While I agree with some of this, the fact is that CIRM promised voters cures in the very near future if only they could get funding. They over promised and under delivered no matter how you want to sugarcoat this. And why is this person not wanting to be identified? That seems very odd to me.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
A Global Stem Cell Perspective: CIRM's Accomplishments in a Field Tougher than Rocket Science
David Jensen
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-global-stem-cell-perspective-cirms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/QUrJz+(California+Stem+Cell+Report)
The comments below were emailed to the California Stem Cell Report yesterday in the wake of recent news coverage of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the state's stem cell agency is known.
The author, who asked not to be identified, has followed the field of stem cell research worldwide since its inception. Here is the text of the remarks.
"As you know, I am usually reticent about putting in my two cents worth regarding CIRM and all the politics swirling around the subject. But the recent published items, as well as radio interviews on the subject, have made me quite uncomfortable. I was not in California when Proposition 71 came on the ballot, so I cannot speak to the hype and campaign promises made that swayed the public. But I have to take issue with some of the nonsense that has been reported as news.
"Here are some relevant facts:
"1. People forget that in 2004, the NIH, the major agency in the US funding biomedical research, prohibited funding most of the research needed for this field to move forward. Forget about clinical trials, even basic research was severely curtailed based on unscientific premises. This meant that while other countries could move ahead, US scientists could not step into the arena. Prop. 71 was proposed to unshackle Californian scientists so that they could compete in the research arena on a par with UK, Canada, Australia, and many other countries eager to take advantage of this new discovery.
"2. Lest people forget, the NIH rules at that time were so onerous that anything -- buildings, maintenance, and equipment -- partially or wholly funded by the federal government could not be used to conduct human embryonic stem cell research. Hence the need for CIRM to fund the building of labs, infrastructure and facilities early on. This is not an idea to mindlessly benefit academic institutions, but to allow their investigators to conduct stem cells research without using anything (buildings, equipment, personnel) paid for by federal funds.
"3. Biomedical research is not like rocket science - it is much harder and much less predictable. Twenty years after the big push by Congress to cure Parkinsons’ Disease by building Udall Centers and mandating funding for this effort - PD is still not cured. Alzheimers Disease has been a target of the NIH for decades; just this year, they are increasing funding for this effort. Yet - no cure in sight. Add to the growing list the “War on Cancer” declared by Nixon in 1971. How much progress was made by 1981? Yet look at all the success today? The fact is that biomedical research is much harder than engineering, and we should be patient instead of whining about the slow rate of progress. It behooves the critics of CIRM to remember that success in research requires time and money. Things are just beginning to ramp up exponentially by the end of the first 10 years.
"4. Finally, taking a world-wide view of the state of human stem cell research, CIRM has to be considered a great success. CIRM supported the first few clinical trials using human embryonic stem cell products. At the end of 2017, there were 17 clinical trials using human embryonic stem cells. Of these 11 are conducted in the US, and all 11 are initiated in California or conducted in California - this is completely due to CIRM. Of the 11 trials, 6 are directly funded by CIRM, and NONE by the NIH. So without CIRM, there will be few or no clinical trials using this new technology in this country!"
POSTED BY DAVID JENSEN
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
A Global Stem Cell Perspective: CIRM's Accomplishments in a Field Tougher than Rocket Science
David Jensen
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-global-stem-cell-perspective-cirms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/QUrJz+(California+Stem+Cell+Report)
The comments below were emailed to the California Stem Cell Report yesterday in the wake of recent news coverage of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the state's stem cell agency is known.
The author, who asked not to be identified, has followed the field of stem cell research worldwide since its inception. Here is the text of the remarks.
"As you know, I am usually reticent about putting in my two cents worth regarding CIRM and all the politics swirling around the subject. But the recent published items, as well as radio interviews on the subject, have made me quite uncomfortable. I was not in California when Proposition 71 came on the ballot, so I cannot speak to the hype and campaign promises made that swayed the public. But I have to take issue with some of the nonsense that has been reported as news.
"Here are some relevant facts:
"1. People forget that in 2004, the NIH, the major agency in the US funding biomedical research, prohibited funding most of the research needed for this field to move forward. Forget about clinical trials, even basic research was severely curtailed based on unscientific premises. This meant that while other countries could move ahead, US scientists could not step into the arena. Prop. 71 was proposed to unshackle Californian scientists so that they could compete in the research arena on a par with UK, Canada, Australia, and many other countries eager to take advantage of this new discovery.
"2. Lest people forget, the NIH rules at that time were so onerous that anything -- buildings, maintenance, and equipment -- partially or wholly funded by the federal government could not be used to conduct human embryonic stem cell research. Hence the need for CIRM to fund the building of labs, infrastructure and facilities early on. This is not an idea to mindlessly benefit academic institutions, but to allow their investigators to conduct stem cells research without using anything (buildings, equipment, personnel) paid for by federal funds.
"3. Biomedical research is not like rocket science - it is much harder and much less predictable. Twenty years after the big push by Congress to cure Parkinsons’ Disease by building Udall Centers and mandating funding for this effort - PD is still not cured. Alzheimers Disease has been a target of the NIH for decades; just this year, they are increasing funding for this effort. Yet - no cure in sight. Add to the growing list the “War on Cancer” declared by Nixon in 1971. How much progress was made by 1981? Yet look at all the success today? The fact is that biomedical research is much harder than engineering, and we should be patient instead of whining about the slow rate of progress. It behooves the critics of CIRM to remember that success in research requires time and money. Things are just beginning to ramp up exponentially by the end of the first 10 years.
"4. Finally, taking a world-wide view of the state of human stem cell research, CIRM has to be considered a great success. CIRM supported the first few clinical trials using human embryonic stem cell products. At the end of 2017, there were 17 clinical trials using human embryonic stem cells. Of these 11 are conducted in the US, and all 11 are initiated in California or conducted in California - this is completely due to CIRM. Of the 11 trials, 6 are directly funded by CIRM, and NONE by the NIH. So without CIRM, there will be few or no clinical trials using this new technology in this country!"
POSTED BY DAVID JENSEN