource of genetically engineered mice that enable scientists to analyze the function of individual genes.

Source:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNGDm4dAwcoK9QaBumgePEMrbNwSlg&url=http://www.praguepost.com/business/15022-of-mice-and-men.html

To Read More: Of mice and men – Prague Post
categoriaUncategorized commentoComments Off on Of mice and men – Prague Post | dataDecember 16th, 2012
Read All

Health experts advocate implementing personalised medicine – Cordis News

By Dr. Matthew Watson


Cordis News
Health experts advocate implementing personalised medicine
Cordis News
... Society and Brunel University (United Kingdom), Professor Angela Brand from the Institute for Public Health Genomics and Maastricht University (the Netherlands), and Professor Hans Lehrach from the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics ...

Source:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNGW8BfeJiZJDY7Bh_y95Gka1ef43Q&url=http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER%3DEN_NEWS%26ACTION%3DD%26SESSION%3D%26RCN%3D35343

To Read More: Health experts advocate implementing personalised medicine – Cordis News
categoriaUncategorized commentoComments Off on Health experts advocate implementing personalised medicine – Cordis News | dataDecember 16th, 2012
Read All

The ROI on pant-wearing and other social media tips

By Dr. Matthew Watson

With many things in life, there is a payoff for doing them.  Do the dishes and the kitchen is cleaner, your household is more functional, and hopefully one or more family members notice and appreciate you for it.



For other things, however,  the people around you have such high expectations you'll do them that you only lose points if you don't but gain very little if you do.  For you, this may be true of the dishes.  Certainly I've always maintained this is true for Valentine's Day.  Get flowers and you simply maintain the relationship's status quo; fail to do anything and you lose big points fast.  


Similarly, at some point certain things become so ubiquitous that they are expected as a baseline.  This is true of putting on your pants.

The global head of social media for Ford Motor Company, Scott Monty, once asked, "What's the ROI* of putting your pants on in the morning?".   The truth is that there is very little benefit to putting on your pants other than to avoid the significant cost of not doing so.

Certainly this is true now of having a website or an email address for your company.  Unlike a couple decades ago, no company gets kudos for having a website or email addresses but it would certainly raise eyebrows of criticism if your company failed to have them.

Arguably social media participation is not quite there yet but it is, I submit, fast approaching.  Someday in the not-too-distant future you will receive the cringe of shame if your company is not active in the leading social media platforms of the day.  Today - for companies - these are LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook.  This will be true irrespective of whether yours is a B2B or B2C company.
Recently I was invited to write an article for Future Medicine's special issue for the World Stem Cell Report.  I was asked to make the case for why and how participating in social media stood to benefit the scientists, companies, executives, employees, academics, activists, and other stakeholders in the cell therapy industry.  

The result is "Why the stem cell sector must engage with social media".  What I attempted to succinctly outline are the ways social media primarily benefit one's career and organization or company.


"I can tell you without the slightest hesitation of conviction – having experienced it myself and seen it repeated countless times – is that active and successful social media engagement translates into:

  • Unparalleled learning: accessing more information relevant to your discipline, specialty and company than you otherwise will. 
  • Enhanced profile: higher profile within your industry, profession, specialty and community. Social media is not the only way to build a profile but it can be very effective.
  • Wider network: more touch points and meaningful relationships with people than you otherwise will accomplish by any other means combined."
The measurable impacts and benefits are real and certainly include:
  • Traffic: "For companies, increased traffic equals increased opportunity to call readers/viewers to your intended action – interaction, citation, linking, investing, buying or engaging in some other action you solicit. For individual professionals, increased viewers translate into more chances for collaboration, citation, engagement, etc."
  • Collaboration: "There is an intrinsic correlation between one’s profile and the opportunities one has for collaboration. For companies this means finding the right partnerships, joint ventures, strategic alliances, collaborators, employees, management and so on. For individual professionals, this means more and/or better quality invites to speak, write or collaborate in other ways. It also means finding quality grad students, faculty, employees and interns
  • Revenue/IncomeThis is about translating a broader knowledge base and a wider network over which you have some level of influence (if only just that they are listening) into more money for your company, organization and yourself. For companies, this means finding the right partners, investors, customers and so on. For organizations this means finding the right donors, impressing the right grant reviewers and/or recruiting the right rain-maker faculty. For individual professionals this translates into promotions or job offers."

