CHAIRMAN KLEIN: BRING THE MEETING TO ORDER, PLEASE. WE HAVE A VERY BUSY AGENDA. IF ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS COULD PLEASE BE SEATED. WE'RE GOING TO BRING THE MEETING TO ORDER, AND I WOULD LIKE, AS THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS BEFORE WELCOMING, IF MELISSA KING WOULD PLEASE EXPLAIN THE OPERATION OF THE MICROPHONES TO THE BOARD AND TO STAFF.

MS. KING: THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE A BLUE MICROPHONE HAVE AN ON-OFF BUTTON LEAVE AND ARE ABLE TO LEAVE YOUR MICROPHONES ON. BOB, WOULD YOU HOLD UP YOUR MICROPHONE AND SHOW THE BOARD.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SHE'S REFERRING TO THIS BUTTON HERE.

MS. KING: EVERYBODY WHO HAS ONE OF THOSE MICROPHONES, GRAB THE NUMBER CARD IN FRONT OF IT AND HOLD IT UP, PLEASE, SO THE LADY IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM CAN SEE IT. IF YOU HAVE A BLUE MICROPHONE WITH AN ON-OFF BUTTON, HOLD YOUR NUMBER UP, PLEASE, AND SHE'LL TURN THEM ON.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IF THE AUDIENCE WOULD PLEASE AWARD PRIZES.

MS. KING: THANK YOU. SO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE THOSE MICROPHONES, IF YOU COULD MAKE SURE THAT THE ON-OFF SWITCH IS IN THE OFF POSITION WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE HAVE A VERY POWERFUL AUDIO SYSTEM, SO WE DON'T WANT THEM ALL ON AT ONCE SO WE GET FEEDBACK FOR EVERY LITTLE SCRATCH YOU MAKE ON A PIECE OF PAPER.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MELISSA, FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE THAT TYPE OF MICROPHONE, HOW DOES IT FUNCTION?

MS. KING: THOSE OF YOU WHO DO NOT HAVE THAT TYPE OF MICROPHONE, EITHER USE YOUR NEIGHBOR'S MICROPHONE OR HOLD UP YOUR NUMBER CARD, AND WE'LL TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON. THERE'S A SMALL NUMBER CARD IN FRONT OF YOU, DR. PIZZO, IF YOU WOULD HOLD THAT UP, THEY'LL TURN YOUR MIC ON FOR YOU.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SO WHEN I IDENTIFY A SPEAKER, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS TYPE OF MICROPHONE FIRST IDENTIFIED, IF YOU WILL IDENTIFY YOUR NUMBER, IT WILL HELP THE AUDIO PERSON IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM TO MAKE CERTAIN IT IS ON AS YOU SPEAK.

WELCOME TO THE ICOC, THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE'S MEETING. I WENT TO HIGH SCHOOL HERE IN FRESNO, FRESNO HIGH. AND THE HOTEL CALIFORNIAN, WHICH YOU MIGHT RECOGNIZE FROM A FAMOUS SONG, IS ABOUT TWO BLOCKS OVER. SO WE ARE HERE IN THE HEARTLAND TO CELEBRATE THE ADVANCEMENT OF A NEW FRONTIER OF SCIENCE. AND WE APPRECIATE DR. PRECIADO'S HOSPITALITY FROM THE GOOD PEOPLE OF FRESNO. MY FATHER WAS THE FIRST CITY MANAGER, SO I HAVE LONGTIME TIES TO THIS CITY AND TO THIS REGION.

WE HAVE TO COVER A NUMBER OF VERY IMPORTANT ITEMS. AND IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING CERTAIN THAT WE GET A NUMBER OF THE VERY CRITICAL ITEMS DEALING WITH OUR SCIENCE COVERED THAT I HAVE REORDERED THE AGENDA TO SOME EXTENT. BASICALLY THE KEY THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE WORKING GROUPS, GRANTS AND STANDARDS, HAS BEEN MOVED BEFORE THE LUNCH AND BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SITE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS BEEN MOVED RIGHT AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE ARE ALL ENTHUSIASTIC, AND WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS COMMITMENT TO THE SITE SEARCH. SCIENCE IS OUR MISSION, AND WE NEED TO PUT IT RIGHT UP FRONT.

IF MELISSA KING COULD LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

(THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND, MS. KING, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MS. KING: DR. PAUL JENNINGS FOR DAVID BALTIMORE.

DR. JENNINGS: (NODS HEAD.)

MS. KING: DR. BOB PRICE FOR DR. BIRGENEAU.

DR. PRICE: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. KEITH BLACK.

DR. BLACK: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. SUSAN BRYANT.

DR. BRYANT: HERE.

MS. KING: MICHAEL GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. FRANK MARKLAND FOR BRIAN HENDERSON.

DR. MARKLAND: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. EDWARD HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. DAVID KESSLER.

DR. KESSLER: HERE.

MS. KING: BOB KLEIN.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: HERE.

MS. KING: MS. SHERRY LANSING.

MS. LANSING: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. GERALD LEVEY.

DR. LEVEY: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. TED LOVE.

DR. LOVE: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. RICHARD MURPHY.

DR. MURPHY: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. TINA NOVA.

DR. NOVA: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. ED PENHOET.

DR. PENHOET: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. PHILIP PIZZO.

DR. PIZZO: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. CLAIRE POMEROY.

DR. POMEROY: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. PHYLLIS PRECIADO.

DR. PRECIADO: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. FRANCISCO PRIETO.

DR. PRIETO: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. JEANNIE FONTANA HERE FOR JOHN REED.

DR. FONTANA: HERE.

MS. KING: MS. JOAN SAMUELSON.

MS. SAMUELSON: HERE.

MS. KING: MR. DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: HERE.

MS. KING: JEFF SHEEHY.

MR. SHEEHY: HERE.

MS. KING: JONATHAN SHESTACK. DR. OSWALD STEWARD.

DR. STEWARD: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. LEON THAL.

DR. THAL: HERE.

MS. KING: GAYLE WILSON.

MS. WILSON: HERE.

MS. KING: DR. JANET WRIGHT.

DR. WRIGHT: HERE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL GO STRAIGHT TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. ARE THERE PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE WE BEGIN THE FORMAL AGENDA? SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE WILL GO TO AGENDA ITEM 4, CONSENT ITEMS.

THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS OUR CONSENT ITEM OF LAST MONTH'S BOARD MEETING MINUTES. IS THERE A MOTION TO PASS THIS CONSENT ITEM?

DR. PIZZO: SO MOVED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MOVED BY DR. PIZZO.

DR. WRIGHT: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SECONDED BY DR. WRIGHT. IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED? ITEM PASSES.

AGENDA ITEM 5, THE CHAIRMAN'S REPORT. GIVEN THE SCHEDULE TODAY, I WILL ATTEMPT TO BE BRIEF. I WANT TO ACCENTUATE TWO TOPICS. THE FIRST TOPIC DEALS WITH PENDING STATE LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND ACCOMPANYING LEGISLATION. I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS EVERYONE ON THE VERY THOUGHTFUL LETTERS THAT ARE IN YOUR BINDERS WHERE CAL TECH, USC, STANFORD, AND UC HAVE ALL WRITTEN TO THE LEGISLATURE ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS ON THE LEGISLATION.

THIS IS A PHENOMENAL COLLABORATION OF VISION REALIZED HERE, THAT WE HAVE A NORTH-SOUTH COLLABORATION, ALL LOOKING AT SCIENCE AND OUR MISSION TOGETHER. BUT TO HAVE BOB *HINDS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ENTIRE UC SYSTEM; DAVID BALTIMORE, THE PRESIDENT OF CAL TECH AND A MEMBER OF OUR BOARD, NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY, BUT SENT AN ALTERNATE; THE PRESIDENT OF STANFORD, DR. HENNESSEY; AND THE PRESIDENT OF USC, DR. SAMPLE, ALL TO AGREE THAT THERE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY SOME MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED AND THE ADJOINING LEGISLATION IS A TREMENDOUS UNITED STATEMENT.

WE HOPE THAT INDIVIDUALS WILL LOOK BENEATH THE SURFACE AT THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE ISSUES BECAUSE THOSE -- ALL OF THOSE ON THE BOARD, ALL OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC, SEVEN MILLION, WHO CREATED THE MANDATE FOR PROP 71, 59 PERCENT OF THE VOTE, ARE FOCUSED ON THE VERY BEST SCIENCE AND THE VERY BEST STRUCTURE TO ADVANCE THE SEARCH FOR MEDICAL THERAPIES.

I WOULD INDICATE THE ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL UNIVERSITIES HAS AN ATTACHED LETTER AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS CONCERN, AND THE CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE, WHICH IS A COLLABORATION OF UNIVERSITIES AND THE BIOTECH SECTOR, ALSO HAVE A LETTER ON FILE. WE WILL NOT GO INTO ANY SIGNIFICANT REVIEW OF THIS LEGISLATION TODAY. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT A REAL BROAD CONSENSUS IS FORMING IN OUR SOCIETY, THAT THIS LEGISLATION AND THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NEED TO BE SERIOUSLY LOOKED AT IN-DEPTH BEYOND THE NOMINAL STATEMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE, WHICH ARE NOT BACKED UP BY GOOD SCIENCE OR A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.

THE SECOND TOPIC IS A BRIDGE FINANCING PROPOSAL TO ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD ON OUR CRITICAL GRANT PROGRAM IN THE FACE OF LITIGATION. THIS IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM TODAY. IT'S AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO EVERYONE THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT A SMALL MINORITY OF INDIVIDUALS NATIONALLY, RIGHT TO LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, A GROUP THAT IS AN ANTICHOICE GROUP, THAT IS AGAINST IN VITRO FERTILIZATION CLINICS, A GROUP THAT IS AGAINST -- WAS AGAINST PROPOSITION 71, THEY ARE THE LEGAL COUNSEL ON THE LITIGATION TO TRY AND SLOW DOWN THIS INITIATIVE.

THEY HAVE FILED A SUIT TO TRY AND STOP US FROM PUTTING MONEY OUT TO HONOR OUR MANDATE TO THE VOTERS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL OF PUTTING TOGETHER $100 MILLION FROM VARIOUS CHARITABLE DONORS THAT WOULD CREATE A BRIDGE FINANCING OF OUR PROGRAMS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND HONOR THIS MANDATE FROM THE PUBLIC SO THAT WE CAN HIRE ALL OF OUR SCIENTIFIC STAFF ON OUR SCHEDULE AND MAKE CERTAIN THAT THIS MOMENTUM TO DEVELOP NEW RESEARCH TO ADVANCE MEDICAL THERAPIES IS NOT SLOWED DOWN.

AS NANCY REAGAN SAID, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE ANY MORE TIME. UNDER THIS BRIDGE FACILITY, THE PHILANTHROPISTS, CHARITABLE GIVERS WOULD LOAN THE MONEY INTO THE INSTITUTE AND ITS PROGRAMS. WHEN THE BONDS WERE SOLD, THEY WOULD BE PAID BACK. THERE WOULD BE NO LIABILITY TO THE STATE. IF FOR SOME TOTALLY UNKNOWN REASON WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ISSUE BONDS AT ANY TIME BECAUSE OF THIS LITIGATION, THE LOAN WOULD BECOME A GRANT. SO THE STATE WOULD HAVE NO LIABILITY UNDER THIS.

THIS IS A PLAN THAT ALLOWS US TO BRING THE TREMENDOUS CIVIC OUTPOURINGS OF THE STATE WE'VE SEEN IN THE COMPETITION FOR THE SITES WHERE TREMENDOUS CHARITABLE DONORS HAVE JOINED WITH THE CITIES TO BRING THESE PHENOMENAL PROPOSALS IN FRONT OF US. IT IS TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF AN ENTIRE FRONTIER OF MEDICAL SCIENCE. IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT A MOVEMENT BORN IN CALIFORNIA WILL BE HONORED, AND A MANDATE OF THE VOTERS CANNOT BE DENIED BY A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT DO NOT RESPECT DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND DO NOT RESPECT THAT CHRONIC ILLNESS BRINGS SUFFERING AND DAILY DAMAGE TO THESE PATIENTS OF FAMILIES THAT LIVE THROUGH THIS YEAR AFTER YEAR.

I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ANNOUNCE THAT BASED UPON A MEETING THAT DR. ZACH HALL AND I AND ED PENHOET HAD WITH THE GOVERNOR EARLIER THIS WEEK, THAT THE GOVERNOR IS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION AND THE PROGRESS WITH PROP 71. AND HE'S AGREED TO BE OUR KEYNOTE SPEAKER AT THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE WE HOST OR CO-HOST SOMETIME THIS SUMMER OR EARLY FALL.

WE BELIEVE THIS WILL BRING THE MEDIA ATTENTION TO SCIENCE, WHICH IS OUR CORE MISSION, AND IT IS SOMETHING TO CELEBRATE. WITH THE GOVERNOR'S TREMENDOUS CHALLENGES, HE IS GOING TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY IN HIS SCHEDULE TO REALLY BACK THIS INITIATIVE THAT HE ENDORSED SO EARLY, ALONG WITH THE TREASURER, THE CONTROLLER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AT THIS TIME AND GO TO THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT. DR. ZACH HALL, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

THE STAFF REMINDS ME, QUITE PROPERLY, TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS POINT OR MEMBERS' COMMENTS ON THE INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS. LET ME TAKE MEMBERS FIRST. ANY MEMBERS COMMENTS ON THE INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS? NO MEMBERS' COMMENTS. PUBLIC COMMENT? DR. HALL, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

DR. HALL: THANK YOU, BOB. WE HAVE SOME AUDIOVISUAL DIFFICULTY HERE. I HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. THOSE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR NOTEBOOKS UNDER, I THINK IT'S, TAB 6; IS THAT RIGHT? AND FOR OTHERS, WE'LL TRY TO GET IT WORKING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THERE'S NOTHING OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE ON IT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. HALL, YOUR MICROPHONE IS ON, BUT IT APPEARS TO BE SENSITIVE TO WHERE YOU ARE STANDING. SO IF YOU WILL FOCUS ON SPEAKING INTO IT.

DR. HALL: CAN I BE HEARD HERE? JUST DON'T MOVE. SO WE'VE HAD QUITE A BUSY MONTH. BUT RATHER THAN GO THROUGH SOME OF OUR ACTIVITIES, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME TODAY WITH OUR BUSY SCHEDULE, I WOULD LIKE TO COVER TWO THINGS. YOUR NOTES THERE WILL TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL DISCUSS TODAY. BUT THE TWO CRITICAL THINGS THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS, FIRST OF ALL, TO INTRODUCE TO YOU DR. ARLENE CHIU, WHO HAS JOINED US FROM NIH. PLEASE GIVE HER A WELCOME.

(APPLAUSE.)

DR. HALL: SHE'S A TERRIFIC ADDITION TO OUR STAFF. AS YOU KNOW, SHE'S GOING TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF OUR SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM AND REVIEW. AND WE HAVE -- SHE ARRIVED ON WEDNESDAY, AND WE'VE ALREADY PUT HER TO WORK IMMEDIATELY. AT ANY RATE, SHE IS GOING TO BE THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM, AND WE ARE DELIGHTED TO HAVE HER JOIN US.

THE SECOND THING I JUST WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO, THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE, A COUPLE OF OUR ACTIVITIES THIS MONTH, WE DID MEET RIGHT AFTER THE LAST ICOC MEETING, AT LEAST MARY MAXON DID, MADE A VISIT TO UCLA. AND SHE ALSO ATTENDED A MEETING IN SAN DIEGO AND ACTUALLY WENT TO A STEM CELL LAB COURSE SPONSORED BY THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY AND BURNHAM INSTITUTE, WHICH WAS VERY HELPFUL TO US IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES OF PROVIDING, NOT ONLY LABORATORY SPACE, BUT ALSO COURSEWORK FOR THE STUDENTS, PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LEARNING THESE TECHNIQUES. AND THAT WILL INFLUENCE WHAT I'LL TALK ABOUT LATER.

FINALLY, I JUST WANTED TO CALL YOUR INFORMATION TO AN INFORMATION ITEM. WE HAVE BEGUN EXPLORATORY TALKS WITH THE PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE CALLED PLOS, AND THAT IS A GROUP THAT HAS STARTED TO SERIES OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS. THESE ARE WEB-BASED JOURNALS IN WHICH ARTICLES ARE POSTED ON THE WEB AND ARE AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO SEE THEM. THEY HAVE TWO JOURNALS.

ONE IS CALLED PLOS BIOLOGY AND THE OTHER IS CALLED PLOS MEDICINE. THEY'RE EXTREMELY HIGH QUALITY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LIKE ABOUT THEM IS THEY HAVE WONDERFUL EXPLANATORY ARTICLES IN THE BEGINNING ABOUT EACH OF THE SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES.

WE THINK THERE COULD BE A REAL OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR HAVING AN OPEN-ACCESS JOURNAL DEVOTED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH. AND WE HOPE TO WORK WITH THEM TO BRING THAT ABOUT. WE PLAN TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH IN JUNE AT THEIR MEETING AND HOPE THEY WILL JOIN US AS A THIRD PARTNER. WE THINK THIS COULD BE OF TREMENDOUS HELP IN BRINGING THE RESULTS OF OUR RESEARCH TO THE PUBLIC IMMEDIATELY. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO GO ON-LINE AND LOOK AT THEIR JOURNALS. IT'S PLOS, AND I THINK YOU WILL BE IMPRESSED.

THAT'S REALLY ALL I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THESE TOPICS. I NOW WANT TO TURN -- GO AHEAD WITH THE NEXT TOPIC; IS THAT RIGHT, BOB? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. HALL, IN ORDER TO OFFICIALLY ADVANCE THIS PROGRAM, WOULD LIKE TO GO TO AGENDA ITEM 6 THAT ADDRESS -- EXCUSE ME -- AGENDA ITEM 8 TO ADDRESS THE BASIC GOVERNANCE OF THE WORKING GROUPS.

DR. HALL: THIS IS REALLY A CONTINUATION OF A DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AT THE LAST MEETING, AND IT ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE SEVERAL OF THE ISSUES. AND THEN ALSO TO CONTINUE SOME OF THOSE ACTIVITIES. THAT IS IN YOUR -- EVERYBODY HAS FOUND THE RIGHT TABS FOR THAT, TAB 8.

THE FIRST IS, IF YOU RECALL AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE DEALT WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES FOR TWO OF OUR THREE WORKING GROUPS; THAT IS, THE GRANTS REVIEW WORKING GROUP AND THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP. WE PRESENT AND IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR BOUND MATERIAL A CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY NOW FOR OUR THIRD WORKING GROUP, WHICH IS THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP.

SINCE THEY WILL MAKING GRANTS AND WORKING WITH THOSE WHO HAVE APPLICATION FOR FACILITIES, THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT IS MODELED ON THE GRANTS REVIEW STATEMENT, BUT WITH APPROPRIATE MODIFICATIONS FOR FACILITIES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. HALL, TAB 8, YOU ARE ALSO GOING TO COVER THE GOVERNANCE ITEM UNDER TAB 8.

DR. HALL: THAT COMES. I'VE GOT ABOUT THREE ITEMS HERE. I'LL MOVE RIGHT THROUGH THEM. I PROMISE.

REVIEWERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES FROM APPLICATION IF THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND IT WILL BE OUR JOB TO WORK WITH THEM TO IDENTIFY THOSE.

THIS IS AN INFORMATION ITEM. YOU HAVE THE MATERIAL IN YOUR NOTEBOOK. PLEASE LOOK AT IT, COMMENT ON IT IN OUR NEXT MEETING. WE WILL HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON THIS ISSUE.

THE SECOND THING I WANTED TO BRING UP WAS ALSO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WE HAD A DISCUSSION LAST ICOC MEETING ABOUT WHETHER THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP SHOULD HAVE CLOSED CONFIDENTIAL MEETINGS AS ORIGINALLY ENVISAGED, SHOULD HAVE OPEN MEETINGS OR SHOULD HAVE A COMBINATION. AND THE SENSE OF THE GROUP WAS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE OPEN AS POSSIBLE IN THESE MEETINGS, BUT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, IF POSSIBLE, A MORE WORKABLE VERSION OF THE BAGLEY-KEENE STRICTURES.

AND SO WE HAVE ENGAGED A LAWYER, KENNETH TAYMORE, WHO HAS AGREED ON A PRO BONO BASIS TO HELP US RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. HE IS WORKING WITH MARY MAXON AND CHRISTINA OLSSON. THEY HAVE BEGUN THEIR WORK BY TRYING TO DEFINE THE TASK OF THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP BASED ON PROPOSITION 71. AND THERE'S A SUMMARY OF THAT IN DOCUMENT IN YOUR MATERIAL, BUT A REPORT ON THIS WILL BE AT THE NEXT MEETING. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE WORKING ON IT. AND KEN HAS DONE A TERRIFIC JOB AND HAS ALREADY SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME ON THIS ISSUE SO WE WOULD HOPE HAVE SOMETHING TO REPORT TO YOU.

