CIRM Grants Reviews Reveal No Peer in Stem Cell Research

Since the beginning, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) has been asking their board members’ institutions to recommend their out-of-state collaborators, strategic partners, consortium members, and favorite kin to CIRM scientific grant review committees. As a result, CIRM scientific grant review committees are full of special interest connections, but really lacking any peers in stem cell research. In those scientists’ eyes, the public is easily fool-able. Although scientific term is required to be as accurate as the technology allows, Shinya Yamanaka put a confusing term to his iPS cells, easily got the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to divert hundreds of millions of tax dollars to human cloning endeavor, and then CIRM to follow suit. Since CIRM board controlled by UCs and large institutes finally got rid of the few human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) advocates on board, including former Chair Bob Klein and patient advocate Don Reed, and installed their loyal servant Ellen Feigal for easy access of freebies, CIRM board’s slightest concern for the law has vaporized and CIRM special interest awards have exploded. Although Alan Trounson does have all the qualification to be a peer in stem cell research, anyone with a magnification glass can easily see that Alan Trounson got a lawyer on his tail, nowadays, any word coming out of Alan Trounson’s mouth is just as safe as Geron’s trial --- no effect whatsoever, only worth to secure his top paid CA state official status. Voice of Regenerative Medicine (VORM) is not CA state government entity, attorney general, oversight committee, or paid review committee to check on those wrongdoers feed on public funds beyond the boundary of scientific misconducts and ethical standards can stop. However, VORM is peer in stem cell research, and will begin to provide independent stem cell critiques that CIRM has been in debt to the public, only for what we are gifted and for the love of sciences.

Below please see Dr. Parsons’ response letter to CIRM uncharacteristic grant reviews to her hESC proposals that meet exactly the scientific merits on criteria for Prop 71 awards recommendation,

Dear CIRM,

San Diego Regenerative Medicine Institute (SDRMI) human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research proposal CIRM Basic Biology IV RFA-11-03 Pre-Application RB4-06272, titled “MicroRNAs in directing pluripotent human embryonic stem cells cardiac lineage specification to cardiomyocytes”, meets exactly the scientific merits on criteria for Prop 71 awards recommendation, including innovative approach; cardiac lineage-specific differentiation of hESCs; ground-breaking new technology for generating cardiac precursors and cardiomyocytes direct from pluriptoent hESCs in high efficiency, purity, and cardiac lineage specificity; focus on genome-scale profiling of miRNAs in the cascade of hESC cardiac progression towards beating cardiomyocytes; essential for revealing molecular determinants in hESC cardiac fate decision and understanding of molecular cardiogenesis in human embryonic development; essential for understanding the basic biology of hESC cardiac lineage specific differentiation and advances of stem cell research of Prop71. However, such important hESC research proposal for understanding the basic biology of hESC cardiac lineage specific differentiation was blocked of lawful funding from Prop71 by CIRM non-transparent, biased, conflict-of-interest, anti-Prop71 objectives and scientific merit review. I’d appreciate it if CIRM gives this important hESC basic biology proposal lawful consideration for funding from California Stem Cell Research and Cure Bond Act (Proposition 71).

CIRM Review: Score: 2, Preliminary data is descriptive and qualitative; totally unclear how the differentiation protocol employed will enable analysis of "stages" of cardiomyogenesis; objectives lack focus, thus results expected to be too diffuse to provide any novel mechanistic insights.

Applicant Response: CIRM pre-application is abstract style, limits words and space, not allow data, description, and anything more than general statement, not enough information for score and critique. Whether the proposal is eligible for CA stem cell research & bond act/Prop71 and critical to CIRM’s mission should be the first and only consideration for pre-selection of grants. All applicants can only describe their data in abstract style of CIRM pre-application format. This proposal focuses on understanding basic biology of hESC cardiac lineage specific differentiation, using novel high efficient cardiac lineage-specific differentiation of pluripotent hESCs by small molecule induction. MicroRNA (miRNA) expression profiling using microarrays is a powerful high-throughput tool capable of monitoring the regulatory networks of entire genome and identifying functional elements of developmental processes in high resolution. This proposal will reveal critical regulators and mechanisms in hESC cardiac fate decisions, thereby aid developing safe and effective hESC-based therapy for heart disease and failure.

As stated in our previous emails, SDRMI Grant Application for CIRM Early Translational II Research Awards Pre-Application RFA-11-02 TR3-05505 “Heart precursors directed from human embryonic stem cells for myocardium regeneration” has met the scientific merit of Prop71, including novel efficient approach, new & better hESC-derived cell therapy product for functional heart muscle regeneration, high stem/progenitor activity for heart muscle regeneration, dramatically increase the clinical efficacy & safety for heart diseases, therapy development critical to Prop71, targeting unmet medical need & urgent to heart patients. However, it was blocked of lawful funding from Prop71 by CIRM non-transparent pre-application with biased, conflict-of-interest, anti-Prop71-objectives and scientific-merit reviewer comments. I’d appreciate it if CIRM gives this important hESC early translational research proposal lawful consideration for funding from California Stem Cell Research and Cure Bond Act (Proposition 71).

SDRMI Grant Application for RFA 10-05 CIRM DISEASE TEAM THERAPY DEVELOPMENT AWARDS Application Number DR2-05339 “Developing human-pluripotent-stem-cell-derived neuron regeneration therapy for spinal cord repair” has met the scientific merit of Prop71, including novel efficient approach, novel stem cell therapy, new & better hESC-derived cell therapy product, high stem/progenitor activity for nerve regeneration that has been lacking, dramatically increase the clinical efficacy & safety, targeting both acute and chronic SCI patients, much broader population and better cell therapy than Geron’s trial, stem cell therapy development critical to Prop71, unmet medical need & urgent to SCI patients. However, CIRM has never brought up this important hESC novel SCI cell therapy development proposal of Prop71 for lawful consideration. Instead, CIRM has diverted Prop71 funding to award unlawful non-pluripotent stem/progenitor cell non-viable projects, such as mesenchymal stem cells, endogenous tissue cells and Stem Cell Inc's adult cells derived from tissues that are not eligible for Prop71 funding. Stem Cell Inc has not made their tissue-derived adult stem cells work for any clinical indications for over 10 years, CIRM should not put them on their top special interest list for funding just because it is Irv Weissman/Stanford’s company. I’d appreciate it if CIRM gives this important hESC novel SCI cell therapy development proposal lawful consideration for funding from California Stem Cell Research and Cure Bond Act (Proposition 71).