As I conclude my article I will conclude here:

    "In order to create the kinds of perceptions and solicit the kinds of actions we want from the world around us, we must engage the world around us. The world around us is engaging online. 

    For all kinds of selfish and selfless reasons you, your company or organization and your career will benefit from you engaging there too."

    and this prediction:

    "...in less than the blink it took for the commercial world to accept websites and email, it will seem similarly ridiculous for professionals, academics and companies to operate and succeed without actively using social media."

    ____________


    If this topic is of interest to you, here are some great resources particularly focused on the value of social media to those in life sciences.


    Canaday, M. Is Life Science Social Media Worth It Yet? Three Tenets Behind Its Relevance To Your Business. Comprendia. 6 December 2012. 


    Bersenev A. Scientific blogging as a model for professional networking online. Cellular Therapy and Transplantation. 2010;2(7). 10.3205/ctt-2010-en-000084.01. 


    Bersenev, A. Scientific blogging as a model for professional networking online. 4 August 2010. StemCellAssays.com 


    Bersenev, A. Who’s Who in the Stem Cell Blogosophere.  27 June 2011. StemCellAssays.com 


    Bishop, D.  How to bury your academic writing. Bishop’s Blog. 26 August 2012. 



    Buckler, L. If You’re Breathing, You’re in PR. Cell Therapy Blog. 11 June 2010.  

    Buckler, L. Don’t feel the pain of ignoring social media? Just wait a minute…. CellTherapyBlog.com 22 October 2008.    

    Jewell, T. Survey: How our scientists use social media. AZHealthConnections.com. 12 February 2012. 


    Knoepfer, P. Top ten tips for blogging for scientists. 2 August 2012. IPScell.com   


    Shipman, M. Why Scientists Should Publicize Their Findings – for Purely Selfish Reasons. Scientific America. Blog. 18 June 2012. 
         
    Shipman, M. A gentle introduction to Twitter for the apprehensive academic. Scientific America. Blog.  14 June 2011.  


    Small, G. Time to Tweet. Nature 2011. 479 141 2 November 2011 


    Wilcox, C. Social Media for Scientists Part 1: It’s Our Job. Scientific American Blog. 27 September 2011.  


    Wilcox, C. Social Media for Scientists Part 2: You Do Have time. Scientific American Blog. 29 September 2011.  


    Wilcox, C. Social Media for Scientists Part 3: Win-Win. Scientific American Blog. 10 October 2011.  

    Wilcox, C. Guest Editorial: It’s time to e-Volve. Taking Responsibility for Science Communication in a Digital Age. Biol Bull. 22285-87. (April 2012)  

    The Rules of Social Media.  Fast Company.  8 August 2012. 


    Source:
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CellTherapyBlog/~3/k7ANTnLXNjc/the-roi-on-pant-wearing-and-other.html

    To Read More: The ROI on pant-wearing and other social media tips
    categoriaRegenerative Medicine commentoComments Off on The ROI on pant-wearing and other social media tips | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

    A proposed 6-step platform for the cell therapy industry to consider in combating non-compliant cell therapy treatments

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

    Tweet 


    Further to my recent post, "Six steps to fighting non-compliant cell therapy treatments. The stuff of grey shades, spades, ivory towers and (ahem) balls.", I have crafted a 6-point platform that I propose to submit (with potential edits based on preliminary feedback) to several of the leading  industry and professional organizations for their consideration including ARM, ISCT, ISSCR, FACTAABB  ICMS, and perhaps, in due course, to patient groups, physician groups, disease-specific professional organizations (e.g, cardiology, oncology, neurology, cosmetic, etc).



    I welcome comments and feedback. 


    1. In addition to helping patients distinguish between compliant and non-compliant treatments (and providers) we must do more to help patients distinguish between non-compliant cell therapy treatments (and providers) which are more or less risky. 


    2. Whatever we do in response to this issue should be done with an eye to being practical and helpful to patients in the real-life context of their decision about whether or not to buy a non-complaint cell therapy.


    3. Our response to this issue should be based on a risk-based approach recognizing that not all non-compliance is created equal.  We should create a framework for risk-based analysis (both for us and our audiences) and focus initiatives around those which present the highest risk.