THE NEXT ITEM IS AN ITEM THAT CAME UP LAST TIME AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE NECESSITY FOR THE WORKING GROUPS TO HAVE CHAIRS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE. AND JEFF SHEEHY RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A PATIENT ADVOCATE INVOLVED IN LEADERSHIP OF OUR WORKING GROUPS.

AND SO I HAVE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH ICOC BOARD MEMBERS AND FOLLOWING UP ON JEFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

THE FIRST DEALS WITH THE GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND WE RECOMMEND THAT THE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS IN GRANTS REVIEW BE CHAIRED BY A SCIENTIFIC MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP WHO IS A CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE WHO PRESIDES OVER THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW AS ENVISAGED IN THE PROPOSITION, WORKS TO STAFF ASSIGN REVIEWERS FOR EACH OF THE GRANTS, TO SCIENTIFIC AD HOCS TO FILL OPEN SLOTS FROM SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATES. WE PROPOSE THAT THERE BE A VICE CHAIR WHO IS A PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP AND WILL PRESIDE OVER A DISCUSSION AFTER THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ABOUT OTHER GRANTS MAY WISH TO BE -- THE COMMITTEE MAY WISH TO BRING BEFORE THIS GROUP FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY BE IN ADDITION TO THOSE OF SCIENTIFIC MERIT. THAT IS, UNUSUAL INNOVATION, THAT IS PORTFOLIO BALANCE, PARTICULAR DISEASES THAT MAY NOT BE COVERED, THAT IS BASED ON PERSPECTIVES FROM PATIENT ADVOCATES OR OTHER POINT OF VIEW OR SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED IN ADDITION.

SO WE PROPOSE THAT THE VICE CHAIR THEN WOULD PRESIDE OVER THIS PART OF THE MEETING AND WOULD ACT AS THE LIAISON BETWEEN THE CIRM STAFF AND ICOC MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT WILL BE PATIENT ADVOCATES. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THIS, OR YOU WANT TO MOVE AHEAD TO THE NEXT AND CONSIDER EVERYTHING AT ONCE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WHY DON'T WE HAVE DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD AND SEE IF THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENTS THIS ITEM.

DR. HALL: SO THIS IS JUST A QUESTION OF --

THERE'S NO NAMES ABOUT WHO THESE SHOULD BE, JUST A QUESTION OF WHERE THE ROLES OF THESE PEOPLE AND WHAT THEY'RE QUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. POMEROY.

DR. POMEROY: JUST A QUESTION, ZACH. HOW ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT THESE PEOPLE WOULD BE CHOSEN? THE PROCESS TO IDENTIFY THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR AND HOW LONG MIGHT THEY SERVE IN THOSE ROLES? IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD IT BE ROTATING OR --

DR. HALL: THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS A SPECIFIC SUGGESTION FOR THE CHAIR, AND THAT WILL BE TAKEN UP IN ED HOLMES' REPORT. AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE QUESTION OF HOW THE VICE CHAIR WOULD BE SELECTED IS OPEN. BUT PRESUMABLY IT WOULD BE SELECTED BY THIS COMMITTEE.

DR. POMEROY: SO OKAY. THE SEARCH COMMITTEE IS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW, AND SO THEY CAN FORWARD A SUGGESTION FOR THE FIRST CHAIR TO US.

DR. HALL: YES.

DR. POMEROY: AFTER THAT HOW WOULD IT HAPPEN?

DR. HALL: WE HAVE NO PROVISION. IF YOU WISH TO MAKE A SUGGESTION FOR THAT AND INCLUDE IT IN THE RESOLUTION, THAT WOULD BE FINE. THE QUESTION HERE IS JUST TO IDENTIFY WHO THEY SHOULD BE AND TO GET US GOING.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AT THIS MOMENT WE'RE UNDER THE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEM. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AND SEE IF WE HAVE A MOTION.

DR. PRECIADO: I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A PROCESS OF REACHING OUT FOR A CO-CHAIR, NOT JUST SORT OF OPEN, LEAVING IT OPEN.

DR. HALL: I DON'T PROPOSE WE LEAVE IT OPEN.

IT'S NOT -- THE ITEM ON THE TABLE HERE IS NOT TO DECIDE WHO IT IS, BUT JUST TO DECIDE FROM WHAT GROUP OF PEOPLE IT SHOULD BE DRAWN.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WHAT DR. HALL IS SUGGESTING IS THAT IT'S A PERFECTLY IMPORTANT SECOND STEP. HE JUST IDENTIFIED THE FIRST STEP IS TO CREATE, I BELIEVE, IT'S A CHAIR OF THE GRANTS GROUP. THAT'S A SCIENTIFIC FIELD, SCIENTIFIC GROUP, PATIENT ADVOCATES A CO-CHAIRS OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE. HE'S TRYING TO SEE IF THIS CONCEPT IS ACCEPTED. THEN AS A SEPARATE ITEM IS HOW THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE SELECTED AND CONFIRMED.

DR. HALL: IT'S JUST FOLLOWING UP. AS I SAY, JEFF HAD RAISED THIS QUESTION, MR. SHEEHY, AT THE LAST MEETING, SO I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION, AND WE HAVE FOLLOWED UP WITH A PROPOSAL BASED ON THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: TWO COMMENTS. FIRST, ZACH, I APPLAUD WHAT YOU RECOMMENDED. I THINK IT'S A VERY LOGICAL ONE FOR A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. I AS ONE PERSON SUPPORT THAT. I PUT FORWARD TO THE GROUP, MAYBE IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I DO THIS WITH HESITATION SINCE OUR SUBGROUP HAS TO MEET AGAIN, BUT OUR SUBGROUP COULD DEVELOP SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, IF YOU WANT, TO BRING BACK TO THE GROUP AS HOW TO THE PROCESS MIGHT WORK TO SELECT A CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR. IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE COULD BRING THAT BACK. I'M SORRY, SUBGROUP MEMBERS, THAT I DID THAT TO YOU.

DR. PIZZO: I WELCOME DR. HOLMES' SUGGESTION. I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES HERE THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. AND THIS WOULD BE QUITE A GOOD FORUM TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. HALL, CAN I GET SHERRY LANSING'S COMMENTS?

MS. LANSING: I JUST TO WANTED TO SAY -- WHEN WE HAD OUR MEETING, THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTION AS TO WHO WOULD BE THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. WOULD THE CHAIR BE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY OR WOULD IT BE A PATIENT ADVOCATE? AND OUR SUBGROUP COMMITTEES' RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THE CHAIR BE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND BE ONE OF THE PEER REVIEW SCIENTISTS AND THAT THE PATIENT ADVOCATE BE THE VICE CHAIR.

I THINK INITIALLY WHAT WE THOUGHT IS THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD VOTE ON WHO THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE --

IN SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS WHO THEY THOUGHT SHOULD BE THE PATIENT ADVOCATE VICE CHAIR, ALL THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND ALSO THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD VOTE ON WHO THEY THOUGHT SHOULD BE THE CHAIR BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE THE WORKING GROUP. THEY WOULD THEN COME TO US, AND WE WOULD HOPEFULLY APPROVE IT. BUT IT SHOULD COME FROM THE SUBGROUP BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE WORKING TOGETHER. WE DON'T NEED TO DECIDE THAT TODAY. THAT WAS OUR INITIAL THOUGHT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. ANY ADDITIONAL BOARD COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? DR -- YES, JOAN SAMUELSON.

I ALMOST MADE YOU A DOCTOR.

MS. SAMUELSON: THAT'S FINE. MY PARENTS THANK YOU. THE CHEAPEST DEGREE I WOULD HAVE.

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO REFLECT ON THIS A BIT MORE. I HAD A LITTLE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL WITH DR. HALL YESTERDAY FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THOUGHT ABOUT IT A BIT. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I SEE RAISED IS THE JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE VICE CHAIR INCLUDES SUPERVISION OF A PROCESS THAT REALLY INVOLVES A LOT OF STRATEGIC PLANNING ISSUES. WHAT WOULD THE PORTFOLIO GRANTS LOOK LIKE? WHAT DISEASES WOULD BE ANTICIPATED TO BE DEALT WITH, AND THE LIKE? AND THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT INFORM THE PEER REVIEW.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S A BIT BACKWARDS AND THAT THE ISSUE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR THE OVERALL GRANT PORTFOLIO IS ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS, AND I THINK IT'S AWFULLY IMPORTANT THAT THAT BE DONE DELIBERATELY, CAREFULLY BEFORE WE GET INTO PEER REVIEW OF SPECIFIC GRANTS.

SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THE THOUGHTS OF THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE. I WOULDN'T WANT US TO APPLY A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ONTO IT BEFORE WE REALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: JOAN, AND I THINK EVERYONE ON THE BOARD AND AUDIENCE REALIZES WE HAVE A SPECIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE WILL DEVELOP. WE HAVE DEFERRED EMBARKING ON THAT WAITING FOR THE PRESIDENT SO THAT THE PRESIDENT, WHO IS THE LEADER OF OUR SCIENTIFIC DIVISION, CAN PARTICIPATE IN THAT PLAN WITH THE BOARD. IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE WANT THAT POLICY LEVEL DISCUSSION TO HAPPEN IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

MS. SAMUELSON: RIGHT.

DR. KESSLER: JOAN, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHERE YOU THINK THE STRATEGIC PLANNING, WHERE YOU THINK THAT SHOULD BE DONE. IS THIS REALLY PART OF THE GRANTS AND SECONDARY REVIEW? IS THIS A SEPARATE GROUP THAT COMES BACK TO THE ICOC? IS IT THE ENTIRE ICOC?

DR. HALL: COULD WE DEFER THAT DISCUSSION?

ACTUALLY I HAVE A SUGGESTION, NOT AN ACTION ITEM, BUT A SUGGESTION AND INFORMATION ITEM IN JUST ONE MOMENT THAT DEALS PRECISELY WITH THAT. SO LET ME JUST SAY THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE THE FINAL WORD AT ALL ON EITHER THE SELECTION OF THE PERSON OR THE PROCESS; HOWEVER, IT SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING WE MIGHT AGREE ON AT THIS POINT IN RESPONSE TO, I THOUGHT, A VERY GOOD AND INTERESTING SUGGESTION BY JEFF SHEEHY. IF WE COULD AGREE ON THIS STRUCTURE, THEN WE COULD MOVE ON TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE DUTIES MIGHT BE AND TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE ACTUAL REVIEW MIGHT TAKE PLACE, AND IN SOME WAYS TO HAVE LEADERSHIP HELP IN DOING THAT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IF I COULD TRY AND DRAW THIS TOGETHER. LET US ASSUME THAT IN YOUR SUGGESTION YOU DID NOT MEAN TO ADDRESS, AND WE WILL NOT ADDRESS IN THE ROLES, WHERE THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS MADE, WHO MAKES IT.

AND SO THAT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE DEALT WITH IN THIS DECISION. SO WE'LL LIMIT THIS DECISION DOWN TO JUST MAKING SURE THAT IN THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE WE HAVE A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR.

AND I BELIEVE LEON THAL HAD A COMMENT.

DR. THAL: I RETRACT IT.

DR. PIZZO: I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR AND MAYBE I CAN JUST SUMMARIZE THIS. WE'RE AGREEING THAT THERE IS A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. I CERTAINLY SUPPORT THAT. BUT WE'RE NOT AGREEING TO THE CONCEPTUAL CREATION OF WHAT A SECOND STAGE REVIEW IS.

DR. HALL: WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT.

DR. PIZZO: WE'RE NOT AGREEING TO THAT YET.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK HE'S PUT A VERY GOOD FIRST SKETCH OUT THERE OF POSSIBILITIES, BUT WE'RE NOT COMMITTING TO THAT OUTCOME AT THIS POINT.

MS. SAMUELSON: I GUESS IT SEEMS THAT ALL THAT'S LEFT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THE TITLE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE TO BE DECIDED LATER. AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A VERY CONSIDERED, CAREFUL EVALUATION OF WHAT THIS IS, UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE OTHER COMMITTEES. AND SO I HAVE MANY MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS. SURE, I KNOW WE WANT TO MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH THIS. AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS ONE THAT WE SHOULD MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH WITH LOTS OF OTHER PRESSING MATTERS ON THE AGENDA TODAY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD SAY THAT, DR. PIZZO AND JOAN SAMUELSON, THE INITIATIVE DOES HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND STAGE THAT'S IN THE INITIATIVE ITSELF AS PART OF THAT PROCESS. SO THAT IS ALREADY LAID OUT FOR US. DR. PRECIADO.

DR. PRECIADO: IS IT THE CHAIR, CO-CHAIR TITLES THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE NEED TO DISCUSS?

MS. SAMUELSON: IT'S THE ROLES. WHAT ARE THE ROLES, AND HOW DO THEY RELATE TO THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP?

DR. PRECIADO: SO IF WE CAN JUST SAY THAT WE ARE CHOOSING LEADERSHIP FOR THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP AND LEADERSHIP FOR THE PATIENT ADVOCATE GROUP AT THIS POINT.

WE'RE JUST MAKING -- WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE SOME LEADERSHIP UNDER THE GRANTS REVIEW.

MS. SAMUELSON: AND I DIDN'T COME INTO THIS THINKING THAT THE PATIENT ADVOCATE GROUP WAS ITS OWN LITTLE AUTONOMOUS GROUP SEPARATE FROM THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE. THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT AREAS OF EXPERTISE REPRESENTED HERE ON THE COMMITTEE, AND IT JUST SEEMS TO BE A SHALLOW ANALYSIS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK, JOAN, FOR DISCUSSION, WHAT I HAVE HEARD, AND CERTAINLY I'M NOT ON THAT COMMITTEE, BUT WHAT I'VE HEARD DESCRIBED BY DR. HALL IS A PROCESS WHERE DURING THE REVIEW THERE WILL BE ABILITY FOR QUESTIONS, THERE WILL BE PARTICIPATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISCUSSION. BUT TO GET INTO THE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC, AN IMPORTANT TOPIC, THAT WE CAN AGENDIZE AFTER YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE HAS A CHANCE TO REALLY DEVELOP IT FOR US. BECAUSE STANDING ON ITS OWN, IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC. WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING HERE IS MAKING A DECLARATION THAT THERE'S SHARED LEADERSHIP.

MS. SAMUELSON: WHICH, OF COURSE, MAKES SENSE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND SO WITH THAT CONSENSUS, WE'RE TRYING TO INCREMENTALLY ADDRESS THE TOPIC, ADOPT THE CONCEPT OF SHARED LEADERSHIP PUBLICLY, AND THEN GO IN WITH YOUR COMMITTEE AND HAVE EACH COMMITTEE, AS APPROPRIATE, DEFINE THEIR OWN PROCESS, BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD, AND HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION ON THAT AS AN AGENDIZED ITEM.

MS. SAMUELSON: AND IF IT'S CLEAR THAT ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS TITLES, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT THOSE ROLES WOULD ENCOMPASS AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUPS AND THE FULL COMMITTEE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. I THINK BOTH TITLES AND CONCEPT OF SHARED LEADERSHIP IS AN IMPORTANT FIRST STEP.

ANY ADDITIONAL BOARD DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM?

ANY PUBLIC DISCUSSION?

MR. SHEEHY: FIRST, I WANT TO COMMEND DR. HALL FOR HIS HARD WORK ON TACKLING THIS THORNY ISSUE AND, I THINK, BRINGING US CLOSE TO A COMPROMISE WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH.

I JUST WANT A POINT OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE FURTHER DISCUSSION IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE. IS THIS GOING TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE? IS THAT --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, AND THEN IT WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD.

DR. HALL: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THAT. LET ME JUST JUMP AHEAD AND SAY THAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ICOC CONSIDER AT A FUTURE MEETING, PERHAPS ITS NEXT MEETING, TAKING OUT OF THE GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE THE ISSUES OF CRITERIA AND REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS AND PUTTING THAT INTO A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ICOC, WHICH WOULD THEN HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THOSE ISSUES, AND KEEP THE GRANTS REVIEW AS THE CORE ISSUE OF THE GRANTS REVIEW ISSUE.

I THINK THE REASON FOR THAT IS I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE DISCUSSION HERE IS WE ARE BEGINNING A NEW PROCESS. AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT TO BE DEFINED ABOUT HOW WE GO ABOUT IT. PROPOSITION 71 IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE SHOULD BE A REVIEW ON THE SCIENTIFIC MERIT THAT IS VOTED ON BY THE 15 SCIENTIFIC MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP. I BELIEVE THAT THAT PART OF THE REVIEW NEEDS TO BE CHAIRED BY ONE OF THOSE 15 SCIENTISTS.

THERE'S THEN A SUBSEQUENT STEP ABOUT WHICH I THINK WE ALL SHARE BOTH SOME CONFUSION AND SOME LACK OF DEFINITION, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED.

AND I THINK I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THAT BE DONE NOT BY THE WORKING GROUP INVOLVING THESE 15 PEOPLE WHO WE BRING IN, BUT BY A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ICOC, WHETHER IT'S ED'S CURRENT COMMITTEE OR ANOTHER ONE. THAT WILL BE NOT VOTED ON TODAY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP AS AN INFORMATION ITEM FOR PEOPLE TO BE THINKING ABOUT FOR NEXT TIME.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. HALL, I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED DR. HOLMES' COMMENT, THAT HE'S GOING TO CONVENE HIS SUBCOMMITTEE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES AND BRING THEM BACK TO THE BOARD.

DR. HOLMES: WE OFFERED TO DO THAT IF THE BOARD SO CHOOSES FOR US TO DO THAT. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO BE DISBANDED TOO.

DR. HALL: I HAVE NO -- THAT'S FINE. WHAT I'M PROPOSING THAT WE NOT DO IS TAKE THIS 22-MEMBER COMMITTEE PLUS BOB KLEIN AND SAY TO THEM YOU DECIDE THESE ISSUES.

THOSE ARE CORE ISSUES FOR THE ICOC, AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE DECIDED. AND I ALSO, FURTHERMORE, THINK IT'S USEFUL TO DO THOSE NOT IN CLOSED SESSION, BUT IN OPEN MEETING IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PIZZO AND SHERRY LANSING.

DR. PIZZO: I SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF WORKING WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR THE SUBGROUP TO AT LEAST STAGE THE DIFFERENT DIALOGUES AND POINT OUT THAT ZACH IS RIGHT ON WE SHOULD BRING IT BACK TO THE ICOC. WHEN YOU COME RIGHT DOWN TO IT, THE GRANTS REVIEW IS THE -- WHAT WE'RE ABOUT, SO WE CLEARLY WANT TO GET THIS CORRECT.

MS. LANSING: CAN I CALL FOR THE QUESTION AND MAKE IT A SIMPLE STATEMENT, THAT WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT THERE BE A CHAIR FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, A VICE CHAIR FROM THE PATIENT COMMUNITY, THE FUNCTIONS OF -- THIS IS THE SECOND PART. THE FUNCTIONS OF THE VICE CHAIR TO BE DETERMINED BY A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, THAT ED HOLMES CONTINUE TO CHAIR. WE WILL OUTLINE THOSE FUNCTIONS AND BRING THEM BACK TO THE OVERALL BOARD.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE, IS PROPOSING A CO-CHAIR. IS THAT INCLUDED IN YOUR MOTION?

DR. HALL: THAT'S A SEPARATE ITEM.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THAT'S FINE. PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE'VE CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. DO WE HAVE A FORMAL MOTION?

DR. PIZZO: I SECOND SHERRY'S MOTION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. SHERRY LANSING MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DR. PIZZO. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? DR. PENHOET.

DR. PENHOET: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP, THE 15 AND THE SEVEN.

MS. LANSING: YES.

DR. PENHOET: SO THEY'RE NOT NEW PEOPLE ADDED TO THE GROUP. SO THEY'RE CHOSEN FROM THE WORKING GROUPS THEMSELVES RATHER FROM THAN FROM THE COMMUNITIES.

MS. LANSING: ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: CALL THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.

ARE WE SEPARATELY NOW HANDLING --

DR. HALL: THANK YOU. LET ME JUST SAY THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US, AS WE GO ABOUT OUR BUSINESS, TO GET THESE. AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN ESTABLISH THESE ISSUES, WE CAN BEGIN TO CHOOSE THE LEADERSHIP, DEFINE THEIR ROLES, AND WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR SPIRIT OF COOPERATING WITH THIS AND HELPING US MOVE THIS ON.

FOR THE WORKING GROUP WE RECOMMEND THAT THERE BE CO-CHAIRS AND THAT THEY REPRESENT TWO OF THE THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS ON THE COMMITTEE WHICH ARE PATIENT ADVOCATES, ETHICISTS, AND SCIENTIST-CLINICIANS. WHICH TWO ARE REPRESENTED CAN VARY WITH TIME. BUT SIMPLY THAT THERE BE CO-CHAIRS AND THAT THEY REPRESENT TWO OF THE THREE GROUPS. STRAIGHTFORWARD ENOUGH. THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM ALREADY. IS THERE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION?

DR. POMEROY.