    4. We recognize the problem of non-compliant cell therapies is not just a problem that exists in jurisdictions with little, no, or poor regulation but that is a growing problem even in the most highly regulated jurisdictions meaning the solution cannot be regulated it depends on education and enforcement.


    5. We recognize regulatory agencies cannot enforce non-compliance on their own.  We as an industry need to complement their efforts through our own standards and enforcement.


    6. Stakeholder groups should support the formation of a multi-organizational  initiative to, based on a risk-based assessment, spotlight the categories or signs of highest-risk offenders for use by patients and/or their physicians in identifying  whether or not treatments (and providers) they may be considering fall into the that category associated with the highest level of risk.


    What do you think?

    Source:
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CellTherapyBlog/~3/wkSMxAV9938/a-proposed-6-step-platform-for-cell.html

    To Read More: A proposed 6-step platform for the cell therapy industry to consider in combating non-compliant cell therapy treatments
    categoriaRegenerative Medicine commentoComments Off on A proposed 6-step platform for the cell therapy industry to consider in combating non-compliant cell therapy treatments | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

    Two More Editorials: The California Stem Cell Agency Should Heed IOM Recommendations for Reform

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

    Two other major California newspapers
    today said the $3 billion California stem cell agency needs to “clean
    up its act” if it wants to be successful in continuing its efforts
    at turning stem cells into cures.

    The editorials appeared in the Los Angeles
    Times
    , the state's largest circulation newspaper at more than
    700,000, and the San Jose Mercury News in California's Silicon Valley.
    The Mercury News has a reported circulation of nearly 600,000,
    although that figure includes other Bay Area newspaper owned by the
    same chain.
    Both editorials focused on the 17-month evaluation of the agency by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) as did earlier editorials in The Sacramento Bee and the San Francisco Chronicle. The IOM recommended sweeping reforms at the agency that would alter its structure and target conflicts of interest. 

    “The $700,000 spent on the
    study...will be wasted if the institute's oversight board fails to
    heed the (IOM) committee's
    criticisms,
     which echo the findings of the Little Hoover
    Commission
    and other groups over the years.”

    The editorial continued,

    “The 29-member board is made up
    almost entirely of representatives of advocacy groups and research
    institutions that have a direct interest in how the money is spent.”

    The Times cited the California Stem
    Cell Report'
    s calculations that about 90 percent of the $1.7 billion awarded by CIRM has gone to institutions linked to current and former members of its governing board. 
    The Times noted an award to a Northern California firm that has stirred some criticism. The editorial said,

    “The board also overrode the advice
    of its scientific advisors — twice on a single application when it
    considered a grant for a well-connected company, StemCells Inc. based
    in Newark, Calif. The board granted the company $20 million after Robert Klein, the driving force behind the passage of Proposition 71,
    which created and funded the agency in 2004, and its former head,
    lobbied so intensively for the company that one board member
    described it as 'arm-twisting.'"

    The Times concluded,

    “The agency has used more than half
    of its funding and one day will almost certainly want to ask
    taxpayers for more. It should remember that voters will look for
    evidence of public accountability as well as respected research.”

    The San Jose paper sounded a similar
    note about the agency. Its editorial said,

    “(I)f it wants to survive...it
    should heed the Institute of Medicine's advice to eliminate conflicts
    of interest on its board -- and do it before awarding the remaining
    $1.2 billion of the $3 billion voters approved for stem cell
    research.”

    But the paper said the stem cell agency
    should not be provided any more state funding.

    “Long-term funding was never the
    intent when Proposition 71 passed in 2004. It was supposed to
    kick-start research at a time when federal funding was blocked and to
    establish California as a major player in the rapidly advancing
    medical field. 

    “The agency could continue to bring
    value to the state as an advocate and funder of research, but only if
    it can attract private donors, partners and investors. For that to
    happen, it will need a board that passes the ethics test, with more
    independent experts and industry executives free of conflicts. 