DR. POMEROY: IS THE PROPOSAL, THEN, DR. HALL, THAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE DEFINED BY THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP SEARCH COMMITTEE ANALOGOUS TO OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION FOR GRANTS?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. KESSLER.

DR. KESSLER: A REVIEW OF --

DR. POMEROY: THE PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING THE CO-CHAIRS, WHAT THEIR JOB DESCRIPTIONS WOULD BE, HOW LONG THEY WOULD SERVE? HOW WOULD ALL THAT GET DEFINED? IS YOUR SEARCH COMMITTEE WILLING TO TAKE THAT ON?

DR. KESSLER: OUR SEARCH COMMITTEE IS PREPARED TODAY TO RECOMMEND CO-CHAIRS ON AN INTERIM BASIS. WE HAVE NOT DEFINED HOW LONG INTERIM IS, BUT WE WANT TO GET THE FIRST SET OF MEETINGS ESTABLISHED. IT MAY BE WORTHWHILE HAVING SOME CLARITY WHAT THAT INTERIM PERIOD SHOULD BE. PERHAPS IT'S THREE MONTHS, PERHAPS IT'S SIX MONTHS. WE WANTED TO GET IT GOING.

AND THEN THE QUESTION IS, AS MS. LANSING, I THINK, MENTIONED, PERHAPS THE ACTUAL WORKING GROUP SHOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AFTER THAT PERIOD WHO THE CO-CHAIRS SHOULD BE TO THE ICOC. BUT WE'RE PREPARED TO AT LEAST DO THIS ON AN INTERIM BASIS AS DR. HALL HAS RECOMMENDED.

WE THINK THAT WHAT'S PUT UP THERE, THE RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE ONE OF EACH MAKES SENSE AND, IN FACT, THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS WORKED OUT, AND WE'RE PREPARED TODAY TO DO THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ANY DISCUSSION?

MS. SAMUELSON: QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION.

DR. KESSLER, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY ONE OF EACH, MEANING ONE OF EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS OR MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP?

DR. KESSLER: WE DIDN'T HAVE THE WISDOM OF DR. HALL'S RECOMMENDATION WHEN WE ACTUALLY DID THIS AT OUR WORKING GROUP. AS YOU WILL REMEMBER, AS IT TURNS OUT, WHAT WE ARE READY TO PROPOSE TODAY HAPPENS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE DISEASE ADVOCATE COMMUNITY AND SOMEONE WITH A BACKGROUND IN MEDICAL ETHICS.

MS. SAMUELSON: RIGHT. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, JUST A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL. AND I GUESS --

I DID HAVE A CONCERN. AND DR. HALL'S PROPOSAL WOULD NOT NECESSARILY ADDRESS IT. THAT IT'S IMPORTANT AT LEAST TO HAVE IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE WORKING GROUPS SOME MEMBER OF THE ICOC WHO ALSO WOULD BE DEFINITELY A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT.

DR. KESSLER: AS IT TURNS OUT, ONE OF THE MEMBERS WE'RE RECOMMENDING AS CHAIR, CO-CHAIR IS A MEMBER OF THE ICOC.

MS. SAMUELSON: BUT AS I UNDERSTAND DR. HALL'S PROPOSAL, IT COULD PERHAPS ROTATE AMONG THE THREE GROUPS, AND THAT WOULD BE THAT AT TIMES IT MIGHT BE ONE ETHICIST, ONE OUTSIDE MEMBER ETHICIST, ONE OUTSIDE MEMBER SCIENTIST AND NO ICOC MEMBER.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: JOAN, COULD I ASK DR. HALL FOR CLARIFICATION OF HIS PROPOSAL. AT ALL TIMES IS IT INTENDED THAT ONE OF THE TWO CO-CHAIRS BE A MEMBER OF THE PATIENT ADVOCATE?

DR. HALL: I DIDN'T STATE THAT EXPLICITLY. I LEFT IT OPEN THAT ALL THREE POSSIBILITIES AT DIFFERENT TIMES MIGHT SERVE. THERE'S NO RECOMMENDATION HERE FOR TERMS, FOR ROTATION, BUT SIMPLY THAT AS A FRAMEWORK THAT AT LEAST TWO OF THE THREE GROUPS SHOULD BE CO-CHAIRS AND TWO OF THE THREE GROUPS BE REPRESENTED.

LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE CHARGE TO THIS COMMITTEE IS A COMPLEX ONE AND IT COVERS A BROAD AREA.

AND I GUESS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION WAS JUST IT SEEMED THAT CO-CHAIRS ARE ADVISABLE. THE NATIONAL ACADEMY COMMITTEE THAT JUST CARRIED OUT AND PUBLISHED THE GUIDELINES HAD, AS YOU KNOW, CO-CHAIRS, AND SO THERE WAS NO INTENT TO PROSCRIBE HOW THAT SHOULD BE. IF IT'S AN ICOC MEMBER, THEN AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE ICOC MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE ARE PATIENT ADVOCATES. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT TO IT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO IT. I DIDN'T INTEND IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I MEANT TO LEAVE IT OPEN.

MS. SAMUELSON: I THINK THAT MAKES IT CONSISTENT WITH THE SEARCH COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS; IS THAT RIGHT, DR. KESSLER? JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.

DR. KESSLER: I THINK IT CERTAINLY IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WOULD BE RECOMMENDING TODAY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PRIETO.

DR. PRIETO: I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS --

MAYBE I'M SPEAKING FOR YOU, JOAN -- THAT YOU ARE RAISING IS WHO REPORTS BACK TO THE ICOC. AND IF THE CO-CHAIRS DON'T ALWAYS INCLUDE AN ICOC MEMBER, THEN WHO BRINGS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THAT WORKING GROUP BACK TO US?

DR. HALL: LET ME REMIND YOU THESE ARE NOT SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE ICOC IN THE SENSE THAT THEY REPORT BACK DIRECTLY. THEY ARE TO PRODUCE WORK PRODUCTS. THEY ARE ADVISORY GROUPS TO THE ICOC, AND THEY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OR PRODUCE GUIDELINES OR GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS AS THE ICOC CHARGES, BUT IT'S NOT THE SENSE THAT WE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORKING GROUP HERE TO REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE AT EACH MEETING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

DR. PRIETO: HOW WOULD IT BE BROUGHT BACK TO US THEN?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IT'S AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DISTINCTION THAT THESE BE ADVISORY GROUPS AND NOT BAGLEY-KEENE SUBCOMMITTEES. AND IF WE COULD HAVE THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, WHEN THE SUBCOMMITTEES WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A STRUCTURE WITH REPORTING BECAUSE THEY'RE TRULY ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

DR. HALL: SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S USE THE RECENT NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT. WE MIGHT EXPECT THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD PRODUCE THE GUIDELINES FOR HUMAN STEM CELL RESEARCH SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE, AND THEY WOULD PRODUCE A DOCUMENT SIMILAR TO THAT. AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE TWO CO-CHAIRS, WHOEVER THEY MIGHT BE, WOULD COME TO THIS COMMITTEE, PRESENT THE DOCUMENT, EXPLAIN IT, ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT; AND THIS COMMITTEE WOULD, UNDER BOB'S -- LEADERSHIP OF THE CHAIR, MR. KLEIN, WOULD THEN CONSIDER WHETHER TO MODIFY IT, WHETHER TO VOTE IT IN, VOTE IT OUT, WHATEVER, BUT THERE IS THE DISTINCTION THEY'RE NOT FORMALLY SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE ICOC WHICH REPORT ON A REGULAR BASIS TO THE ICOC.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: JUST TO CLARIFY, DR. KESSLER, AS I UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE ACTUALLY IS RECOMMENDING, ONE OF THE CO-CHAIRS WILL BE A PATIENT ADVOCATE; IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

DR. KESSLER: WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TODAY OF TWO INTERIM CO-CHAIRS. AS IT TURNS OUT, ONE IS A PATIENT ADVOCATE FROM THE ICOC, ONE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE ICOC.

THAT'S HOW WE JUST ARRIVED AT TWO INTERIM. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY FORMAL DISCUSSION OF WHETHER YOU HAD TO BE A -- EXACTLY HOW MANY CATEGORIES. WE DIDN'T GET INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. I THINK WE DID FEEL, IF MY MEMORY SERVES RIGHT, AND MY COLLEAGUES WANT TO HELP ME, THAT ONE OF THE CO-CHAIRS BEING A MEMBER OF THE ICOC, I THOUGHT WE HAD THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD VALUE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SHERRY LANSING.

MS. LANSING: AGAIN, I'M NOT ON THIS COMMITTEE, SO I'M JUST OBSERVING THIS. BUT THAT THE ONLY -- THEN THE ONLY MEMBER -- THAT WHAT WE REALLY ARE SAYING IS THAT THE CO-CHAIR WILL ALWAYS BE OF ALL THESE COMMITTEES A PATIENT ADVOCATE. AND I GUESS MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING QUITE -- HOW DO I SAY THIS -- THE ROLE OF THE VICE CHAIR AND THE CHAIR BECAUSE SITTING ON THESE COMMITTEES, I'VE ALWAYS FELT, AND I'VE BEEN NEITHER THE VICE CHAIR OR THE CHAIR OF ANY OF THESE COMMITTEES, I'VE ALWAYS FELT I HAD AN EQUAL VOICE. AND I'VE NEVER FELT THAT BEING THE VICE CHAIR OR THE CHAIR WAS -- SAY THIS IN A POLITE WAY -- THAT IMPORTANT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BEING ABLE TO GET YOUR VOICE OUT AND BEING ABLE TO GET DONE WHAT YOU WANTED TO GET DONE.

IN FACT, THE PERSON WHO DID THAT WAS UNDERTAKING A GREAT DEAL OF WORK, BUT NOT IN ANY WAY DID ANY OF US ON THESE SUBCOMMITTEES FEEL A LACK OF VOICE. QUITE THE CONTRARY, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. SO TO ME I REALLY THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST SAYING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A VICE CHAIR AND A CHAIR FROM THESE THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS IS REALLY ENOUGH BECAUSE THE GROUP WILL VOTE ON IT.

THEY'LL COME BACK TO US AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER WE WANT. AND WE'RE DETERMINING IT. I, AS A PATIENT ADVOCATE, KNOW THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF US ON THIS COMMITTEE NOW, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER WE WANT TO SAY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK JEFF SHEEHY HAS A POINT, AND WE NEED TO MOVE THIS AGENDA. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS AN INTERIM PROPOSAL FOR TWO CO-CHAIRS, ONE OF WHOM IS A PATIENT ADVOCATE. IT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION, IF THERE IS A MOTION, FOR US JUST TODAY TO DECIDE ON THE INTERIM, WHICH IS THE PROPOSAL, AND ON THE PATIENT ADVOCATE AND SCIENTIFIC MEMBER AND MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF A LARGER GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO THOUGHTFULLY GO THROUGH BECAUSE THERE'S A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE HERE OF PATIENT ADVOCATES IN THESE COMMITTEES THAT WE NEED TO HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS, AND WE NEED TO HAVE THE ROLES THOUGHT THROUGH. BUT PERHAPS WE SHOULD LIMIT OURSELVES TO THE NARROW PROPOSAL THAT'S BEFORE US.

MR. SHEEHY: WELL, FIRST, I THINK THERE'S A PRINCIPLE INVOLVED HERE. AND IT'S THIS WHOLE ENTERPRISE, PROP 71 ENTERPRISE IS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE PEOPLE IMPACTED BY DISEASE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO PROVIDE THE CURES. AND I THINK THE PRINCIPLE IS REFLECTED IN THE COMPOSITION OF THIS BOARD AND COMPOSITION OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS BOARD, AND IT SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE COMPOSITION EXPLICITLY OF THE WORKING GROUPS. AND I THINK LOOKING AT THE RESEARCH WORKING GROUP, WE WERE ABLE TO CRAFT A COMPROMISE. AND I THINK THAT HERE I WOULD HOPE THAT THE NARROW VIEW, WHICH I WILL MAKE A MOTION ON AT THE END OF THIS, FOR THE INTERIM WILL END UP BEING THE PERMANENT.

AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD I HAVE NOT ALWAYS FELT THAT MY VOICE WAS HEARD ON AN EQUAL BASIS. SO I'VE HAD A DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE THAN OTHERS HAVE HAD. AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I THINK THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THING.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE ADOPT IN THE INTERIM A PATIENT ADVOCATE CO-CHAIR ALONG WITH I THINK IT'S AN ETHICIST CO-CHAIR FOR STANDARDS. ISN'T THAT WHAT WE HAD? RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IT'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

ADDITIONAL BOARD COMMENT ON THE MOTION? DR. PRECIADO.

DR. PRECIADO: I JUST HAVE SOME REAL -- I AGREE WITH JEFF IN THAT AT TIMES I FEEL LIKE I'M ABLE TO SPEAK, BUT WHETHER THAT IS HEARD AND THERE IS ACTION ON IT IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL WE NEED TO CONTINUE DIALOGUE ON.

ANOTHER REALLY IMPORTANT POINT IS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PATIENT ADVOCATES FROM THE ICOC VERSUS PATIENT ADVOCATES FROM THE COMMUNITY, WHAT ROLE, FIRST OF ALL, IF WE AS PATIENT ADVOCATES HAVE DIFFICULTY BEING HEARD, WHAT ROLE AND HOW WILL THE PUBLIC BE HEARD?

THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE WAS THAT I'M WONDERING WHY THE CHAIR IS THE ETHICIST AND THAT VICE CHAIR IS THE --

DR. HALL: CO-CHAIRS. CO-CHAIRS.

DR. PRECIADO: -- PATIENT ADVOCATE. AT SOME POINT PATIENT ADVOCATES ON THE ICOC BOARD, I THINK, NEED TO HAVE SOME LEADERSHIP. AND I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T FEEL RIGHT NOW THAT WE REALLY, REALLY DO.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IN A PARTNERSHIP WITH YOU AS THE CHAIR AND BEING A PATIENT ADVOCATE, I HOPE THAT WE DO HAVE SOME LEADERSHIP. IN THIS CASE THEY ARE CO-CHAIRS, WHICH I THINK PARTIALLY SOLVES YOUR PROBLEM, BUT WE WILL LEARN AND WE WILL STRIVE TO CONTINUE TO OPEN AND ENCOURAGE THE VOICE OF PATIENT ADVOCATES IN OUR PROCESS, WHICH IS, I THINK, THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE.

THERE IS A MOTION.

DR. POMEROY: CLAIRE POMEROY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE MOTION. YOU POINTED OUT THAT OFTEN INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS BECOME PERMANENT RECOMMENDATIONS JUST BY INERTIA. I WONDER IF THERE WAS PART OF YOUR MOTION ABOUT HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME THESE INTERIM PEOPLE MIGHT SERVE BEFORE A PERMANENT PROPOSAL CAME INTO BEING.

MR. SHEEHY: I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH PERMANENT.

FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO MAKE THIS AN INTERIM MOTION, I ALLOW THEM. I NEVER SUGGESTED INTERIM FOR THIS CO-CHAIR PROPOSAL. SO FOR THOSE WHO THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE INTERIM, I HOPE THAT THEY COULD SUGGEST A TIME FRAME.

DR. HALL: I THINK WHEN YOU DISCUSS PARTICULAR PEOPLE, THAT'S THE QUESTION TO MAKE THAT AN INTERIM APPOINTMENT. NOW WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE OVERALL FRAMEWORK OR STRUCTURE WITHIN WHICH THOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE. LET'S DON'T HAVE AN INTERIM POLICY IF WE CAN AVOID IT.

DR. POMEROY: I GUESS I NEED THE MOTION REPEATED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THIS IS AN INTERIM ADOPTION.

DR. POMEROY: IS IT INTERIM OR IS IT PERMANENT?

I REALLY NEED CLARIFICATION.

DR. HALL: I WOULD HOPE WE COULD AGREE ON A PERMANENT POLICY. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN INTERIM POLICY, WE CAN REVISIT IT.

DR. POMEROY: YOUR MOTION USED THE TERM "INTERIM."

DR. HALL: I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON JUST IN RESPECT TO THE POLICY.

MR. SHEEHY: I'LL RESTATE THE MOTION.

DR. POMEROY: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: JEFF SHEEHY AND THEN DR. LEVEY.

MR. SHEEHY: LET ME JUST RESTATE THE MOTION. AS A MATTER OF POLICY THAT THERE BE CO-CHAIRS FOR THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP, AND THAT ONE COME FROM ONE OF THE TWO GROUPS, EITHER ETHICIST OR SCIENTIST-CLINICIAN, AND THAT THE OTHER CO-CHAIR COME FROM THE PATIENT ADVOCATES SERVING ON THAT BODY.

DR. LEVEY: I'M JUST SITTING HERE WITH THIS LONG TABLE. I THINK THERE'S AT LEAST TWO, MAYBE THREE MOTIONS THAT I'VE HEARD THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED. AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE NOT HAD A BRIEFING IN THIS AREA, IT IS GETTING A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING. SO IF WE HAVE A PRINCIPLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON AND A MOTION, LET'S VOTE ON IT. AND LET STAFF AND THE COMMITTEES WORK THESE THINGS OUT BECAUSE THE BOARD, IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO GET DONE, IF WE SPEND 45 MINUTES DISCUSSING SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN PREPARED, I DON'T MEAN TO BE CURMUDGEONY, BUT THIS IS THE WAY A BOARD SHOULD FUNCTION. WE SHOULD HAVE CRISP DATA BEFORE US, AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON THESE THINGS.

I DO GET THE SENSE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR AND MAYBE OTHER COMMITTEES WITH CO-CHAIRS, AND THEN WE'LL WORK OUT DETAILS AND PROVIDE THIS TO THE BOARD SO WE CAN VOTE. RIGHT NOW I'M GETTING CONFUSED, AND I DO THINK THERE'S MORE THAN ONE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I THINK SHERRY LANSING HAD A MOTION. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANYONE ASKED FOR SECONDS. CLAIRE HAS A MOTION, AND JEFF HAS A MOTION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: LET'S CLARIFY HERE FOR DR. LEVEY. I'D LIKE TO -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ACTUAL MOTION THAT IS ON THE FLOOR IS JEFF SHEEHY'S MOTION AND THAT SHERRY --

MS. LANSING: I HAD NOTHING. MINE WAS THE GRANTS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE A SEPARATE MOTION. THAT WAS A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING. AND WE HAD A SECOND TO JEFF SHEEHY'S MOTION. SO SHERRY'S WAS ONLY TO ADDRESS THE GRANTS, AND THAT WAS ACTED UPON, SO WE ONLY HAVE ONE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

NOW, DR. WRIGHT.

DR. WRIGHT: I WAS JUST IN AGREEMENT. INITIALLY THERE WAS CONFUSION OVER WE WERE VOTING ON ZACH'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP OR THE INTERIM PROPOSAL FROM DR. KESSLER. I THINK THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU. SO MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES.

DR. HALL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET ME JUST -- WE'VE ALREADY VISITED THIS, BUT JUST A QUICK STATEMENT.

LET ME JUST CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING.

WE AGREED AT THE LAST ICOC MEETING THAT THE GRANTS REVIEW WORKING GROUP WOULD BE A CONFIDENTIAL MEETING. PROPOSITION 71 ASSIGNS TO THE WORKING GROUP NOT ONLY REVIEW, BUT ALSO ESTABLISHING CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND FOR SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL OVERSIGHT OF GRANT ACTIVITY. AND I AM SUGGESTING THAT AT THE NEXT ICOC MEETING WE CONSIDER TRANSFERRING THESE EXTRA RESPONSIBILITIES, THAT IS, THE RESPONSIBILITIES BESIDES THE GRANT REVIEW, TO A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ICOC, WHETHER IT'S ED HOLMES' COMMITTEE OR ANOTHER ONE, WHICH WOULD DISCUSS THESE ISSUES IN AN OPEN MEETING.

SO THIS WOULD, I THINK, BRING TRANSPARENCY TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT JOAN SAMUELSON HAS BEEN CONCERNED WITH AND THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING AT GREAT LENGTH AS WE GET INTO GRANTS REVIEW. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.

IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IT NOW, YOU MAY, BUT I SUGGEST WE GET IT ON THE TABLE. AND YOU CAN BE THINKING ABOUT IT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS IT THEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT IN PROPOSITION 71, IT WAS ONLY AS AN ADVISORY ROLE TO DO THE HOMEWORK THAT THE WORKING GROUP WAS TO LOOK AT. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN INTENDED THAT A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE BOARD AND THE BOARD VOTE AND DO THE FINAL DISCUSSIONS ON ANY ITEM OF POLICY.

DR. PIZZO: MR. CHAIRMAN, A RELATED TOPIC TO GOVERNANCE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO ADDRESS THIS, BUT WE SAW A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATION CHARTS AT THE LAST MEETING. ARE THOSE GOING TO COME BACK?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THEY'RE COMING BACK AT THE END OF TODAY; AND, FRANKLY, THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT BOARD MEMBERS HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE THE HOMEWORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.

DR. PIZZO: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: CAN WE -- IF WE CAN GO FORWARD TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, AGENDA ITEM 12, I BELIEVE, IS IN ORDER, WHICH IS THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP, DR. KESSLER.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP AND DR. KESSLER FOR THEIR TREMENDOUS EFFORTS. AND ON BOTH OF THESE WORKING GROUPS I'D LIKE TO COMMEND KATE SHREVE AND MARY MAXON OF THE STAFF FOR THEIR HEROIC EFFORTS WHICH SOMETIMES IF YOU CALL THE OFFICE AT TEN OR ELEVEN AT NIGHT, YOU FIND THEM THERE AS WELL AS ON WEEKENDS TRYING TO SUPPORT THE BOARD AND THE SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE BOARD. DR. KESSLER.

DR. KESSLER: MR. CHAIR, I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL STANDARDS ACCOUNTABILITY WORKING GROUP SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE HAS COMPLETED ITS SEARCH FOR FIVE DISEASE ADVOCATE MEMBERS OF THE ICOC, FOUR MEDICAL ETHICISTS AND NINE SCIENTISTS AND CLINICIANS TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE ICOC FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL STANDARDS ACCOUNTABILITY WORKING GROUP.

BEFORE WE PRESENT THE NOMINEES TO YOU, I JUST -- I ASK TO BE ABLE TO RAISE AN ISSUE THAT I THINK WARRANTS DISCUSSION BY THE FULL ICOC. THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST STANDARDS ADOPTED FOR THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP DO NOT ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT WORKING GROUP MEMBERS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CIRM. I DID NOT REALIZE THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE, AND THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP SEARCH COMMITTEE NEVER REALLY DISCUSSED THAT MATTER. THIS ISSUE HAS ONLY COME UP AFTER WE CAME UP WITH OUR SLATE AND FOUND THAT TWO MEMBERS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND TO YOU TODAY ARE, IN FACT, FACULTY MEMBERS OF CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITIES. ONE IS IN THE MEDICAL ETHICS CATEGORY, ONE IS IN THE SCIENTIFIC CATEGORY. AND I THINK THEIR DECISION WHETHER TO BE MEMBERS OF THIS WORKING GROUP WILL HINGE ON THE DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR GRANTS.

WHEN WE MADE THE DECISION, WE MADE THE DECISION SPECIFICALLY TO CONSIDER BOTH CALIFORNIANS AND NON-CALIFORNIANS AS CANDIDATES FOR MEMBERSHIP. I THINK MY OWN SENSE IS THAT MEMBERS OF THIS WORKING GROUP, IN CONTRAST TO THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, WOULD NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN APPLYING FOR FUNDING BECAUSE THE WORKING GROUP HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF RESPONSIBILITIES THAN THE OTHER TWO WORKING GROUPS, AND THAT IT DOES NOT, IT DOES NOT MAKE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS.

THAT SAID, I THINK WE FEEL STRONGLY THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED BY THE FULL ICOC, AND WE ASK FOR YOUR GUIDANCE ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE WE PRESENT THE RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. KESSLER, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS AND ALL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE, LET ME REEMPHASIZE THE POINT YOU JUST MADE. THE GRANT WORKING GROUP IS COMPLETELY COVERED BY OUR ETHICS STANDARDS BECAUSE EITHER THEY'RE ICOC MEMBERS AND SO THEY ARE PATIENT ADVOCATE ICOC MEMBERS AND THEY CANNOT BE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS, THEY CANNOT APPLY FOR GRANTS.

SECONDLY, THE 15 SCIENTISTS AND PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS ON THE GRANT WORKING GROUP ALL HAVE TO BE OUT-OF-STATE, WHICH MEANS, BY DEFINITION, THEY CANNOT RECEIVE ANY GRANT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN CALIFORNIA.

SO OUR ETHICS STANDARDS ARE COMPLETELY SEAMLESS AND COVER ALL SITUATIONS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS TO THE GRANTS GROUP. AND WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A COMMITTEE, THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP, THAT HAD ANY FUNDING DECISIONS. SO I JUST WANTED TO REEMPHASIZE THAT SO IT WAS CLEAR FOR EVERYONE. WITH THAT, DR. POMEROY.

DR. POMEROY: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF DR. KESSLER'S RECOMMENDATION, THAT SERVICE ON THE STANDARDS WORK GROUP WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR A GRANT AND JUST REEMPHASIZE THE POINT THAT HE MADE, THAT THIS GROUP WILL NOT BE DISTRIBUTING ANY FUNDS; AND, THEREFORE, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE SOME REPRESENTATION FROM CALIFORNIA IN ESTABLISHING THESE IMPORTANT STANDARDS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES, DR. PIZZO.

DR. PIZZO: I JUST WANTED TO QUERY THE LAST PART OF CLAIRE'S COMMENT. I AGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS, DR. KESSLER, WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE RULES SHOULD APPLY. THE QUESTION I HAD IS ACTUALLY AN ANTECEDENT ONE, WHICH IS THE NEED TO HAVE OUTSIDE OR INSIDE CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATION ON THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP. IS THAT PART OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE? AND IF SO, WHAT DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE BY THE COMMITTEE IN THAT CLEARLY WHEN IT CAME TO GRANTS REVIEW, ALL OF US FELT THAT IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT PEOPLE BE OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA. WHY HERE DID YOU CHOOSE TO HAVE INSIDE CALIFORNIA? WHAT ADDITIONAL EXPERTISE IS NECESSARY THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT BY THESE INDIVIDUALS?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PIZZO, MAYBE YOU ARE ALSO ASKING THE SAME QUESTION. THESE ARE THE BEST CANDIDATES THEY CAME UP WITH REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY'RE FROM.

DR. PIZZO: I DON'T ACCEPT THAT. I THINK THAT WE COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT EASILY IN OTHER AREAS AS WELL. THAT'S NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. WHAT I'M ASKING IS THE PRINCIPLE OF WHY THEY SHOULD BE IN CALIFORNIA.

DR. KESSLER: LET ME ASK SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE WORKING GROUP SEARCH COMMITTEE TO HELP RESPOND.

PERHAPS, JEFF, YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE THAT. MR. SHEEHY: I KNOW MY THINKING ON THIS IS THAT IT WAS ESSENTIAL THAT AT LEAST SOME OF THE MEMBERS BE FROM CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF THEIR INHERENT INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ETHICAL AND MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR RESEARCH THAT IS GOING TO BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF CALIFORNIA USING TAXPAYERS' FUNDS. AND I FEEL LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT SET THAT OUT OUGHT TO HAVE TO -- SOME OF THOSE FOLKS OUGHT TO HAVE TO WALK DOWN THE STREET AND SEE THEIR NEIGHBORS.

THAT LESS THAN THE -- THE OTHER ONE IS GIVING OUT MONEY.

THIS ONE IS SETTING UP RULES, AND THEY SHOULD REFLECT CALIFORNIA VALUES. SO THAT WAS MY THINKING.

DR. LEVEY: NO. 18. I WAS ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, AND WE MADE THAT DECISION, THAT ALL OF THE REVIEWERS WOULD BE FROM OUT-OF-STATE. EVEN THOUGH FUNDING IS NOT OCCURRING OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE LEARNED WHEN YOU DEAL WITH ETHICISTS IS THAT MANY TIMES THEY DON'T AGREE. AND I THINK THAT WE'RE WORKING IN A VERY ETHICALLY SUPERCHARGED AREA. AND I THINK IF THE ETHICS WORKING GROUP MAKES A MISSTEP, FOR EXAMPLE, AND TWO OR THREE OF THE PEOPLE ARE FROM CALIFORNIA, IN THIS CASE TWO, I THINK YOU OPEN -- WE OPEN OURSELVES TO CRITICISM.

I THINK THE ROLE OF CALIFORNIANS, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE WHAT'S CALLED AN INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. AND I THINK IF WE FIND THAT THERE ARE MISSTEPS THAT ARE BEING MADE OR WE DON'T AGREE, THEN IT'S OUR JOB TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. I, FOR ONE, WOULD STRONGLY ADVISE THAT THE PRINCIPLE BE THE SAME ACROSS ALL THE WORKING GROUPS BECAUSE, IF NOT, THEN WE OPEN OURSELVES TO INCONSISTENCIES. AND IF THERE'S AN ETHICAL MISSTEP IN A VERY DIFFICULT AREA, THEN WE'RE OPEN TO CRITICISM.

SO I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THERE BEING CALIFORNIANS ON THIS COMMITTEE.

DR. KESSLER: DAVID.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU, DR. KESSLER. AS STATED EARLIER, DR. LEVEY, WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL AS TO WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP SHOULD BE EXCLUSIVELY POPULATED BY CALIFORNIANS OR NOT CALIFORNIANS. IT WAS A HEALTHY AND ROBUST DEBATE AT THAT SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL. AND WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION, AS HAS BEEN SAID, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO HARM TO HAVE SOME CALIFORNIANS, SOME CALIFORNIANS, SERVE ON THIS PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP.

THE REASONS FOR HAVING THE NON-CALIFORNIANS ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, WHICH IS, I RECALL, A DECISION WE ALL MADE AND WE ALL AGREED UPON, WE ALL ENDORSED, THERE WERE SOME VERY CLEAR PUBLIC POLICY REASONS WHY WE DID NOT WANT CALIFORNIANS ON THAT WORKING GROUP ON THE SCIENTIST CATEGORY. AND THAT MADE A LOT OF SENSE. WE ENDORSED THAT CONCEPT IN MY MIND. I DON'T THINK IT'S TRANSFERABLE TO THIS WORKING GROUP OR THE FACILITIES, FOR THAT MATTER.

THE ISSUES THAT THIS WORKING GROUP WILL BE DEALING WITH ARE SET IN THE STATUTE. THERE'S NO REAL HARM TO HAVE A CALIFORNIAN. AND IF, AS YOU SAY, DR. LEVEY, ONE OF THE MEMBERS MAKES A MISHAP, YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE WILL KNOW ABOUT IT. AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THAT INDIVIDUAL MEMBER, JUST AS IF ANY ONE OF US MAKE A MISHAP PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD POINT OUT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, BY STATUTE, JUST THE WAY I WROTE THE STATUTE, REQUIRES CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS ON IT.

SO THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT OF HAVING CALIFORNIANS ON THE WORKING GROUP. DR. SUSAN BRYANT.

DR. BRYANT: BUT THE INTENTION ON THE FACILITIES, I THINK, WAS TO HAVE A REAL ESTATE EXPERT, NOT NECESSARILY SCIENTISTS. THE PROBLEM WITH HAVING -- I'M NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS ONE BECAUSE I'M NOT -- I CAN'T -- I CAN'T QUITE VISUALIZE THERE NEVER BEING A SITUATION WHERE A PERSON FROM A GIVEN INSTITUTION MIGHT NOT BE INFLUENCED BY THE CULTURE OF THAT INSTITUTION IN MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STANDARDS.

SO I'M -- I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ELIMINATE THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT I CAN SEE THAT FOR THE REAL ESTATE FOR THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE, HAVING -- YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR PEOPLE FROM INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE LIKELY TO BE RECEIVING SUPPORT TO BE ON THAT COMMITTEE. WE'RE ASKING FOR REAL ESTATE EXPERTS TO GIVE THAT KIND OF EVALUATION.

DR. THAL: I THINK THE SUBCOMMITTEE DELIBERATED ON THIS AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON IT. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AND VOTE FOR THE SLATE. I THINK THAT INDIVIDUALS, AS WAS EXPRESSED EARLIER, FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAN SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE, THEY CAN RECUSE THEMSELVES IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT RELATE TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONS. AGAIN, THIS COMMITTEE IS NOT HANDING OUT FUNDS. I DON'T SEE A SIGNIFICANT CONFLICT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PIZZO. AND THEN I THINK DID SHERRY LANSING --

MS. LANSING: NO.

DR. PIZZO: CERTAINLY MY COMMENTS DO NOT IN ANY WAY REFLECT ON THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BEING PROPOSED BECAUSE THEY'RE CLEARLY EXCELLENT. BUT I CONTINUE TO HAVE THE SAME CONCERN. I REALIZE THAT THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE ROBUST DIALOGUE THAT MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AROUND THAT, BUT THIS IS OUR TIME TO REFLECT ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND MY OWN VIEW IS THAT WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO CREATE THE BRIGHT LIGHT SEPARATION BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE DOING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA.

AND I AT LEAST FOR ONE DO NOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW THE GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE IS BEHAVING AND HOW THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE BEHAVING. SO MY OWN VIEW WOULD BE, PUT SIMPLY, THAT THIS, LIKE THE GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE, BE COMPRISED OF INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA. THAT'S MY PERSONAL VIEW ABOUT THIS.

DR. KESSLER: CAN I CLARIFY A POINT. THE QUESTION THAT I'M PARTICULARLY RAISING IS NOT CALIFORNIA VERSUS NOT CALIFORNIA. YOU CAN TURN DOWN PEOPLE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM. BUT THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE RAISING SPECIFICALLY IS WHETHER -- BECAUSE WE HAVE A SLATE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU, AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THOSE NAMES AND COMMENT. THE QUESTION WE WENT THROUGH AND, AS THE CHAIR HAS SAID, WE TRIED TO DETERMINE THE BEST SLATE TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH STANDARDS.

THERE IS A VERY BIG DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS COMMITTEE AND THE OTHER TWO COMMITTEES. THERE ARE NO FUNDS INVOLVED IN THIS COMMITTEE. TWO PEOPLE HAVE RAISED THE QUESTION, FOR EXAMPLE, LET ME GIVE YOU THE HYPOTHETICAL, IS ONE OF THE ETHICISTS SAID, WELL, THAT MEANS IF THERE'S A TRAINING GRANT, I CAN'T BE ON OR BE PART OF THAT TRAINING GRANT. AND THAT QUESTION WAS RAISED. SO BEFORE -- WE CAN PRESENT THE SLATE TO YOU, BUT WE THOUGHT THAT, AGAIN, WE CAN'T VOTE ON THIS TODAY BECAUSE THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT IT'S NOT BEEN AGENDIZED THE RIGHT WAY.

LET ME JUST POINT OUT OBVIOUSLY THE ICOC MEMBERS ARE ALL FROM CALIFORNIA. THE DISEASE ADVOCATES ARE ALL FROM CALIFORNIA. I THINK JEFF'S POINT ABOUT IN THE END THE PEOPLE WHO -- WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE BEST QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO WE THOUGHT COULD COME UP WITH THESE KIND OF STANDARDS.

DR. PIZZO: JUST, AGAIN, TO REPEAT MY COMMENT.

I PREFACED IT BY SAYING THE ANTECEDENT THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS COULD APPLY FOR GRANTS IS CONTINGENT UPON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE IN CALIFORNIA OR NOT. SO BY NOT HAVING THEM BE IN CALIFORNIA, THAT ISSUE BECOMES A MOOT ONE. I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS COMMITTEE AT LEAST PROACTIVELY MAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OR AT LEAST HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THIS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE FROM CALIFORNIA. I THINK THAT'S THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE THAT I'M RAISING.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER, DAVID.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: POINT OF ORDER.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: IT SHOULD BE NOTED FOR THE RECORD THAT ED HOLMES AND HIS GROUP, HIS COLLEAGUES ON THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, ON THE FRONT END, AT THE VERY BEGINNING HAD THE BENEFIT OF OUR INPUT IN TERMS OF PROVIDING THAT ESSENTIAL GUIDANCE, NO CALIFORNIANS, FOR THE SCIENTISTS. WHEN DAVID WAS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADING THIS PARTICULAR STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE, WE DIDN'T COMMENT ON IT. SO WE DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF GUIDANCE. THAT NEEDS TO BE NOTED.

SO WE WENT ABOUT OUR WORK, LOOKED AT A LOT OF NAMES. DINA, MARY, KATE ALL DID A FANTASTIC JOB. WE WERE PERMITTED, CLEARING IT THROUGH THE CHAIR AND THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, TO SPEAK WITH MANY OF THESE CANDIDATES, TALK WITH THEM, INTERVIEW THEM. I BELIEVE AFTER THIS PROCESS, AS DAVID HAS SAID, WE'VE COME UP WITH SOME HIGHLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS THAT WILL SERVE WELL FOR THIS WORKING GROUP.

DR. KESSLER: CAN I ALSO CLARIFY ONE POINT STAFF JUST HELPED ME WITH. THIS CALIFORNIA, NON-CALIFORNIA ISSUE, WHILE YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO DISCUSS IT, AND WE WELCOME THAT ISSUE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT WAS PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY IN A REPORT FROM THE STANDARDS SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE ICOC. WE SET THAT OUT AS A FRAMEWORK PRIOR, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE ICOC.

THE SPECIFIC ISSUE ON RECUSAL -- ON WHETHER YOU COULD ACCEPT FUNDS WE DID NOT PRESENT. BUT WE DID SAY FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN WE PRESENTED THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING BOTH CALIFORNIANS AND NON-CALIFORNIANS ON THIS SUBCOMMITTEE.

DR. PIZZO: I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT.

UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T RECALL THAT DISCUSSION. IF, IN FACT, IT WAS VOTED ON AND APPROVED, THEN MY COMMENTS BECOME ONE OF IGNORANCE, AND I ACCEPT THAT. BUT I DO HAVE THE CONCERN THAT I'VE EXPRESSED. AND AS I LOOK AROUND THE ROOM AND WATCH PEOPLE'S REACTION, I SUSPECT THAT I'M NOT ALONE IN THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, DR. PIZZO, YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS ALWAYS HELPFUL. THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE AN OBSERVATION THAT FOLLOWED ANOTHER ACTION THAT YOU DID NOT REMEMBER IS A DIFFERENT OBSERVATION, BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT OBSERVATION THAT THESE WERE THE RULES THAT THEY WORKED WITHIN IN TRYING TO BRING UP THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. AND IT INFERS TO ME THAT WE WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT BURDEN IN OVERCOMING AND CHANGING THAT INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE WHICH THEY WORKED IN GOOD FAITH TO CARRY OUT. SO I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.

WE HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE AGENDA. I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE. I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THE SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT DR. KESSLER HAS ASKED, IS THERE A MOTION -- DR. KESSLER: MR. CHAIR, COUNSEL, JUST HELP ME.

WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THIS TO BE DISCUSSED TODAY ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER MEMBERS OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE CAN RECEIVE GRANTS BECAUSE THE SLATE WE'RE PRESENTING, THERE WERE TWO MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION BEFORE THEY WOULD AGREE TO DO THIS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I HOPE THAT MR. BAGLEY AND MR. KEENE ARE COMFORTABLE IN HEAVEN.

MR. HARRISON: MR. BAGLEY IS STILL ALIVE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OUR CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT WE CAN CONSIDER. SO, SPECIFICALLY, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE, BUT I THINK, DR. KESSLER, YOU'RE INSTRUCTING US THAT WHEN WE VOTE ON THIS SLATE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY RECOGNIZING THAT WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS THAT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR.

DR. KESSLER: THAT'S CORRECT. WE WILL ASK YOU FOR YOUR VOTE ON THE SLATE TODAY. THEY CAN ALWAYS THEN DECLINE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT.

DR. PENHOET: DO THAT WITH A SPECIFIC MOTION WHICH IS IF THERE ARE MEMBERS FROM CALIFORNIA ON THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP, THAT WE VOTE TO ALLOW THEM TO BE RECIPIENTS OF GRANTS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE CAN'T HAVE A -- I JUST CONFIRMED WITH COUNSEL -- A SPECIFIC MOTION ON THAT. SO THE APPROPRIATE MOTION WOULD BE TO ACCEPT THE SLATE WITH ALL THE MEMBERS OR TO ACCEPT THE SLATE WITHOUT THE CALIFORNIA MEMBERS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

DR. BLACK HAS A COMMENT.

DR. BLACK: I JUST WANT TO ASK, MOVING PAST PERCEPTION, IS THERE ANY CONCEIVABLE WAY THAT BY SERVING ON THIS COMMITTEE, IF YOU'RE FROM CALIFORNIA, THAT THEY COULD INFLUENCE THE AWARDING OF ANY GRANTS BY THIS INSTITUTE THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE?

DR. KESSLER: I CAN'T COME UP WITH ANY WAY STANDING HERE TODAY. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OTHERS CAN ON THE SPOT. I CERTAINLY WANT TO -- I CERTAINLY DID NOT THINK SO. I WOULD NEVER WANT TO SAY THERE'S NO CONCEIVABLE WAY THAT I CAN'T CONSTRUCT A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO. IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, DR. KESSLER, TO SAY THAT BEYOND THE STRUCTURAL INSULATION THAT THERE'S NO MONEY THAT FLOWS THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE, THERE ARE ETHICAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING THIS WORKING GROUP WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM TRYING TO INFLUENCE ANY GRANT. SO WE HAVE TWO TIERS OF TWO FIREWALLS.

DR. BLACK: IT CERTAINLY GIVES ME A LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT I THINK THAT THE BENEFITS OF HAVING THE BEST INDIVIDUALS AND SO ON THAT HAS A VESTED INTEREST FOR BEING FROM CALIFORNIA WOULD MAKE ME FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING INDIVIDUALS FROM CALIFORNIA ON THIS COMMITTEE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: JEFF SHEEHY AND THEN DR. PIZZO, AND I'M GOING TO DR. MURPHY, WHO HASN'T TALKED YET, AND DR. LEVEY.