    “At the outset, stem cell advocates
    took immense pride in structuring the agency to keep it relatively
    free of legislative interference despite the use of public money.
    Politicians kept their hands off, which was good. But the agency
    created its own inappropriate influences in the way it constituted
    its board. Now it needs to clean up its act.“

    Source:
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/hjDmQPb6wDs/two-more-editorials-california-stem.html

    To Read More: Two More Editorials: The California Stem Cell Agency Should Heed IOM Recommendations for Reform
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on Two More Editorials: The California Stem Cell Agency Should Heed IOM Recommendations for Reform | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

    Meager Coverage of Yesterday’s Bristling IOM-CIRM Meeting

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

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

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

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

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

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

    To Read More: Meager Coverage of Yesterday’s Bristling IOM-CIRM Meeting
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on Meager Coverage of Yesterday’s Bristling IOM-CIRM Meeting | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

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

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

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

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

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

    To Read More: Appeals at the California Stem Cell Agency: Worthwhile or Worthless?
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on Appeals at the California Stem Cell Agency: Worthwhile or Worthless? | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

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

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hiltzik concluded, 

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

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

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

    To Read More: LA Times: On the California Stem Cell Agency and Wasting $700,000
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on LA Times: On the California Stem Cell Agency and Wasting $700,000 | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

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

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

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

    Here is the list of researchers who won awards today.

    New Faculty Physician Scientist Translational Research Awards

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

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

    To Read More: Winners From Today’s Awards by the California Stem Cell Agency
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on Winners From Today’s Awards by the California Stem Cell Agency | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

    ViaCyte Wins Another $3 Million from California Stem Cell Agency

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

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

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

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

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

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

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

    To Read More: ViaCyte Wins Another $3 Million from California Stem Cell Agency
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on ViaCyte Wins Another $3 Million from California Stem Cell Agency | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

    Constitutional Questions Raised on Sweeping Changes at the California Stem Cell Agency

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

    The outside counsel to the governing board of the California stem cell agency is preparing an opinion on whether some of the major changes recommended by the blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine(IOM) study might require a vote of the people.

    More than three years ago, the same issue was raised  and used by the agency to resist unwanted changes.

    Kevin McCormack, agency spokesman, said today that James Harrison of Remcho Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro will perform the analysis. Harrison has been counsel to the CIRM board since its inception. He also wrote part of Proposition 71, which created the stem cell agency in 2004.

    Harrison's analysis was disclosed after CIRM Director Sherry Lansing, who is also chairwoman of the University of California Board of Regents, said this morning that the board's "hands are tied" concerning some of the IOM proposals because they could require a vote of the people. Other members of the board bristled at the IOM recommendations.

    In 2009, Harrison tackled a similar task in connection with related, proposed structural changes at the $3 billion stem cell research effort. In reaction to proposals by the Little Hoover Commission, the state's good government agency, Harrison said,

    “The Little Hoover Commission’s proposals would effect drastic and disruptive changes to CIRM’s governance and operating systems. Such changes run counter to the voters’ intent, and do not further Proposition 71’s purposes.”

    The California Stem Cell Report wrote at the time, 

    "The 10-page legal memo hung most of its arguments on a provision in Prop. 71 that states that it can only be amended by the legislature if the changes 'enhance the ability of the institute to further the purposes of the grant and loan programs.'
    "Harrison's memo said the Hoover proposals (in question) could only be enacted through another ballot measure...."

    The Little Hoover proposals dealt with the structure of the board and the conflicting responsibilities of the president and the chairman. The IOM has recommended major changes in both areas and approvingly cited the Hoover study .

    Harrison's analysis will also delineate which IOM recommendations can be implemented by board action and which will require legislative approval.

    The IOM report, which cost the stem
    cell agency $700,000, recommended a host of changes that critics for
    years have said are needed. But the 17-month study also went beyond
    what the critics had proposed. The IOM said that the 29-member
    governing board should be stripped of power to approve individual grants.
    Instead, the board would be limited to voting for or against a slate
    of applications.
    The IOM also proposed far-reaching
    changes to remove conflict of interest problems, clean up a troubling
    dual-executive arrangement and fundamentally change the nature of the
    governing board. The recommendations would greatly strengthen the
    role of the agency's president, significantly alter the role of
    patient advocates on the governing board and engage the biotech
    industry more vigorously.
    CIRM's governing board and its first chairman, Robert Klein, an attorney who directed the writing of the stem cell initiative and wrote parts of it, have mightily resisted related proposals. In 2009, Klein even warned of lawsuits if legislative action were initiated for reforms (see here and here). 
    In an editorial todayThe Sacramento Bee said changes are long overdue at the agency. The Bee said CIRM has "been consumed by a siege mentality that has prevented any real introspection.”  In another editorial earlier this week,
    the San Francisco Chronicle said that prompt and major changes are
    needed at the agency.
    Many of the more significant
    recommendations clearly require either a rare, super, supermajority vote of
    the legislature (70 percent) and the signature of the governor or
    another ballot initiative, which is very unlikely. Achieving the 70
    percent vote is exceedingly difficult except on the most
    noncontroversial matters before the legislature. The requirement
    permits only 13 members of the 40-member Senate to block any CIRM
    legislation, giving minority viewpoints extraordinary power over the
    content of any CIRM legislation.

    Source:
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6UqNIAVe5JY/constitutional-questions-raised-on.html

    To Read More: Constitutional Questions Raised on Sweeping Changes at the California Stem Cell Agency
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on Constitutional Questions Raised on Sweeping Changes at the California Stem Cell Agency | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

    A Singular Scientific Story: Duchenne’s Disease, a Family and the California Stem Cell Agency

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

    Unusual and personal conditions,
    including a tie to the $3 billion California stem cell agency,
    surround a promising scientific development reported today by a
    husband and wife research team at UCLA
    Their research involves Duchenne
    muscular dystrophy (DMD), an inherited disease that afflicts about
    one in 3,600 boys and results in muscle degeneration and, eventually,
    death.
    Carrie Miceli
    UCLA photo
    The researchers, Stan Nelson and Carrie
    Miceli
    , said they have discovered a promising FDA-approved drug that
    could advance the fight against the affliction.
    Miceli and Nelson have an 11-year-old
    son, Dylan, with the disease. They have been studying the affliction
    for some time, but their most recent and ambitious research plan was
    rejected earlier this year by stem cell agency grant reviewers, a process that
    normally kills an application. Undaunted, Miceli and Nelson appealed
    to the full stem cell agency board last July. Backed by an emotional
    presentation involving patient advocates, they won approval of a $6
    million grant.
    Adding to all this, their appeal used a
    process known as an “extraordinary petition,” which the Institute
    of Medicine (IOM)
    last week said should be abandoned because it undermines
    the integrity of the CIRM grant review process.
    Stan Nelson
    UCLA photo
    Even prior to the IOM recommendation,
    the CIRM board was moving to restrict its free-wheeling
    appeals procedures.
    As for the $6 million CIRM grant, it will carry the important burden of advancing the findings that were published in the
    journal Science Translational Medicine. However, the money was not used in the study reported today.
    The research showed that dantrolene, the FDA-approved drug, “provides a powerful boost to
    the (Duchenne) therapy currently being tested in clinical trials,”
    according to a UCLA press release.
    The news release said,

    “(The researchers) hope this one-two
    punch used in combination will overcome the genetic mutations that
    cause DMD, restore a missing protein needed for proper muscle
    function and allow those affected by the disease to lead relatively
    normal lives.”

    “Their youngest son, Dylan, 11, was
    diagnosed with DMD in 2004. While he’s still ambulatory – many
    DMD patients require the use of wheelchairs by about age 10 – Dylan
    can no longer run or climb stairs and he can’t shoot a basketball
    over his head like other boys his age.  Despite these
    challenges, Miceli said Dylan remains a happy, funny and engaged boy,
    full of life and passion.

    “'We entered into this field because
    of the diagnosis of our son, but we hope our research can help many
    others,' she said. 'There are drugs that can help manage the symptoms
    of the disease, but nothing that changes its course dramatically.
    We’re trying to correct the defect that causes DMD with highly
    personalized genetic medicine.'” 

    UCLA said the grant from CIRM will be
    used for “longer term studies of their drug combination therapy in
    mouse models to ensure it can restore dystrophin levels to normal or
    near normal levels. They also will explore whether DMD patients with
    other mutations can benefit from the combination therapy.”