MR. SHEEHY: MY ONLY POINT WOULD BE I THINK WE SHOULD SEPARATE APPLYING FOR GRANTS FROM BEING FROM CALIFORNIA BECAUSE I SPOKE AT LENGTH WITH ONE OF THE ETHICISTS WHO'S FROM CALIFORNIA, AND HE BRINGS UNIQUE EXPERIENCE. AND I DON'T THINK HE IS ANTICIPATING RECEIVING GRANTS, AND I'D SURE HATE TO SEE THAT EXPERIENCE THAT WE REALLY FELT LIKE WAS VITAL TO HAVE ON THIS WORKING GROUP BE LOST AS WE CAST TOO WIDE A NET.

SO MAYBE IF WE CAN CHANGE OUR DISCUSSION TO NOT HAVING, YOU KNOW -- BECAUSE THE REAL QUESTION -- WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED CALIFORNIANS CAN BE ON THIS. THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE MIGHT POTENTIALLY PARTICIPATE IN GRANTS. I SURE WOULD HATE THAT IF WE GO FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD WITH THIS, WE LOSE THAT ONE PERSON BECAUSE THAT PERSON WAS OUTSTANDING.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PIZZO.

DR. PIZZO: I KNOW THAT PERSON QUITE WELL. I WORKED WITH HIM IN A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS. AGREE THAT HE IS ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING, SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT.

BUT IT IS ABOUT HOW WE CAN ASSURE THE GREATEST DEGREE OF PUBLIC TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY IN WHAT WE'RE DOING. AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, I THINK THERE ARE VARIANCES IN HOW SOME OF US SEE THIS. CLEARLY, WE WANT THE VERY BEST PEOPLE, BUT I THINK WE ALWAYS WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT WE HAD ALL THE CHECKS AND BALANCES MANAGED SO THAT THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERNED ARE BEING DONE IN WAYS THAT ARE AT ARM'S LENGTH FROM THOSE OF US WHO ARE WORKING IN CALIFORNIA.

SO THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT AS WE GO FORWARD AND YOU CALL FOR A VOTE, THE ONLY OPTION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT I MIGHT HAVE IS TO VOTE AGAINST THE SLATE, WHICH I DON'T WANT TO DO, IF THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT I CAN EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT THE ISSUE OF CALIFORNIA AND NON-CALIFORNIA.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PIZZO, YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPTION OF HAVING A MOTION THAT WOULD APPROVE THE SLATE EXCEPT FOR CALIFORNIA MEMBERS. DR. KESSLER.

DR. KESSLER: I GUESS, PHIL, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE MY PRESUMPTION, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS, AS I THINK MR. SHEEHY VERY ELOQUENTLY SAID, THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO SET THE ETHICAL STANDARDS HERE, AND THE STANDARD OF HOW TO OPERATE AND DO RESEARCH, THAT, IN FACT, THE PRESUMPTION PROBABLY WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD WANT CALIFORNIANS. WHY WOULD YOU DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CALIFORNIANS? I UNDERSTAND THERE'S THIS SEPARATE ISSUE ABOUT RECEIVING FUNDS, AND THAT'S WHY I RAISED THAT ISSUE ON THE FUNDS. BUT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA TO COME UP WITH THE STANDARDS THAT ARE GOING TO GOVERN CALIFORNIA, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT.

DR. PIZZO: I THINK WE HAVE -- THE ARGUMENT CAN BE TAKEN FURTHER. WE CAN SAY LET'S JUST HAVE TOTAL CALIFORNIANS ON THIS. SO IT IS A MATTER OF DISCERNING WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO HAVE INDIVIDUALS FROM ONE OR ANOTHER OF OUR ACADEMIC CENTERS, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE A SMALL NUMBER OF THEM, WHETHER THEY'LL HAVE A POINT OF VIEW THAT MIGHT IN SOME WAY BE CONSIDERED TO CONVEY A CERTAIN BIAS. WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS REALLY THE NEED TO HAVE THE GREATEST DEGREE OF PROTECTION OF THE CIRM AS WE GO FORWARD.

I CAN ARGUE THIS, DAVID, FROM A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. AND MY OPINION SHOULD NOT BE CONFIGURED TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEBATE THAT WENT ON WITHIN THE SUBCOMMITTEE REACHED AN INACCURATE CONCLUSION. I UNDERSTAND HOW YOU GOT THERE, AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THE RELEVANCE OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. I'M JUST TAKING IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL OF PRINCIPLE AND ASKING THIS QUESTION AT A HIGHER OR DIFFERENT LEVEL ABOUT CALIFORNIA VERSUS NOT, HAVING A HIGHER --

DR. KESSLER: JUST CLARIFY FOR ME, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, WHAT IS IT ABOUT BEING FROM CALIFORNIA?

DR. PIZZO: IT IS REALLY NOT A MATTER OF THE EXCELLENCE OF THE OPINION. IT'S A MATTER OF THE PERCEPTION OF THE COMMUNITY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. KESSLER, IF WE COULD, WE HAVE DR. MURPHY AND DR. LEVEY, AND LET'S GET THE REST OF THESE COMMENTS ON THE TABLE, IF WE COULD. DR. MURPHY.

DR. MURPHY: DAVID, I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE HERE, AND THAT IS THAT THE CALIFORNIANS WHO MIGHT BE ON THE COMMITTEE ARE IN A PRIVILEGED POSITION RELATIVE TO THAT COMMITTEE OR IN A POSITION ON THAT COMMITTEE THAT GIVES THEM A PRIVILEGED POSITION RELATIVE TO THEIR COLLEAGUES WITHIN THEIR ORGANIZATIONS. AND IF ONE OF THOSE MEMBERS IN THE COMMITTEE IS IN A DEPARTMENT OF ETHICS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND IS TALKING WITH HIS OR HER COLLEAGUES WITHIN THAT SAME DEPARTMENT AT UCSF, FOR AN EXAMPLE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE COLLEAGUES IN OTHER INSTITUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA? COULDN'T THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT BEING IN SOME WAY DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO THE EXPERTISE OF THAT COMMITTEE?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MR. MURPHY, I WOULD CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT EVERY DECISION ON CREATING ANY STANDARD COMES TO THIS FULL BOARD. AND THE BEAUTY OF HAVING ALL THE REGIONS AND ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED ON THIS BOARD IS THIS IS WHERE THE FINAL DECISION IS. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INFLUENCE OF ONE PERSON AS PART OF A MUCH LARGER COMMITTEE AND THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE ADVISORY THAT COMES TO US. AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO REBALANCE FROM MANY PERSPECTIVES ON THIS BOARD WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOARD.

DR. MURPHY: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE POINT, MR. CHAIRMAN. ON THE OTHER POINT ABOUT THE VOTE, I WOULD HATE TO VOTE TO THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MEMBERS BECAUSE I THINK THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED BY THOSE MEMBERS AS NOT BEING SUPPORTIVE OF THEIR EXPERTISE. SO I WOULD RATHER VOTE ON THE PRINCIPLE OF WHETHER WE HAVE CALIFORNIANS OR NOT CALIFORNIANS AND THEN DEAL WITH THE MEMBERS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. STEWARD.

DR. STEWARD: I WONDER, GIVEN THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT CALIFORNIANS, IF THE DISEASE ADVOCATES WOULD ALSO LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU ARE ON THE STATUTE. IT DOESN'T -- IF WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CALIFORNIANS, WOULDN'T THE SAME THING APPLY TO THE DISEASE ADVOCATES? AND I THINK THAT THAT IS REALLY THE FUNDAMENTAL THING HERE. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DISEASE ADVOCATES VOTING, I COULD -- IF THERE WAS SOME REMOTE POSSIBILITY OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I THINK THE SAME MIGHT APPLY TO THEM AS WELL. I THINK THAT WE MADE THE DECISION IN THE BEGINNING THAT CALIFORNIANS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO SERVE ON THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE; AND THAT IF WE MAKE THE DECISION THAT THEY'RE NOT, IT CALLS INTO QUESTION THE DISEASE ADVOCACY.

DR. LEVEY: JUST TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS I MADE, AND I AGREE WITH DR. PIZZO AND DR. MURPHY. IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF GRANTS, DAVID. IT'S AN ISSUE OF MAKING DECISIONS ON ETHICAL ISSUES. AND EVERYTHING THAT WE DO IS INTERTWINED. AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE MAKING A MISTAKE.

I ALSO WILL NOT SUPPORT ANY MOTION WHEN WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUALS; BUT I SUPPOSE THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO FUNCTION LIKE A BOARD, I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD VOTE ON THE PRINCIPLE BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE MEMBERS BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, IF IT GETS TURNED DOWN, WHICH IS A POSSIBILITY, IF IT GETS TURNED DOWN, YOU SEND A BAD MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE NATIONALLY WHO VOLUNTEERED TO DO THIS. AND SECONDLY, YOU SEND A BAD MESSAGE TO THE CALIFORNIANS. BERNIE LO IS A TERRIFIC PERSON. HE'D BE ONE OF THE LEADING ETHICISTS IN THE WORLD.

SO I WOULD PREFER THAT THE BOARD TAKE A VOTE ON THE PRINCIPLE. AND IF THE PRINCIPLE -- IF WE LOSE ON THE PRINCIPLE WITH REGARD TO THIS IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, THEN IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE. HOW DO WE JUSTIFY, YOU KNOW, THE GRANTS? SO I WOULD SAY WE VOTE ON THE PRINCIPLE BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUALS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. LEVEY, TO EXPEDITE THIS, COULD YOU MAKE THAT A MOTION?

DR. LEVEY: I WOULD MAKE SUCH A MOTION, THAT WE VOTE ON THE PRINCIPLE OF WHETHER THE ETHICS COMMITTEE SHOULD CONTAIN EITHER CALIFORNIANS OR INDIVIDUALS FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOUR MOTION WOULD BE -- ARE YOU GOING TO STATE IT THAT THE ETHICS COMMITTEE SHOULD CONTAIN CALIFORNIANS OR SHOULD NOT CONTAIN CALIFORNIANS?

WE NEED IT TO STATE ONE OF THEM.

DR. LEVEY: I WOULD PROPOSE A MOTION THAT THE ETHICS COMMITTEE NOT CONTAIN INDIVIDUALS FROM CALIFORNIA.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IS THERE A SECOND?

MR. SHEEHY: POINT OF ORDER.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: POINT OF ORDER. I'M ASKING IF THERE'S A SECOND.

DR. PIZZO: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: JEFF SHEEHY.

MR. SHEEHY: I'M NOT SURE WHAT RULES GOVERN THE OPERATION OF THIS BODY, BUT IF IT'S ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, DOESN'T IT TAKE A SUPER MAJORITY TO OVERTURN A PREVIOUS DECISION THAT'S BEEN MADE BY THIS BODY? AND WE HAVE, PER DR. KESSLER'S REPORT BACK FROM THE STANDARDS SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE, SAID THAT CALIFORNIA CAN SERVE. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY FOR THIS MOTION TO PASS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION, MR. SHEEHY. IT MAY BE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE CONCERNED WITH THAT DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF THIS. AND IT MIGHT ALLOW PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE AN IMPORTANT POINT HERE.

DR. KESSLER: JERRY, I THINK THE WAY YOU STRUCTURED THAT MOTION PROBABLY IS IN CONFLICT WITH PROP 71 BECAUSE THE WAY YOU'VE DONE IT IS WHETHER MEMBERS OF THIS WORKING GROUP CAN BE FROM CALIFORNIA. AND YOU HAVE DISEASE ADVOCATES THAT ARE FROM CALIFORNIA, SO I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO RESTRUCTURE THAT MOTION.

DR. LEVEY: CALIFORNIA INSTITUTES.

DR. BRYANT: I WAS GOING TO MODIFY THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: LET'S CLARIFY THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS -- WHAT DR. LEVEY WAS MAKING A MOTION IS THAT FROM THE SCIENTISTS AND ETHICISTS, THAT THOSE WOULD NOT BE FROM CALIFORNIA.

DR. LEVEY: SHOULD BE LIVING OUTSIDE THE STATE.

DR. BRYANT: I WOULD MODIFY THAT TO SAY SHOULD NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH A POTENTIAL GRANTEE INSTITUTION.

AND THEN YOU COULD HAVE CALIFORNIANS, BUT NOT BE IN A POSITION TO EITHER SHARE FREE KNOWLEDGE OR ANY OTHER KIND OF INFLUENCE OVER THE OUTCOME OF GRANTS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. LEVEY, IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

DR. LEVEY: THAT WOULD BE FINE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SO DR. LEVEY'S MOTION IS THAT YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CALIFORNIANS AMONG THE ETHICISTS AND SCIENTISTS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH AN INSTITUTION THAT WOULD BE A POTENTIAL GRANT RECIPIENT. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

DR. BRYANT: YEAH.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THAT IS YOUR MOTION. THAT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD BEFORE I GO TO THE PUBLIC? JOAN.

MS. SAMUELSON: I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE PERSPECTIVE THAT WE HAD, AFTER SPENDING HOURS AND HOURS ON THIS, THE FEWER CALIFORNIANS, AND THIS ISN'T --

THERE WERE SEVERAL CRITERIA WE WERE LOOKING AT. WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE VERY BEST WE CAN FIND WITH A WIDE DIVERSITY OF EXPERTISE AS WELL AS OTHER DIVERSITY. AND FROM OUR -- CERTAINLY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSTANT CONTROVERSY, AT LEAST DISCUSSION IN THE STATE, IN THE MEDIA ABOUT THE DECISIONS THAT THIS WORKING GROUP IS MAKING THAT ARE ADVISORY TO THE FULL ICOC.

BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE WORKING GROUPS ARE GOING TO HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF AUTONOMY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT TO DO, AND NOT ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE SUBJECT TO RE-REVIEW.

SO THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, WHO ARE A PARTNER IN THIS, ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO THE WORKING GROUPS TO TRUST THAT THEY ARE COMING UP WITH STANDARDS THAT REFLECT THE STANDARDS THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA --

CALIFORNIANS WANT. AND IF THOSE STANDARDS ARE COMING FROM PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE THE SAME LEVEL OF TRUST. THAT WAS CERTAINLY IMPORTANT TO ME IN HAVING A MEMBER OF THE ICOC AS PART OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE WORKING GROUP, AND IT'S PART OF THAT SAME CONCERN. IT WAS ONE OF SEVERAL FACTORS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. DR. PIZZO.

DR. PIZZO: THAT WOULD ARGUE FOR HAVING EVERYBODY FROM CALIFORNIA BE ON, AND IT'S JUST SORT OF THE NATURAL EXTENSION, AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO DO THAT.

MS. SAMUELSON: WELL, IT WAS A BALANCE OF SEVERAL FACTORS. AND PARTICULARLY THAT THIS GROUP WAS NOT GOING TO BE -- THERE WOULD NOT BE GRANTS REVIEWED BY THAT WORKING GROUP.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I NEED TO RECOGNIZE DR. PRICE AT THE END.

DR. PRICE: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ADVOCATES OF THIS RESOLUTION. THE CONCEPT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRESUMES, IS BUILT ON THE NOTION THAT THE PERSONAL INTERESTS OF A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL SOMEHOW INTERFERE AND INFLUENCE THE DECISIONS MADE WITHIN THE COMMITTEE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WITH GRANTS.

I WOULD LIKE ONE OF YOU TO OFFER US A HYPOTHETICAL OF HOW BEING A MEMBER OF A CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION WHICH GETS GRANTS WILL BE BENEFITED, HOW THE INSTITUTION OR THE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S IN THAT INSTITUTION WILL BE BENEFITED BY THE KIND OF WORK THAT THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE IS DOING. IF YOU CAN'T GIVE US A HYPOTHETICAL OF THAT, YOU CAN'T PINPOINT WHERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WOULD BE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU, DR. PRICE. DR. HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: I THINK I CAN GIVE AN EXAMPLE THAT I WOULD IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE GRANTS THAT WILL PROBABLY BE AWARDED AT SOME POINT THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ETHICAL ISSUES. AND SETTING THE STANDARDS FOR WHAT THOSE ETHICAL ISSUES ARE COULD IN THEORY SET YOUR INSTITUTION IN A POSITION TO RECEIVE THAT GRANT FAVORABLY TO SOMEONE ELSE.

I'M NOT SAYING I'M GOING TO VOTE ON THIS. I'M SAYING I THINK IT IS A THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY. YOU COULD RECUSE YOURSELF. THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS TO HANDLE IT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC, PUBLIC COMMENT?

MR. REED: DON REED, CALIFORNIANS FOR CURE. I WOULD VOTE FOR HAVING NO CALIFORNIANS ON THIS BOARD -- REVIEW SITUATION BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE JUDGED BY THE ENEMIES OF THE RESEARCH AS HARSHLY AS POSSIBLE; AND IF THEY CAN FIND EVEN THE SLIGHTEST SHADE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THEY WILL JUMP ON IT. AND THERE WILL POSSIBLY BE MORE LITIGATION. I THINK WE COULD AVOID THAT. I THINK IT IS FREQUENTLY THE CASE.

ALSO, I HAVE TO COMPLIMENT THE PEOPLE WHO WENT THROUGH THE INCREDIBLY ARDUOUS JOB OF CHOOSING THE SCIENTISTS, THE REVIEW BOARD. IT WAS JUST ASTOUNDING TO GO FROM 800 TO 15. IT WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE JOB.

BY WAY OF A SIDE COMMENT, THE ONE PERSON THAT WAS CHOSEN AS FIRST ALTERNATE WAS JUST VOTED ONTO THE NATIONAL SPINAL CORD INJURY ASSOCIATION HALL OF FAME. SO INSTEAD OF HAVING PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST MIDLEVEL, WE HAVE THE ABSOLUTE BEST THERE ARE AVAILABLE. I THINK THAT'S WONDERFUL. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE HERE.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: DO WE HAVE A RULING FROM OUR COUNSEL AS TO THE VOTE, SUPER MAJORITY, ETC., THAT POINT THAT MR. SHEEHY RAISED?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: COUNSEL, IS A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED IN THIS CASE?

MR. HARRISON: WE'RE IN A RATHER UNIQUE SITUATION HERE WHERE THE BOARD HAS NOT FORMALLY ADOPTED BYLAWS. THE BOARD HAS OPERATED LOOSELY UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, BUT THE BOARD HAS NOT FORMALLY ADOPTED BYLAWS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND WHAT IS YOUR INSTRUCTION FROM ROBERTS' RULES OF ORDER?

MR. HARRISON: I BELIEVE THAT ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER REQUIRES A TWO-THIRDS VOTE TO OVERTURN AN ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN BY THE BOARD.

DR. PIZZO: HAVE WE DETERMINED THAT WE TRULY DID TAKE AN ACTION BEFORE?

MR. HARRISON: WHAT HAPPENED IN FEBRUARY AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING IS THAT THE SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE MADE A STATUS REPORT TO THE BOARD, IN WHICH DR. KESSLER DESCRIBED THE PROCEDURE AND THE QUALIFICATION AND CRITERIA THAT THE SEARCH GROUP WOULD APPLY TO ITS RECOMMENDATION OF CANDIDATES TO THE FULL BOARD.

DR. PIZZO: DID WE VOTE ON THAT IN SOME WAY?

MR. HARRISON: I BELIEVE THAT THE STATUS REPORT WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THAT IS THE RECOLLECTION.

DR. PIZZO: JUST FOR THE RECORD, I MEAN, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MINUTES AND ASSURE THAT THAT WAS DONE? I DON'T WANT TO -- WE'RE NOT INTO THIS DEBATE AND ARGUMENTS ABOUT FINE POINTS, BUT I THINK THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND WE SHOULD BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. I JUST, AGAIN, FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE WANT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ASSURE THAT WE HAVE THE PUBLIC TRUST AS WE'RE GOING FORWARD.

WE'VE HAD ENOUGH HOSTILE FIRE, THAT ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO BE CLEAR IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO US.

MR. HARRISON: WE WILL REFER TO THE FEBRUARY MINUTES AND CONFIRM THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. DR. PENHOET.

DR. PENHOET: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PHIL, I THINK ALL OF THE HARD DECISIONS WE MAKE BALANCE VARIOUS DIFFERENT INTERESTS AROUND THE TABLE. AND I'M PERSUADED BY OS STEWARD'S STATEMENT, THAT IF WE CHOOSE TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION, THAT IT SENDS A MESSAGE THAT WE WILL MARGINALIZE PARTICIPATION BY THE DISEASE ADVOCATES ON THIS GROUP. SO I WILL VOTE PERSONALLY NO ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I'M PERSUADED BY OS' ARGUMENT.

DR. PIZZO: MAY I JUST DISAGREE WITH THAT?

DR. PENHOET: NO, YOU CAN'T DISAGREE.

DR. PIZZO: I CAN INDEED, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE ALTERNATIVE POINT OF VIEW. I TOTALLY, OF COURSE, ENTHUSIASTICALLY VALUE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE DISEASE ADVOCATES. BY DEFINITION, THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL CONSTITUENCY THAT WE'LL LEARN FROM AND HOLD THE INTEGRITY OF BOTH CALIFORNIANS IN WHAT WE'RE ABOUT. THIS IS IN NO WAY A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. THIS IS REALLY ABOUT THE ETHICIST AND SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT ROLE, AND IT'S THAT THAT I'M FOCUSING ON. CLEARLY, I WANT TO VOCIFEROUSLY DISAGREE WITH ANY SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS ABOUT CONCERN ABOUT THE DISEASE ADVOCATES FROM CALIFORNIA.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE'VE HAD -- WE HAVE A MOTION.

WE'VE HAD BOARD COMMENT, PUBLIC COMMENT. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE -- DR. PRIETO.

DR. PRIETO: I'D JUST LIKE TO ECHO A LITTLE OF WHAT PHIL SAID, THAT THE DISEASE ADVOCATES DON'T REPRESENT INSTITUTIONS. AND SO WE DON'T PLAY A ROLE IN THE ADOPTION OF POLICIES THAT MIGHT IMPACT ANY INSTITUTIONS WE BELONG TO. I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.

THAT SAID, I THINK WE ALSO MIGHT LOOK AT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES THAT WE ADOPTED FOR OURSELVES FOR SOME GUIDANCE HERE IN THAT I CAN SEE A SITUATION WHERE WE WOULD HAVE SOME VERY VALUABLE CANDIDATES FROM CALIFORNIA WHOSE PARTICIPATION WE MIGHT WANT, WHO WOULD WANT TO, FOR EXAMPLE, PARTICIPATE IN A TRAINING PROGRAM.

I WOULD THINK TO AVOID AT LEAST ONE LEVEL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY, WE COULD STATE OR ADOPT AS A RULE THAT THEY COULD NOT RECEIVE SALARY SUPPORT, JUST AS NO ONE ON THIS BOARD CAN RECEIVE ANY FINANCIAL DIRECT SALARY SUPPORT, YET THEY COULD STILL PARTICIPATE THROUGH THEIR INSTITUTION IN A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR NEW SCIENTISTS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. WE HAVE DEBATED THIS ON BOTH SIDES PRETTY THOROUGHLY. GIVEN THE AGENDA, I WOULD ASK THE BOARD, IF IT'S POSSIBLE --

MS. KING: I CAN RESTATE THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY MINUTE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MELISSA, WOULD YOU RESTATE THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY MEETING.

MS. KING: I WILL. I'M JUST GOING TO START SAYING THAT THERE WAS A MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE REPORT PRESENTED BY THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE AT THE FEBRUARY 3D MEETING.

I'M GOING TO SCROLL BACK IN THOSE MINUTES TO FIND EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND I'M GOING TO ASK FOR DR. KESSLER'S HELP IN DOING THAT.

MS. SAMUELSON: WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION. ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS IS A THEOLOGIAN WHO IS ENORMOUSLY WIDELY PUBLISHED ON THE SUBJECT OF BIOMEDICAL ETHICS. HE IS AFFILIATED WITH THE GRADUATE THEOLOGICAL UNION IN BERKELEY. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A RELATIONSHIP WITH UC BERKELEY. HE COULD BE DISQUALIFIED PERHAPS, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE MOTION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I'M GOING TO, IF WE CAN'T GET TO THESE MINUTES VERY QUICKLY, I'M GOING TO SEE IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THE VOTE ITSELF MAY ELIMINATE AND MAKE THIS MOOT. WE'RE DOING RESEARCH TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED A TWO-THIRDS, AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE MOTION IS GOING TO BE APPROVED. SO I'M GOING TO ASK DR. PENHOET, AND THEN I'M GOING TO GO TO JIM HARRISON, AND I'M GOING TO WANT TO MOVE THIS MOTION BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OUTCOME OF THE MOTION, AND WE HAVEN'T DETERMINED THE VOTE YET.

DR. KESSLER, SINCE YOU ARE PRESENTING, I WILL DEFER TO YOU.

DR. KESSLER: AGAIN, I DEFER TO COUNSEL AS PARLIAMENTARIAN, BUT I DO THINK IF A MAJORITY OF THE ICOC THINKS THAT MEMBERS OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE SHOULD NOT BE CALIFORNIANS FROM INSTITUTIONS, JUST BE FACULTY OR ASSOCIATED, I THINK A MAJORITY IS A VERY STRONG SIGNAL.

I DON'T THINK -- I THINK WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO OUR COLLEAGUES. WE MAY DISAGREE ON THIS, BUT I THINK IF THERE'S A MAJORITY THAT THINKS THAT THIS IS PROBLEMATIC, WE SHOULD NOT PROCEED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. I THINK WE HAVE TO WORK AS A BOARD. I DON'T WANT TO SEE US FALLING BACK INTO TWO-THIRDS VOTES. A MAJORITY TO PULL OUR CONSENSUS AND TO KEEP A WORKING CONSENSUS TOGETHER -- MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT ROBERTS' RULES SAYS.

MR. HARRISON: ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER PROVIDES THAT A MOTION TO AMEND OR RESCIND SOMETHING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED REQUIRES TWO-THIRDS VOTE IF NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. AND DR. PENHOET.

FIRST OF ALL, WE MAY NOT HAVE ANY ISSUE HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THIS MOTION IS GOING TO GET A MAJORITY. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INTERPRETING THE OUTCOME OF THE MOTION. I IDENTIFY WITH DR. KESSLER'S STATEMENT THAT WE NEED TO HOLD THIS BOARD TOGETHER WORKING WITH A WORKING CONSENSUS. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION AND CALL A ROLL CALL VOTE.

(SEVERAL MEMBERS ASKED THAT THE MOTION BE RESTATED.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. LEVEY, WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE THE MOTION?

DR. LEVEY: YOU CAN RESTATE IT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION IS THAT ON THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE BETWEEN THE SCIENTIST CATEGORY AND ETHICIST CATEGORY, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MEMBER REPRESENTING -- FROM CALIFORNIA THAT WAS REPRESENTING A GRANTEE INSTITUTION. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

DR. LEVEY: THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD, AND MAYBE I WON'T INSIST ON THIS, BUT WHAT WE SAID ON THE GRANTS WORKING COMMITTEE WAS THAT NO ONE LIVING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE.

SO, SUSAN, YOU HAD --

DR. BRYANT: I THINK WE AMENDED THE MOTION TO SAY THAT -- TO LIMIT IT TO CALIFORNIANS THAT COME FROM INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE LIKELY GRANTEE INSTITUTIONS SO IT ALLOWS CALIFORNIANS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I BELIEVE --

DR. LEVEY: THAT WOULD BE FINE. WE HAVE PEOPLE ON THE GRANTS REVIEW WHO MAY HAVE BEEN BORN HERE OR TRAINED HERE.

DR. STEWARD: CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION?

MY CLARIFYING QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THAT WORD MEAN, COME FROM? DO WE MEAN THAT'S THEIR MAJOR -- I'M SERIOUS. IT ACTUALLY GOES TO JOAN'S QUESTION. DO WE MEAN THAT THAT IS THEIR MAJOR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT? DO WE MEAN THAT THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF A POSITION AT THAT INSTITUTION? IT ACTUALLY MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.

DR. LEVEY: ANY INVOLVEMENT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THE MOTION IS ANY INVOLVEMENT.

IT COMES FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THE MOTION. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH A GRANTEE -- A POTENTIAL GRANTEE INSTITUTION, PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT WITH A GRANTEE INSTITUTION. I TAKE IT THAT MEANS A PAID INVOLVEMENT. DR. LEVEY, A PAID INVOLVEMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?

DR. LEVEY: (NODS HEAD.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO --

DR. PRECIADO: I NEED TO CLARIFY THAT. WHAT IF THEY'RE ON VOLUNTARY?

DR. PIZZO: SAME THING WE DID.

DR. PRECIADO: EXACTLY. PAID AND VOLUNTARY.

DR. LEVEY: ANY INVOLVEMENT, RIGHT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN CLARIFIED THAT DR. LEVEY INTENDED TO REACH PAID AND VOLUNTARY.

DR. WRIGHT: AND ACTUALLY RESIDENT OR NONRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA. SOMEONE LIVING OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA WITH A PAID CONNECTION TO A UNIVERSITY, POTENTIALLY GRANTING UNIVERSITY, WOULD ALSO FALL UNDER THIS PROHIBITION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. LEVEY, THAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

DR. LEVEY: YES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THAT'S ALL ON THE RECORD. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. MELISSA.

MS. KING: DR. PAUL JENNINGS FOR DAVID BALTIMORE.

DR. JENNINGS: NO.

MS. KING: BOB PRICE FOR DR. BIRGENEAU.

DR. PRICE: NO.

MS. KING: KEITH BLACK.

DR. BLACK: NO.

MS. KING: SUSAN BRYANT.

DR. BRYANT: YES.

MS. KING: MICHAEL GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: NO.

MS. KING: FRANCIS MARKLAND FOR BRIAN HENDERSON.

DR. MARKLAND: YES.

MS. KING: EDWARD HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: NO.

MS. KING: DAVID KESSLER.

DR. KESSLER: I'LL ABSTAIN.

MS. KING: BOB KLEIN.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: NO.

MS. KING: SHERRY LANSING.

MS. LANSING: NO.

MS. KING: GERALD LEVEY.

DR. LEVEY: YES.

MS. KING: TED LOVE.

DR. LOVE: NO.

MS. KING: RICHARD MURPHY.

DR. MURPHY: YES.

MS. KING: TINA NOVA.

DR. NOVA: YES.

MS. KING: ED PENHOET.

DR. PENHOET: NO.

MS. KING: PHIL PIZZO.

DR. PIZZO: YES.

MS. KING: CLAIRE POMEROY.

DR. POMEROY: NO.

MS. KING: PHYLLIS PRECIADO.

DR. PRECIADO: YES.

MS. KING: FRANCISCO PRIETO.

DR. PRIETO: YES.

MS. KING: JEANNIE FONTANA FOR JOHN REED.

DR. FONTANA: NO.

MS. KING: JOAN SAMUELSON.

MS. SAMUELSON: NO.

MS. KING: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: NO.

MS. KING: JEFF SHEEHY.

MR. SHEEHY: NO.

MS. KING: OSWALD STEWARD.

DR. STEWARD: NO.

MS. KING: LEON THAL.

DR. THAL: NO.

MS. KING: GAYLE WILSON.

MS. WILSON: NO.

MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT.

DR. WRIGHT: YES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU. WE'LL TALLY THE VOTES. I BELIEVE THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO EVERYONE THAT WE HAVE A REAL WORKING CULTURE HERE WITH SCIENTISTS, PATIENT ADVOCATES, BIOMEDICAL REPRESENTATIVES ALL VOTING THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE FOR THE BEST APPROACH TO MEDICAL THERAPIES.

AND WE THANK YOU FOR THE INTENSE PASSION OF THE VIEWS, WHICH ARE ALL VERY STRONGLY HELD, AND WE THANK YOU FOR WORKING TOGETHER AS A GROUP.

I'D LIKE TO THEN ASK, DR. KESSLER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT A SLATE?

DR. KESSLER: YES, MR. CHAIR.

DR. PIZZO: BEFORE YOU DO THAT, QUESTION, DAVID.

ARE WE GOING TO RESOLVE AT A LATER TIME THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THESE INDIVIDUALS CAN HOLD OR APPLY FOR GRANTS?

DR. KESSLER: YEAH. I THINK THAT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THAT'S A SEPARATE ITEM. DR. KESSLER: SEPARATE ITEM. IN ADDITION TO THE MULTIPLE PDF'S THAT DESCENDED ON YOUR OFFICE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, WE DO HAVE ONE COPY, I AM TOLD, OF EVERYONE'S BIO. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND STAFF WILL BE AROUND.

MR. CHAIR, BEFORE I PRESENT THE SLATE, LET ME BRIEFLY REVIEW THE PROCESS THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOLLOWED FOR SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION.

FIRST, WE SOLICITED NOMINATIONS, SECOND WE REQUIRED ALL INTERESTED PARTS TO SUBMIT CV'S AND COMPLETE NOMINATION FORMS. WE RECEIVED NOMINATION FORMS AND CV'S FROM OVER 50 INDIVIDUALS. THE CANDIDATES WERE DIVIDED AMONG THREE TWO-PERSON REVIEW TEAMS. WE HAD AN INITIAL OPEN MEETING TO REVIEW THE CANDIDATES ON TUESDAY, MARCH 29TH. WE DISCUSSED THE ETHICIST CANDIDATES IN DETAIL AT THAT MEETING AND HAD AN INITIAL DISCUSSION OF THE SCIENTIST-CLINICIAN CANDIDATES.

WE MET AGAIN IN APRIL, AND TOOK THE TIME IN BETWEEN TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CANDIDATES. WE MET RECENTLY AND ARE DELIGHTED TO RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES. FOR THE FIVE SPOTS ALLOTTED TO MEMBERS OF THE ICOC FROM THE TEN DISEASE SPECIFIC AREAS, WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND SHERRY LANSING, PHYLLIS PRECIADO, FRANCISCO PRIETO, JEFF SHEEHY, AND JONATHAN SHESTACK.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES ON THE SEARCH COMMITTEE TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY TO THE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND IN THE ETHICIST CATEGORY. DAVID, WOULD YOU PLEASE BEGIN WITH A FEW OF THEM.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU, DEAN KESSLER. THE FIRST NAME IS BERNIE LO. BERNIE LO RECEIVED AN M.D. FROM STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE IN 1975. HE HAS BEEN A PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO SINCE 1980, AND DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRAM IN MEDICAL ETHICS AT UCSF SINCE 1989.

PROFESSOR LO HAS SERVED AS CHAIR OF THE CHANCELLOR'S CAMPUS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ETHICAL ISSUES AND EMBRYO AND STEM CELL RESEARCH SINCE 2003. PROFESSOR LO HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON ISSUES RELATING TO BIOMEDICAL ETHICS, INCLUDING ARTICLES ENTITLED "INFORMED CONSENT IN HUMAN AND EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH." IN ADDITION, PROFESSOR LO HAS SERVED AS NATIONAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR OF THE GREENWALL FACULTY SCHOLARS IN BIOETHICS PROGRAMS SINCE 2001, AND HE HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE COUNCIL SINCE 2002.

THE NEXT NAME I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS IS HARRIET RABB. SHE RECEIVED HER JURIS DOCTORATE AT COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL IN 1966. SHE IS A MEMBER OF THE FACULTY AT COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL FROM 1971 TO 1993 WHERE SHE SERVED AS VICE DEAN OF THE GEORGE M. *GAFFEN PROFESSOR OF LAW AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AT COLUMBIA.

MS. RABB, DISTINGUISHED AND DIRECTED THE SCHOOL'S ETHICS COURSE, REQUIRED FOR ALL LAW STUDENTS.

SHE WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON TO SERVE AS GENERAL COUNSEL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FROM 1993 TO 2001 WHERE SHE LED THE DEPARTMENT'S LEGAL EFFORTS ON HEALTHCARE POLICY ISSUES, INCLUDING STEM CELL RESEARCH.

TOBACCO ASSISTED -- OTHER ISSUES, SHE DEALT WITH TOBACCO, ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY, TISSUE AND ORGAN ALLOCATION, FETAL TISSUE ON HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH, INFORMED CONSENT AND VACCINE ISSUES. IN HER CURRENT POSITION AS VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY, SHE HAS SERVED AS CHAIR OF THE UNIVERSITY'S STEM CELL TASK FORCE AND AS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT'S HUMAN STEM CELL BIOETHICS GROUP. AT THE ROCKEFELLER SHE PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN PARTICIPANT DATA REGISTRIES AND CLINICAL TRIALS IN THE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL.

IN ADDITION, MS. RABB IS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE HASTINGS CENTER. MS. RABB AND BERNIE LO. DR. KESSLER: JOAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE CONTINUE. MS. SAMUELSON: THE THIRD RECOMMENDED MEMBER FOR ONE OF THE ETHICIST SLOTS IS R. ALTA CHARO. SHE RECEIVED A J.D. AS A STONE SCHOLAR FROM COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW IN 1982. SHE HAS BEEN ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR RESEARCH AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN LAW SCHOOL SINCE 2002, AND HAS SERVED AS A PROFESSOR OF LAW AND BIOETHICS WITH A JOINT APPOINTMENT AT THE LAW AND MEDICAL SCHOOLS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SINCE 1989.

PROFESSOR CHARO HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON ISSUES RELATING TO BIOMEDICAL ETHICS, INCLUDING AUTHORING CHAPTERS ENTITLED "ETHICAL ISSUES IN EMBRYO RESEARCH AND RESEARCH USES OF HUMAN BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS." PROFESSOR CHARO HAS SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE AT THE CENTER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON. IN ADDITION, SHE HAS SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE U.S. NATIONAL BIOETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION FROM 1996 TO 2001.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY JEFF SHEEHY AND I INTERVIEWED HER AT LENGTH ON THE PHONE, AND SHE DEMONSTRATED THE ENCYCLOPEDIC COMMAND OF THIS ENTIRE FIELD, WHICH I THINK WE'VE ALL WITNESSED. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I FOUND IT INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT THAT SHE ALSO HAD OTHER INTERESTING INFORMED ANALYSES OF ISSUES THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE THAT WE PROBABLY HAVEN'T THOUGHT NECESSARILY TO RAISE ETHICAL ISSUES, SUCH AS HOW TO CHOOSE AMONG DISEASE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD RECEIVE RESEARCH HELP TOWARD TREATMENT AND PERHAPS CREATE CLAIMS OF PITTING ONE AGAINST ANOTHER. AND SHE BROUGHT THIS PROFOUND ETHICAL UNDERSTANDING TO A WIDE ARRAY OF QUESTIONS. IT WAS A VERY PROVOCATIVE DISCUSSION.

THE FINAL ETHICIST WE'RE PRESENTING IS THEODORE PETERS. HE RECEIVED A MASTER'S IN DIVINITY FROM TRINITY LUTHERAN SEMINARY IN COLUMBUS, OHIO, IN 1967, AND A PH.D. FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO IN 1973.

HE HAS SERVED AS A PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AT PACIFIC LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AND AT THE GRADUATE THEOLOGICAL UNION SINCE 1978.

PROFESSOR PETERS HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON ISSUES RELATING TO BIOMEDICAL ETHICS, INCLUDING AUTHORING ARTICLES ENTITLED "THEOLOGICAL SUPPORT OF STEM CELL RESEARCH," AND EDITING BOOKS ENTITLED GENETICS: ISSUES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE.

PROFESSOR PETERS HAS EXPERIENCED ADMINISTERING ETHICAL SAFEGUARDS DURING THE CLINICAL TRIAL PROCESS DURING HIS FOUR-YEAR TENURE ON THE ETHICS ADVISORY BOARD OF THE GERON CORPORATION. AND HE MADE STRONG THE POINT TO US THAT HE SAW HIS CONTRIBUTION ESSENTIALLY AS THAT OF AN ACADEMIC, THAT HE COULD ASSIST US IN UNDERSTANDING THE VARIOUS THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES THAT PEOPLE BRING TO THEIR ETHICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES BEFORE US.

IT ALSO HAPPENS THAT HE IS A STRONG SUPPORTER OF STEM CELL RESEARCH AND IS WRITING A BOOK ABOUT THE THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THAT.

DR. KESSLER: I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH THE EIGHT INDIVIDUALS WE'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND IN THE SCIENTIST-CLINICIAN CATEGORY. WHEN I STARTED, I SAID NINE. THE REASON FOR THAT CHANGE IS THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT ACTUALLY ASKED THAT WE NOT BRING THAT PERSON'S NAME BECAUSE WE'VE NOT DEALT WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT INDIVIDUAL IS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANTS. SO WE WILL ONLY PRESENT EIGHT. IF THINGS CHANGE, THAT WE CAN CLARIFY AT A LATER TIME.

DAVID, WILL YOU PLEASE BEGIN WITH THE FIRST SCIENTIST-CLINICIAN? LET ME ASK JOAN -- I'M SORRY.

DAVID JUST STEPPED OUT. JOAN, COULD YOU, WHILE DAVID IS OUT, CONTINUE.

MS. SAMUELSON: SURE. THE FIRST IS JEFFREY KORDOWER. HE RECEIVED A PH.D. FROM CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK IN 1984. DR. KORDOWER IS CURRENTLY DIRECTOR OF THE SECTION OF NEUROBIOLOGY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES, DIRECTOR OF THE RESEARCH CENTER FOR BRAIN REPAIR, AND GENE SCHWEPP ARMOR PROFESSOR OF NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES AT RUSH PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL IN CHICAGO.