    Asked for comment, Kevin McCormack, a
    spokesman for the stem cell agency, said today's findings "are certainly
    very encouraging." He continued,

    "Clearly there is still a long way
    to go before we know if this approach will work in people but we're
    delighted that funding from the stem cell agency is helping  the
    researchers move their work forward....This is what voters set out to
    do when they approved Proposition 71 to create the stem cell agency."

    Source:
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/aAacD9507GI/a-singular-scientific-story-duchennes.html

    To Read More: A Singular Scientific Story: Duchenne’s Disease, a Family and the California Stem Cell Agency
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on A Singular Scientific Story: Duchenne’s Disease, a Family and the California Stem Cell Agency | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

    Some California Stem Cell Board Members Bristle at IOM Recommendations

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

    Some directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency today sharply challenged recommendations by the Institute of Medicine(IOM) concerning conflicts of interest and the role of patient advocates on the governing board.

    Much  of the criticism came from the 10 patient advocate members on the board, whose roles would be significantly altered  under the IOM recommendations. Jeff Sheehy, a patient advocate for HIV/AIDs and vice chairman of the agency's grant review group, said he saw no evidence in the IOM report for its recommendations regarding patient advocates. He said,

     "If you had some here, I would be more comfortable." 

    He continued,

    "We are not all powerful. We are a minority on the (29-member) board." 

    Jonathan Shestack, another patient/adovcate director, said the IOM's conclusions on "conflicts of interest could not possibly be more incorrect than they are." He said,

    "Advocates are here to advocate."

    Harold Shapiro, chairman of the IOM study, said, "We are not against patient advocates." He said that the IOM supports advocates and that its recommendations could increase the role of patient advocates, albeit in a different manner.

    Shapiro added that conflicts of interest do not necessary bar participation by board members. He said, however, they must be disclosed and managed.

    Director Robert Price of UC Berkeley said,

     "We have gone to great lengths to manage conflicts of interest."

    The IOM recommended that all board members be removed from the grant review process, which would be turned over to the CIRM president. The board would only vote on a slate of applications, not individual grants. More disclosure would be required of personal conflicts of interest, including health matters, that the board said research has shown can create bias.

     The IOM report said,

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

    More than 90 percent of the $1.7 billion that the CIRM board has awarded has gone to institutions that are represented on the CIRM governing board.

    J.T. Thomas, chairman of the CIRM board, said that the agency takes the recommendations "very seriously" and that they would discussed further at a board workshop in early January. The workshop is scheduled to be public but the date and location has not been announced. Thomas said the recommendations will receive "lengthy discussion" thereafter and review by appropriate subcommittees of directors.

    No one from the public commented during the roughly 90 minute discussion.  Eighteen out of 29 board members were present at the beginning of today's meeting.

    Source:
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/m0FfxPnJUes/some-stem-cell-board-members-bristle-at.html

    To Read More: Some California Stem Cell Board Members Bristle at IOM Recommendations
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on Some California Stem Cell Board Members Bristle at IOM Recommendations | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

    IOM Report: Many Major Changes at Stem Cell Agency Require Legislation

    By Dr. Matthew Watson

    As the Institute of Medicine began its presentation today to the governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, one of its key directors, Sherry Lansing, pointed out that some of the IOM recommendations require legislative action and perhaps a vote of the people.

    Her essential point was that the agency is hamstrung by the very measure that created it in 2004. She did not elaborate on her comment, but here is a look at some of matters she was talking about. (Lansing is chairwoman of the UC board of regents and former CEO of a Hollywood film studio.)

    The ballot measure locked in management minutia and more, and then slapped on tight restrictions that make it nearly politically impossible to alter even such matters as who is in charge of production of the annual report. (By order of law, the chairman, in case you are wondering.)

    And if the 29-member governing board -- so sized and specified to every nit and nat by the ballot measure -- wants to make the sweeping changes recommended by the IOM, agency directors face a formidable task in California's Capitol.

    Many of
    the most important recommendations for the California stem cell
    agency require a vote of the California legislature and
    signature of the governor. The IOM's choice of words – that these proposals “may” need legislation – is conservative. There is little doubt that legislative action would be needed to fully implement the recommendations below.