DR. KORDOWER HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE FIELDS OF GENE THERAPY, NEUROTRANSPLANTATION, NONHUMAN PRIMATE MODELS OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE, AND EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTIC STRATEGIES FOR PARKINSON'S AND HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE. HE MADE THE PIONEERING DEMONSTRATION THAT FETAL TRANSPLANTS CAN SURVIVE IN PATIENTS WITH PARKINSON'S DISEASE. HE HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT GENE DELIVERY OF ATROPHIC FACTOR CALLED GDNF CAN PREVENT DEGENERATION AND RESTORE FUNCTION IN NONHUMAN PRIMATE MODELS OF PARKINSON'S DISEASE.

DR. KESSLER: OS, WOULD YOU PRESENT THE NEXT AND SEE IF YOU CAN STALL UNTIL DAVID COMES BACK FOR THE ONE LAST. I'M SORRY. JEFF, YOU'RE NEXT.

MR. SHEEHY: JOSE CIBELLI RECEIVED A PH.D. IN REPRODUCTIVE PHYSIOLOGY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN 1998. HE RECEIVED A DVM FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF LA PLATA ARGENTINA SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE IN 1989. DR. CIBELLI WAS THE SCIENTIST THAT ADVANCED CELL TECHNOLOGY IN WORCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, FROM 1997 TO 2002 WHERE HE ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH.

DR. CIBELLI, TOGETHER WITH HIS COLLEAGUES, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GENERATION OF THE WORLD'S FIRST TRANSGENIC CLONED CALVES, THE FIRST EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS BY NUCLEAR TRANSFER, AND THE FIRST EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS BY PARTHENOGENESIS IN PRIMATES. IN ADDITION TO HIS SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS, DR. CIBELLI HAS CO-AUTHORED A PAPER ENTITLED "THE ETHICAL VALIDITY OF USING NUCLEAR TRANSFER IN HUMAN TRANSPLANTATION."

THE SECOND ONE I HAVE IS ANN KIESSLING. SHE RECEIVED A PH.D. IN BIOCHEMISTRY, BIOPHYSICS FROM OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY IN 1971. SHE HAS SERVED AS AN ASSISTANT AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT OREGON STATE -- AT OREGON HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY FROM 1997 TO 1985. AND IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL SINCE 1985.

PROFESSOR KIESSLING STARTED THE FIRST IN VITRO BIRTH FERTILIZATION LABORATORY IN OREGON AND WAS RECRUITED TO HARVARD TO HEAD UP AN IVF LABORATORY AT BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL WHERE SHE HAS CONTINUED HER RESEARCH INTO BOTH EARLY EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT AND SEMEN TRANSMISSION OF HIV.

PROFESSOR KIESSLING MADE SEVERAL DISCOVERIES ABOUT EARLY EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT AND IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPING RELIABLE SYSTEMS FOR PARTHENOGENETIC ACTIVATION OF MAMMALIAN EGGS, INCLUDING HUMAN -- INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF ENDOGENOUS REVERSE TRANSCRIPTOTASE IN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL DIFFERENTIATION AND DEVELOPING STRATEGIES FROM MATURE OOCYTES FOR HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.

IN ADDITION TO HER SCIENTIFIC WORK, PROFESSOR KIESSLING HAS SERVED ON THE ETHICS ADVISORY BOARD OF THE FALKNER CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, ON THE AIDS AND RELATED RESEARCH, IRB'S AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, AND ON THE ETHICS ADVISORY BOARD OF ADVANCED CELL TECHNOLOGY.

I WOULD ADD JOAN AND I WERE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO INTERVIEW HER, AND A VERY INTERESTING COMMENT THAT SHE MADE IS THAT SHE THOUGHT THAT STEM CELL RESEARCH HAS BEEN SO BADLY REPRESENTED IN THE PUBLIC, THAT AS A SCIENTIST SHE FELT THE NEED TO GET OUT FROM BEHIND THE BENCH AND START TALKING TO FOLKS TO TRY TO ALLAY THEIR FEAR AND HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE THE MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE ON STEM CELL RESEARCH. SO IN A WAY, WE MAY BE ADDING ANOTHER ADVOCATE.

NEXT CANDIDATE I HAVE IS KENNETH OLDEN. HE RECEIVED A PH.D. IN CELL BIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY FROM TEMPLE UNIVERSITY IN 1970. DR. OLDEN HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MANUFACTURE, MODIFICATION, AND SECRETION OF EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX PROTEINS. MOST RECENTLY HAS BEGUN TO STUDY UNDERLYING PROCESSES OF CELL GROWTH AND DEATH IN HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELLS, THE ABILITY TO ALTER THE GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCH STEM CELLS COULD HAVE MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS IN THE AREAS OF CHEMOTHERAPY AND BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION.

IN ADDITION TO HIS SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS, DR. OLDEN HAS SERVED AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCE AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH AND IS DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM AT THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA SINCE 1991.

DR. OLDEN IS THE FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN TO BECOME DIRECTOR OF ONE OF THE 18 INSTITUTES FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH IN THE HISTORY OF THE AGENCY.

I WOULD ADD WE ALSO INTERVIEWED HIM. I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT HE HAS CONDUCTED NUMEROUS CLINICAL TRIALS AND SAT ON DATA SAFETY MONITORING BOARDS, AND PROVIDED REALLY UNIQUE INSIGHT ON THE IMPORTANCE OF INVOLVING PATIENTS ACTIVELY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF AND THE CONDUCT OF CLINICAL TRIALS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PIZZO.

DR. PIZZO: JUST ONE QUESTION, DAVID. YOU'LL PERHAPS BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THIS. I KNOW KEN OLDEN WELL. HE'S A TERRIFIC NOMINEE. QUESTION IS IS THE NIH GOING TO GIVE HIM APPROVAL TO SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE?

DR. KESSLER: IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. IT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. WE'RE PREPARED TO RECOMMEND HIS NAME TODAY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT DECISION HAS YET TO BE MADE. IF, IN FACT, HE GETS TURNED DOWN, THEN WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND DO SOME MORE WORK, SIR.

DR. PIZZO: I THINK, JUST GIVEN RECENT EXPERIENCE OF HAVING NIH LEADERS SERVE ON ADVISORY GROUPS, THE NIH HAS BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT IN NOT BEING WILLING TO DO THAT.

DR. KESSLER: AGAIN, THERE ARE CERTAIN ISSUES WITH REGARD TO KEN. THERE ARE SOME CAREER TRANSITIONS UNDERWAY. SO THERE'S A LITTLE COMPLEXITY TO THAT. WE FELT WE SHOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU THE BEST. HE WANTS TO BE -- HE'S WILLING TO BE PUT FORWARD. IF HE CANNOT SERVE, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU AND WE'LL APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING YOUR TIME.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK GAYLE WILSON HAS A COMMENT.

MS. WILSON: I WAS DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF CALIFORNIANS BEING ALLOWED TO SERVE, BUT I HAVE SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR GRANTS. YOU MENTIONED THAT ONE PERSON DID NOT WANT HIS OR HER NAME BROUGHT UP, BUT YOU MENTIONED TWO PEOPLE ON HERE WHO DID ASK ABOUT THAT ISSUE. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF WE VOTE THAT PERSON IN AND THEN WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO APPLY FOR IT?

DR. KESSLER: I THINK THAT PERSON HAS THE OPTION OF RESIGNING FROM THE COMMITTEE. THAT PERSON WILL HAVE TO LIVE BY THE RULES SET BY THE ICOC.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU. WE HAVE -- ANY ADDITIONAL?

DR. KESSLER: YES, I HAVE A FEW MORE, SIR. OS, WOULD YOU PLEASE CONTINUE.

DR. STEWARD: JANET D. ROWLEY RECEIVED AN M.D. FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO IN 1948. SHE JOINED THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO IN 1962 AND IS CURRENTLY THE BLUM-RIESE. DISTINGUISHED SERVICE PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE IN MOLECULAR GENETICS AND CELL BIOLOGY AND HUMAN GENETICS AT THE PRITZKER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.

SHE IS EXTRAORDINARILY WELL-KNOWN IN THE BEGINNING FOR HER STUDIES OF CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITIES IN HUMAN LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA. MORE RECENTLY HER RESEARCH HAS EXPANDED INTO CAUSES OF CANCER, INCLUDING CHANGES IN GENE EXPRESSION AND DIFFERENTIATION OF HEMATOPOETIC STEM CELLS. SHE'S THE RECIPIENT OF THE ALBERT LASKER MEDAL OF SCIENCE AND THE ALBERT LASKER CLINICAL MEDICINE RESEARCH PRIZE. AND THIS, I SHOULD NOTE, IS THE MOST DISTINGUISHED NORTH AMERICAN HONOR FOR CLINICAL MEDICAL RESEARCH.

IN ADDITION TO HER SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS, SHE'S A MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS.

THE NEXT INDIVIDUAL, ROBERT M. TAYLOR, RECEIVED AN M.D. AND PH.D. FROM BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE IN 1981. HE'S CURRENTLY PROFESSOR AND VICE CHAIR FOR RESEARCH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF OBSTETRICS, GYNECOLOGY, AND REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT HE WILL BE AT EMORY UNIVERSITY IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, AND SO WILL BE OUT OF THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF BEING OR NOT BEING A CALIFORNIAN.

HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE DIVISION OF REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, IN VITRO FERTILIZATION PROGRAM AT THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCES AT UCSF.

THIS HAS GIVEN HIM TREMENDOUS EXPERTISE IN ISSUES RELATED TO EGG DONATION AND EARLY EMBRYO MATTERS THAT ARE VERY PERTINENT TO STEM CELL RESEARCH. AUTHORED MANY PAPERS ON THE SUBJECTS OF HUMAN ENDOMETRIAL FUNCTION AND EARLY PREGNANCY.

THIRD ON MY LIST, JAMES WILLERSON, RECEIVED AN M.D. FROM BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE IN 1965, CURRENTLY HOLDS THE EDWARD RANDALL, III, CHAIR IN INTERNAL MEDICINE AND THE ALBERT ALKICH WILLIAMS DISTINGUISHED PROFESSORSHIP.

IN ADDITION, DR. WILLERSON IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND PRESIDENT ELECT OF THE TEXAS HEART INSTITUTE.

HIS CURRENT RESEARCH INTERESTS INCLUDE THE USE OF STEM CELLS TO IMPROVE SEVERELY DAMAGED HEART TISSUE. HE AND HIS COLLEAGUES AT THE TEXAS HEART INSTITUTE NOW LEAD ONE OF THE FIRST FDA-APPROVED CLINICAL TRIALS TO TREAT PATIENTS WITH END-STAGE HEART DISEASE USING THEIR OWN BONE MARROW DERIVED STEM CELLS. HIS LABORATORY HAS DEMONSTRATED TRANSDIFFERENTIATION OF ONE TYPE OF PERIPHERAL BLOOD CELL INTO THE CARDIOMYOCYTES THAT FORM THE HEART WALL.

DR. KESSLER: DAVID, WOULD YOU FINISH UP, PLEASE.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: SURE. THE LAST NAME FOR CONSIDERATION IS KEVIN EGGAN. HE RECEIVED HIS PH.D. IN BIOLOGY FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IN FEBRUARY OF 2003. HE IS CURRENTLY A JUNIOR FELLOW AT THE HARVARD SOCIETY OF FELLOWS AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

DR. EGGAN WILL BEGIN A POSITION AS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY THIS FALL.

DR. EGGAN HAS DEVOTED THE LAST SEVEN YEARS TO PERFORMING STEM CELL RESEARCH. HE IS CURRENTLY LEADING A RESEARCH GROUP THAT IS INVESTIGATING THE MECHANICS OF REGULATING EPIGENETIC REPROGRAMMING AFTER SOMATIC CELL NUCLEAR TRANSFER, AND USING NUCLEAR TRANSFER TECHNIQUES TO DERIVE DISEASE-SPECIFIC HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL LINES FROM DIABETES AND PARKINSON'S PATIENTS.

HIS SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS INCLUDE CLONING MICE FROM OLFACTORY SENSORY NEURONS, DERIVING EMBRYONIC GERM CELLS FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, AND CHARACTERIZING THE ABNORMALITIES THAT SOMETIMES ARISE AS A RESULT OF NUCLEAR TRANSFER.

DR. KESSLER: ARE THERE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ON THE INDIVIDUALS NOMINATED FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL STANDARDS ACCOUNTABILITY WORKING GROUP?

DR. PIZZO: MY FORMER COMMENTS BEING ABOUT PRINCIPLE, I WOULD NOW LIKE TO COMMEND YOU, DAVID AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE, FOR BRINGING FORWARD AN OUTSTANDING PANEL OF HIGHLY DIVERSIFIED AND REALLY EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTORS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DR. WRIGHT: I WANT TO ADD MY COMMENTS TO DR. PIZZO'S. THIS IS JUST AN OUTSTANDING LIST, AND I'M PERSONALLY FAMILIAR WITH DR. WILLERSON'S WORK AND THRILLED THAT HE WOULD BE PART OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE OR COMMITTEE.

JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. ALTHOUGH FETUSES HAVE HEARTS, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE DR. TAYLOR IS CARDIOVASCULAR. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; IS THAT CORRECT?

HE'S LISTED HERE AS REPRODUCTIVE.

DR. KESSLER: HE'S REPRODUCTIVE, YES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SHERRY LANSING.

MS. LANSING: I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT JUST LISTENING TO THIS, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, I'M NOT ON THE COMMITTEE, BUT I ALSO WANT TO SAY THIS IS JUST AN EXTRAORDINARY LIST. AND I THINK IT SPEAKS EXTRAORDINARILY WELL OF THE COMMITTEE AND OF THE WHOLE INITIATIVE THAT SO MANY PEOPLE WANT TO SERVE ON THIS.

AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH A FEW OF THESE PEOPLE, AND THEY'RE JUST OF THE HIGHEST STANDARDS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR APPROVAL OF THE SLATE.

DR. HOLMES: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

DR. KESSLER: BEFORE -- I APPRECIATE THE ENTHUSIASM. CAN WE JUST ASK FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE INDIVIDUALS NOMINATED FOR APPOINTMENT?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? NO COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY FOLLOWING SHERRY LANSING'S COMMENT, ONE NEEDS TO ASK WHY IS IT THAT A WORLD CLASS SLATE IS PREPARED TO COME TO CALIFORNIA TO SERVE A STATE PROPOSITION. AND I HOPE THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, THE WORLD APPRECIATES THE INITIATIVE, THAT THEY HAVE HAD THE COURAGE TO VOTE WITH A MANDATE. A WORLD CLASS SLATE OF THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST IS GOING TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA AND THIS INITIATIVE BECAUSE THAT IS THE BEST WAY IN THIS NATION TO ADVANCE THIS FRONTIER OF SCIENCE, STEM CELL RESEARCH, TO IMPROVE THERAPIES FOR THE CHRONICALLY ILL.

THIS IS A GREAT COMPLIMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA THAT A SLATE FOR STANDARDS OF THIS QUALITY WOULD COME TO SERVE THIS INITIATIVE. AND, DR. KESSLER, AGAIN, KATE SHREVE, MARY MAXON, THANK YOU FOR YOUR -- AND DINA AS WELL, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR DEDICATED EFFORTS.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: CALL THE QUESTION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: CALL THE QUESTION.

DR. KESSLER: CAN I ASK, MR. CHAIR, IF WE CAN ACTUALLY SPLIT THE SLATE IN TWO. AND FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE MR. SHEEHY AND I HAVE RECUSED OURSELVES ON TWO INDIVIDUALS. SO IF WE CAN JUST SPLIT THE VOTE SO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECUSE OURSELVES ON CERTAIN OF THE ONES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH OUR INSTITUTION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THE CHAIR WILL ACCEPT THAT.

DR. KESSLER: MAY I ASK MELISSA TO READ THE FIRST MOTION.

MS. KING: FIRST MOTION IS ON THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS: HARRIET RABB, TED PETERS, ALTA CHARO, ANN KIESSLING, JOSE CIBELLI, KEN OLDEN, JEFFREY KORDOWER, KEVIN EGGAN, JANET ROWLEY, AND JAMES WILLERSON. AND WE CAN VOICE VOTE FOR THIS, SO, BOB, I TURN THAT BACK OVER TO YOU. VOICE VOTE ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED?

MOTION PASSES.

MS. KING: OKAY. AND THE SECOND PART OF THIS, THE TWO INDIVIDUALS YOU WILL BE VOTING ON ARE ROB TAYLOR AND BERNIE LO. AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES. JEFF SHEEHY.

MR. SHEEHY: YES.

MS. KING: AND DR. KESSLER.

DR. KESSLER: I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF.

MS. KING: TURN BACK OVER TO YOU FOR A VOICE VOTE, BOB.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.

OPPOSED. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

DR. KESSLER: MR. CHAIRMAN, NOW THAT WE'VE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP, I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE SELECT INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE AS INTERIM CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR.

MR. SHEEHY: YOU DIDN'T APPROVE THE PATIENT ADVOCATES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THE PATIENT ADVOCATES --

MR. HARRISON: YOU NEED TO MAKE A MOTION AND APPROVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FIVE PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP.

DR. WRIGHT: I MOVE THEY RECOMMEND -- I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE SLATE OF PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS.

DR. PIZZO: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THERE'S A MOTION BY DR. WRIGHT, A SECOND FROM DR. PIZZO.

MS. KING: I CAN READ THOSE NAMES, IF NECESSARY.

YOU'LL BE VOTING ON SHERRY LANSING, PHYLLIS PRECIADO, FRANCISCO PRIETO, JEFF SHEEHY, AND JONATHAN SHESTACK AS THE PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS.

MR. HARRISON: THOSE MEMBERS WHO ARE BEING VOTED ON SHOULD ALSO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM PARTICIPATING IN THIS VOICE VOTE.

(ALL PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS RECUSED THEMSELVES FROM THE VOTE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I BELIEVE THAT SINCE WE'VE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ENTIRE SLATE, WE CAN GO FORWARD ON THIS. COUNSEL CONCURS. WE HAVE A FORTUNATE DAY. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED. THE ENTIRE SLATE. THANK YOU, MR. SHEEHY.

(APPLAUSE.)

DR. KESSLER: TO GET DOWN TO THE FIRST SEVERAL MEETINGS, AS DR. HALL SUGGESTED, WE BELIEVE, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE CAN MOVE TO THE ISSUE OF INTERIM CO-CHAIRS, THERE WAS A ROBUST DISCUSSION BEFORE. AND AS IT TURNS OUT, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO ACTUALLY HAVE A CHAIR FROM -- AS A DISEASE ADVOCATE FROM THE ICOC AND A CO-CHAIR FROM ONE OF THE NAMES THAT WE HAVE JUST --

YOU'VE JUST ADOPTED. SO I THINK THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CHAIR BE SHERRY LANSING AND THE CO-CHAIR BE HARRIET RABB. BOTH INDIVIDUALS HAVE KINDLY AND GENEROUSLY SAID THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO SERVE IN THIS INTERIM CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR CAPACITY.

ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ABOUT EITHER CANDIDATE OR THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY SERVE AS INTERIM CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR?

DR. PIZZO: GREAT ENTHUSIASM.

DR. POMEROY: JUST TO CLARIFY, THEY ARE EQUAL CO-CHAIRS, CORRECT?

MS. LANSING: I SURE HOPE SO.

DR. KESSLER: MS. LANSING, I LOOK TO YOU. MS. LANSING HAS DESIGNATED THAT THEY ARE EQUAL. THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AND CO-CHAIRS. I STAND CORRECTED. THEY ARE CO-CHAIRS.

ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT EITHER CANDIDATE OR THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY SERVE AS INTERIM CO-CHAIRS?

WOULD ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE SHERRY LANSING AND HARRIET RABB TO SERVE AS INTERIM CO-CHAIRS OF THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP?

(ALL MEMBERS MOVED.)

DR. KESSLER: IS THERE A SECOND?

(ALL MEMBERS SECOND.)

DR. KESSLER: ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?

ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND SHERRY WOULD BE RECUSING HERSELF FROM THIS VOTE.

DR. KESSLER: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU CAN CALL FOR THE VOICE VOTE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: CALL FOR THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED?

DR. KESSLER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: QUESTION FROM DR. WRIGHT.

DR. WRIGHT: DOES THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE A LIST OF ALTERNATES?

DR. KESSLER: WE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE, AND THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, GO BACK AND DO FURTHER WORK. IN FACT, WE HAVE TO ON ONE AND WE WILL BE BACK.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD A FIVE-MINUTE REST BREAK.

(A RECESS WAS TAKEN.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE HAVE A BIG AGENDA. WE COULD MOVE FORWARD IF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS COULD BE SEATED.

IF SOMEONE COULD ASK SHERRY LANSING, WHO IS IN THE LOBBY AND CAN'T HEAR US, IF SHE COULD JOIN US, PLEASE. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IN THE LOBBY, IF THEY COULD JOIN US. AND I THINK PAM FOBBS IS OUT THERE AS WELL. COULD SOMEONE ASK PAM TO JOIN US. I SEE PAM.