    The vote needed is no simple majority. It is a rare, super,
    super-majority (70 percent) of each house. The requirement was also written into state law by Proposition 71, the 10,000-word ballot initiative
    that created the stem cell agency. The 70 percent requirement gives extraordinary power to minority viewpoints that must be dealt with to win passage of legislation. In the state Senate, for example, it would take only  13 senators to block a bill.  
    With that background, here are direct quotes from the IOM report on its legislative recommendations.
    Separate Operations from Oversight
    The board should focus on strategic
    planning, oversee financial performance and legal compliance, assess
    the performance of the president and the board, and develop a plan
    for transitioning CIRM to sustainability. The board should oversee
    senior management but should not be involved in day-to-day
    management. The chair and the board should delegate day-to-day
    management responsibilities to the president. Each of the three
    working groups should report to management rather than to the ICOC.
    Change the Composition and Structure of
    the Board and Working Groups
    CIRM should put systems in place to
    restructure the board to have a majority of independent members,
    without increasing the size of the board. It should include
    representatives of the diverse constituencies with interests in stem
    cell research, but no institution or organization should be
    guaranteed a seat on the board. Consideration should be given to
    adding members from the business community. The terms of board
    members should be staggered to balance fresh perspectives with
    continuity.
    The chair and other ICOC members should
    be prohibited from serving on the working groups. During the
    reconstitution of the working groups, the current level of
    representation of disease advocates should be maintained, such board
    members being replaced with other disease advocates who are not board
    members.
    Revise Conflict of Interest
    Definitions and Policies
    CIRM should revise its definitions of
    conflict of interest to recognize conflicts arising from nonfinancial
    interests, such as the potential for conflict arising from an
    individual’s interest in a specific disease, and should reassess
    its policies for managing conflict of interest in light of this
    broader definition.
    Restructure the Grant Review and
    Funding Process
    CIRM should restructure the grant
    review and funding process to separate oversight and strategic
    planning from day-to-day operations. The ICOC should remain
    responsible for oversight and articulation of an overall strategic
    plan. However, grant management, funding recommendations, and grant
    administration should be the responsibility of the CIRM scientific
    staff, reporting to the president. This restructuring would help
    mitigate concerns related to conflicts of interest and would also put
    the review and funding process in the hands of those best equipped to
    make those decisions.
    The committee recommends several
    changes pertaining to the development and approval of RFAs,
    composition of the Grants Working Group, reordering of rankings by
    CIRM staff, notification of applicants, and process for making final
    decisions.
    Enhance Industry Representation in Key
    Aspects of CIRM Organization
    Industry representation on the ICOC,
    the Scientific Advisory Board, the Standards Working Group, and the
    Grants Working Group should be enhanced to leverage industry’s
    expertise and resources in product development, manufacturing, and
    regulatory approval in support of the ultimate goal of bringing
    therapies to patients.
    Consider Harmonizing Intellectual
    Property Policies 
    with Policies of Bayh-Dole Act
     As
    other sources of funding for stem cell research become available and
    as the field of regenerative medicine advances from the laboratory to
    the clinic, the ICOC 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 Bayh-Dole
    Act.  

    Source:
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/xcudV6_VtGE/iom-report-many-major-changes-at-stem.html

    To Read More: IOM Report: Many Major Changes at Stem Cell Agency Require Legislation
    categoriaStem Cell Therapy commentoComments Off on IOM Report: Many Major Changes at Stem Cell Agency Require Legislation | dataDecember 16th, 2012
    Read All

    Stem Cells Regenerate New Finger! – Video

    By JoanneRUSSELL25


    Stem Cells Regenerate New Finger!
    This is a CBS news feature on the exciting world of regenerative medicine ie stem cell therapy which is used to treat injuries with the help of regeneration of new tissues. The uploaded video is not the property of Stemade Biotech Pvt. Ltd. ("the Company"), and the Company shall not be held responsible for the authenticity and accuracy of information presented in this video.From:StemadeBiotechViews:5 0ratingsTime:04:09More inScience Technology

    Read more:
    Stem Cells Regenerate New Finger! - Video

    To Read More: Stem Cells Regenerate New Finger! – Video
    categoriaUncategorized commentoComments Off on Stem Cells Regenerate New Finger! – Video | dataDecember 15th, 2012
    Read All

    Page 586«..1020..585586587588..600610..»


    Copyright :: 2024