WHILE EVERYONE IS BEING SEATED, BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE NEXT ITEM, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND PAM FOBBS. PAM IS A LAWYER. PAM, COULD YOU STAND FOR A MOMENT? THANK YOU. PAM HAS AGREED TO CHAIR A DIVERSITY ADVISORY COUNCIL. THAT GROUP IS DRAWING TOGETHER IDEAS ABOUT HOW WE CAN SERVE DIVERSITY, AND THOSE IDEAS WILL EVENTUALLY COME TO THE BOARD. THERE WILL MOST PROBABLY BE A SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNED TO LOOK AT THEM AND WORK THEM OUT AND BRING THEM BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION AS WE GO FORWARD.

BUT IN ORDER TO PULL TOGETHER THE RICHNESS OF IDEAS FROM THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA ON HOW WE CAN BEST SERVE DIVERSITY, PAM HAS AGREED TO PUT THAT GROUP TOGETHER AND INITIATE THE MEETINGS, THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS IN THE WORK SESSION LAST NIGHT THAT SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE ABLE TO ATTEND ALONG WITH ZACH HALL AND I AND ARLENE CHIU, AND OTHER STAFF MEMBERS.

PAM IS THE IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING MINORITY DOCTORS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. AND SHE AND HER HUSBAND, DENARD FOBBS, IS THE PAST CHAIR OF THE GOLDEN WEST MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION FOR MINORITY DOCTORS IN CALIFORNIA, ONE OF THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS.

LORRAINE TAKAHASHI WAS HERE LAST NIGHT REPRESENTING COMMUNITY MEDICAL FOUNDATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FRESNO CAMPUS.

SHE'S ALSO THE FORMER ACTING CONSUL GENERAL TO FRANKFURT, GERMANY. RANDALL PHAM WAS HERE OF THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ETHNIC PHYSICIAN SECTION THAT HE SPOKE FOR.

JULIE MOLENA WAS HERE FROM THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH COLLABORATIVE, ALONG WITH MALICK BOZZ, WHO IS -- WAS SPEAKING ON THE DIVERSITY IN BIOLOGICAL GENETIC MATERIALS. ARTHUR FLEMING, M.D., A RETIRED SURGEON WHO IS CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ETHNIC PHYSICIANS SECTION CHAIR, SPOKE ALONG WITH BARBARA YOUNG, PAST BOARD CHAIR OF LEADERSHIP AMERICA AND RETIRED EXECUTIVE FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.

I GREATLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, PAM FOBBS' LEADERSHIP IN HELPING US EXPLORE THESE ISSUES, AND IT IS AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON IN STUDY SECTIONS AS WELL AS IT WILL THEN COME TO A SUBCOMMITTEE, AND THEN TO THE BOARD FOR A FORMAL SESSION FOR DISCUSSING THOSE ISSUES AND ADVANCING DIVERSITY IN THE THERAPY DEVELOPMENT UNDER PROPOSITION 71.

(APPLAUSE.)

DR. PRECIADO: BOB, CAN WE ASK THE MEMBERS THAT ARE PRESENT HERE TODAY TO STAND UP AND SAY THEIR NAME SO THAT WE CAN PUT A FACE TO THE NAME?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK DR. ARTHUR FLEMING IS HERE.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND ARE ANY OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS FROM LAST NIGHT PRESENT? DR. BARBARA YOUNG IS HERE.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ANYONE ELSE FROM LAST NIGHT'S SESSION WHO IS A SPEAKER PRESENT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'D TO, WITH ITEM 13, TURN THIS OVER TO DR. EDWARD HOLMES TO GO THROUGH THE GRANT REVIEW WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS. DR. HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. BEFORE I BEGIN THE REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO COMMEND AND THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBGROUP WHO WORKED EXTRAORDINARILY HARD TO BRING FORWARD THE NAMES WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY AND ALSO TO THANK THE STAFF. MARY MAXON AND ZACH HALL DESERVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF THANKS FROM THE BOARD. AND KATE, YES. THANK YOU. ZACH, I THINK, PROBABLY HAS TELEPHONE EAR FROM ALL THE PHONE CALLS THAT HE'S MADE RELATED TO THIS.

IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WON'T REVIEW THE ENTIRE PROCESS. THERE'S A FLOW CHART IN YOUR BOOKS THAT REVIEWS WHAT WE DID AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. AND I'LL SIMPLY HIGHLIGHT A FEW POINTS, THAT WE MET THREE TIMES SINCE OUR COMMITTEE WAS CONSTITUTED. THE FIRST MEETING WAS JANUARY THE 25TH TO DEVELOP THE CRITERIA WE WOULD USE FOR SELECTING THE NAMES WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD TO YOU TODAY. THEN BETWEEN JANUARY THE 26TH AND FEBRUARY THE 14TH WAS A PERIOD OF ACTIVE RECRUITMENT, WHICH RESULTED IN 800 CANDIDATE NAMES BEING BROUGHT FORWARD.

THEN THROUGH THE HARD WORK OF MANY PEOPLE, WE WERE TO ABLE TO NARROW THIS INTO TWO GROUPS, ONE THAT WAS CALLED A TOP TIER CANDIDATE GROUP, AND THEN A SECOND TIER CANDIDATE GROUP. THE FULL LIST OF ALL OF THE CANDIDATES WAS RANDOMLY AND EVENLY DISTRIBUTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEES WITHIN OUR GROUP. AND THEN OVER A PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS, THE TEAMS WORKED TO RANK AND INTERVIEW THE CANDIDATES.

SECOND MEETING WAS HELD WHILE THIS WAS GOING ON TO DISCUSS THE PROCESS THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW, AND AT THAT TIME THE GROUP AGREED THAT IT WOULD HELP US IF A RECRUITMENT LETTER COULD BE SENT FROM ZACH, FROM CHAIRMAN KLEIN, AND FROM VICE CHAIR PENHOET TO THE TOP TIER CANDIDATES INDICATING THAT WE WOULD BE CONTACTING THEM AND TO HOPEFULLY WARM THEM UP AND SOLICIT THEIR HELP.

IT WAS FURTHER AGREED AT THIS PROCESS MEETING THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW A TWO-PHASE PROCESS. PHASE 1 WAS IN WHICH THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD REVIEW THE GRANTS AND THEN CALL INDIVIDUALS AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO HELP US IF WE THOUGHT THEY WERE APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE INTERVIEWS. AND A SECOND PHASE WAS FOLLOWED IN WHICH ZACH HALL CALLED ALL OF THE NAMES THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND WENT THROUGH A SERIES OF ISSUES WITH THEM THAT DEALT WITH SUCH MATTERS AS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, TIME OF SERVICE, ETC. TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WERE NO DISQUALIFYING CRITERIA THAT WE COULD IDENTIFY FROM THESE INDIVIDUALS.

A DEADLINE WAS USED IN WHICH WE SUBMITTED EIGHT NAMES. WE WERE DIVIDED INTO SIX SUBGROUPS, AND EACH OF THE SUBGROUPS WAS TO SUBMIT EIGHT NAMES WITH FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FULL MEMBERSHIP AND THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD POTENTIALLY SERVE AS ALTERNATES.

ON APRIL THE 26TH THE SUBCOMMITTEE HELD ITS THIRD MEETING, WHICH I THINK WAS A VERY SUCCESSFUL MEETING, AND CAME UP WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO THE FULL BOARD TODAY AS SEVEN DISEASE ADVOCATE MEMBERS OF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND 15 SCIENTIFIC MEMBERS.

LET ME JUST COMMENT THAT I THINK THE SCIENTIFIC MEMBERS THAT YOU WILL HEAR TODAY ARE TRULY OUTSTANDING.

DR. KESSLER'S GROUP BROUGHT FORWARD AN EXTRAORDINARY GROUP OF PEOPLE, AND I THINK WE HAVE DONE THE SAME. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE MEETING THAT WE HAD ON APRIL THE 26TH WAS ONE IN WHICH THERE WAS A VIGOROUS AND OPEN DISCUSSION. AND OUR HARDEST DILEMMA WAS TO NARROW IT DOWN TO 15 NAMES TO BRING TO YOU. THERE WAS NO DEARTH OF NAMES THAT WE FELT WERE HIGHLY QUALIFIED, SO THE LENGTH OF THE DISCUSSION WAS MOSTLY HOW DO WE GET IT DOWN TO 15.

AND BASED ON THAT, WE FELT EVEN MORE STRONGLY THAT HAVING ALTERNATE MEMBERS IN ADDITION TO THE FULL MEMBERS IS CRITICAL. BECAUSE WE HAD SUCH HIGH QUALITY PEOPLE, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO AGREED TO HELP US COME SERVE AS ALTERNATES.

THE ALTERNATES WOULD SERVE IN A ROLE IN WHICH, IF THE GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE NEEDED ADDITIONAL EXPERTISE, THAT IF SOMEONE ON THE GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE COULDN'T FUNCTION AND WE NEEDED AN ALTERNATE, OR IF A MEMBER OF THE GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE AT SOME SUBSEQUENT DATE WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO SERVE, THAT THE ALTERNATES WOULD FORM A READY LIST TO BRING BACK TO THE ICOC AS POTENTIAL MEMBERS.

AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION WAS TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE PROBABLY, AND WE HOPE THE BOARD WOULD AGREE, WOULD NEED TO CONTINUE TO ENRICH THE LIST OF ALTERNATES. SO THAT WE DISCUSSED AND APPROVED SEVEN ALTERNATES THAT YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT, AND WE HAD EIGHT ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES THAT WERE TO BE INTERVIEWED BY ZACH, AND I BELIEVE THREE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN CONTACTED BY ZACH. AND HE WILL PRESENT THEM TO YOU TODAY.

THE IMPORTANT POINT BEING IS WE DON'T VIEW THIS AS FINISHED BUSINESS, THAT THE ALTERNATE LIST, WE HOPE, WOULD CONTINUE TO BE ENRICHED AS WE GO FORWARD. AND WE WILL BRING FORWARD TO YOU FOUR ADVOCATE -- AD HOC MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP AS WELL. THESE WOULD BE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SPECIAL EXPERTISE THAT THE BOARD -- THAT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP COULD CALL UPON TO HELP THEM IN REVIEW OF CERTAIN TYPES OF GRANTS THAT ARE PREIDENTIFIED AND, I THINK, WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO ZACH AND THE STAFF AS THEY NEED TO GET ADDITIONAL EXPERTISE.

WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CHAIR, THEN WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS THAT WE BEGIN TO CONSIDER THE NOMINEES THAT WE HAVE TO BRING FORWARD TO THE GROUP AT THIS POINT, IF THAT'S OKAY, OR I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW WELL.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME -- DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE THE --

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S A PROCESS QUESTION SO I'LL ASK IT NOW. WHEN DR -- MAYBE ZACH CAN ANSWER. WHEN YOU CALLED ALL THE NAMES, THOSE WERE THE NAMES, THE 180 OR SO INDIVIDUALS THAT RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE INSTITUTE; IS THAT RIGHT?

DR. HOLMES: NO. THE GROUP RECEIVED THE TOP TIER CANDIDATES WHO WERE APPORTIONED OUT ACROSS THE SIX SUBGROUPS.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: THE TOP TIER CANDIDATES WERE ABOUT 186 OR SO?

DR. HOLMES: I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER.

I THINK IT WAS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. YES, CLOSE TO 200.

THE SUBGROUPS THEN RANKED THE NAMES THAT THEY HAD AND CONTACTED THE INDIVIDUALS. THEY THEN FORWARDED THE NAMES OF THE EIGHT INDIVIDUALS THEY THOUGHT WERE -- THE FIVE THEY WERE RECOMMENDING AND THE THREE ALTERNATES WERE FORWARDED TO ZACH'S OFFICE, AND ZACH THEN CONTACTED THAT SHORTENED LIST.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: HOW MANY WERE ON THAT SHORTENED LIST, ABOUT 90 OR SO?

DR. HOLMES: ZACH, I DON'T --

DR. HALL: I ENDED UP MAKING ON THE ORDER OF 40 PHONE CALLS, BUT THEY'RE STILL COMING IN. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE AT A VERY ACCELERATED PACE. SOME OF THE NAMES CAME IN LATE, AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO CALL AND CONTINUING TO ADD TO THE ALTERNATES LIST. I'D LIKE TO, AS DR. HOLMES SAID, THERE WERE SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES, THAT WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND KEEP MOVING IN THE INTEREST OF GETTING THE SCIENCE OUT THERE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: JUST SO THAT EVERYONE HEARS THAT COMMENT, MY UNDERSTANDING, DR. HALL, FROM YOUR COMMENT IS THAT THERE ARE HIGH QUALITY NAMES THAT CONTINUE TO COME FORWARD AND THAT YOU ARE CONTINUING TO LOOK AT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC AND ALTERNATE LIST; IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

DR. HALL: YES, THAT'S RIGHT. NO. 25.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU HAVE A BUTTON. WE'RE GOOD AT SCIENCE.

DR. HALL: I WAS CONFUSED. I DIDN'T HAVE A BLUE ONE. AT ANY RATE, YES, WE ANTICIPATE ACTUALLY SEVERAL THINGS. ONE IS WE WILL WANT TO STAGGER THE TERMS. WE DON'T WANT TO START OUT APPOINTING EVERYBODY FOR SIX YEARS AND WE HAVE A TOTAL TURNOVER. SO WE WILL BE ADDING PEOPLE IN, AND WE WILL ALSO, I BELIEVE, HAVE A HIGH DEMAND FOR AD HOCS. WE WILL NOT GET ALL 15 PEOPLE EVERY TIME WE MEET, AND SO WE'LL NEED TO ADD SOME OTHERS. AND SO THE ALTERNATE LIST ARE THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE AGREED IN PRINCIPLE TO SERVE AS FULL-TIME MEMBERS AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR THAT AS THEY COME OPEN SO THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO COME TO YOU. IF SOMEBODY RESIGNS, WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO COME TO YOU TO ASK TO START ALL OVER AGAIN WITH THE PROCESS TO PICK OUT A PERSON, BUT WE CAN CHOOSE FROM THE ALTERNATE LIST, BRING IT HERE, ASK FOR YOUR CONCURRENCE.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M GOING TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO INDULGE ME NOW BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROCESS. FORGIVE ME. THIS ALTERNATE LIST, DR. HOLMES, YOU SAID IN YOUR INITIAL PART OF YOUR REPORT THAT IT WOULD BE A GROWING LIST.

DR. HOLMES: CORRECT.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: HOW WILL THAT LIST GROW?

DR. HALL: IT WILL GROW BECAUSE FOR ONE THING SOME OF THE NAMES THAT HAVE COME IN WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO REACH. WE CALLED AND CALLED AND CALLED AND FOR WHATEVER REASON COULDN'T REACH THEM, SO WE ARE CONTINUING TO TRY. AND AS LATE AS TWO OR THREE DAYS AGO, WE WERE STILL GETTING NAMES FROM SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO SAID, OH, I MISSED THE DEADLINE, BUT HERE ARE SOME GOOD PEOPLE.

HERE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WE CHOSE IN OUR SUBCOMMITTEE.

SO WE TREAT THEM AS WE DO THE OTHERS. WE CALL THEM AND FIND OUT IF THEY'RE WILLING TO SERVE.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: TO QUALIFY AS AN ALTERNATE, YOU'D HAVE TO BE RECOMMENDED BY ONE PAIR GROUPS AND BE CONTACTED BY YOU, HAVE A CONVERSATION. IT'S OKAY. THEY CAN SERVE.

DR. HALL: YES. AND I ASSUME WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE HERE NOW, AS THEY CONTINUE TO COME IN, I ASSUME WE WILL BRING THAT GROUP BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE JUST FOR RATIFICATION AS ALTERNATES.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: WILL THERE, IN FACT, BE A DEADLINE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE?

DR. HALL: I WOULD HOPE THAT MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD GET THEIR NAMES IN IN SOME FINITE PERIOD OF TIME. I THINK THEY WILL. I CAN'T IMAGINE THIS WILL GO ON INDEFINITELY. I THINK THIS WILL -- WE WILL EXHAUST THAT LIST FAIRLY SOON.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT, TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT, WE'VE HAD 27 PUBLIC MEETINGS, I THINK THIS IS 28 IN 22 WEEKS. THAT'S REMARKABLE AND UNPRECEDENTED IN STATE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE MOST OPEN CREATION OF ANY STATE AGENCY IN THE HISTORY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BUT THAT OPEN PROCESS HAS PUT GREAT DEMANDS ON ALL OF THE MEMBERS, SO THERE ARE SOME SUBCOMMITTEES -- THERE ARE SOME WORKING GROUPS OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE THAT ARE CONTINUING TO PROCESS NAMES THEY'VE ALREADY GOTTEN, AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DESCRIBED BY DR. HALL.

DR. HALL: LET ME JUST SAY BECAUSE ONE OF THE POINTS I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT ANY APPOINTMENT TO THE WORKING GROUP FROM THE ALTERNATES LIST WOULD COME TO THIS COMMITTEE. SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE NAMING THEM, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DRAW FROM THIS LIST AND FROM OUR AD HOC LIST AS WE NEED AD HOC MEMBERS FOR PARTICULAR REVIEW WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: MY ONLY POINT IS TO HAVE SOME CLARITY AS TO HOW THIS ALTERNATE GROUP IS PUT TOGETHER, AND YOU HAVE DONE SO. SO THANK YOU.

DR. HALL: LET ME MAKE ONE MORE POINT ABOUT THE AD HOC GROUP. THESE ARE PEOPLE, MANY OF THEM ARE QUITE OUTSTANDING. IN FACT, THE FOUR HERE ARE ALL OUTSTANDING PEOPLE, AMONG THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED. WHAT THEY TOLD US WAS I'D LOVE TO HELP YOU, BUT I CANNOT MAKE A FULL COMMITMENT, BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO COME AND HELP. AND THAT'S WHERE THAT GROUP COMES FROM.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I BELIEVE SHERRY LANSING HAS A POINT.

MS. LANSING: I WANTED TO CLARIFY. I THINK YOU PRETTY MUCH SAID IT, BUT I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE SELF-SELECTED THEMSELVES. THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE FULL TIME, AS YOU SAID, SO WE PUT THEM AS ALTERNATES OR AD HOC BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY WISHED.

SECOND, I THINK WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE, AND I THINK THIS WILL GIVE EVERYBODY SOME COMFORT, IS IT CONTINUES TO EVOLVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS BECAUSE, THOUGH THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SERVE FOR TERMS, THEIR TERMS WILL BE UP. AND AS SCIENTISTS START TO DO WORK AND WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS, THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WILL MEET, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT NOBODY WILL BE APPOINTED WITHOUT COMING BEFORE THE FULL BOARD.

DR. HOLMES: MR. CHAIR, ONE THING THAT WOULD PROBABLY HELPS US FOR CLARIFICATION, TO FOLLOW UP ON MS. LANSING'S COMMENT, IF THE BOARD SO CHOOSES, THE SUBCOMMITTEE COULD STAY IN EXISTENCE AS SORT OF A LOW LEVEL CONTINUAL SEARCH COMMITTEE TO SUPPLY NAMES, EVALUATE, AND BRING BACK, OR WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO CEASE AND DESIST.

MS. LANSING: PERSONALLY NOBODY WANTS TO GO TO THESE MEETINGS AND HAVE TO STAY THERE BECAUSE -- I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO MEET EVERY WEEK, BUT NAMES ARE GOING TO BE CONSTANTLY COMING IN. THE COMMITTEE'S VISIBILITY IS GOING TO GROW, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE A SYSTEM TWO YEARS FROM NOW WHEN SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WILL WANT TO GO OFF THE BOARD TO REFURBISH IT. AND YOU'LL HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF NAMES AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THEM AND COME BACK TO YOU WITH THOSE NAMES. I THINK THIS COMMITTEE MUST IN SOME FORM CONTINUE TO EXIST.

DR. PRECIADO: I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT WHAT SHERRY IS SAYING BECAUSE WE NEED TO DOWN THE ROAD. WE CAN'T -- WE'RE MOVING SO FAST AS IT IS, AND SO WE CAN'T -- WE NEED TO ANTICIPATE THAT IN TWO, FIVE, TEN YEARS WE'RE GOING TO STILL NEED SOME SORT OF LOCAL POINT WHERE WE CAN GIVE OUR FEEDBACK.

DR. HOLMES: I THINK THE COMMITTEE WOULD CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO SERVE. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY ON THE COMMITTEE, BUT I WOULD JOIN SHERRY IN SAYING CERTAINLY I WOULD, AND I THINK THE OTHERS WOULD ALSO.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S A STATEMENT OF GREAT COURAGE. BUT CERTAINLY --

DR. HOLMES: DO WE HAVE TO MEET IN FRESNO EACH TIME? KIDDING, PHYLLIS, KIDDING.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU WERE AHEAD, DR. HOLMES.

DR. LEVEY: NO. 18. THE OTHER THING, THE REASON THIS COMMITTEE NEEDS TO BE SO WELL STOCKED IS THAT PROBABLY OF ANY OTHER COMMITTEE THAT WE HAVE, THEY'RE GOING TO WORK REALLY HARD BECAUSE THE SHEAR NUMBER OF PROPOSALS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET FROM OUR INSTITUTIONS WILL BE QUITE CHALLENGING, TO SAY THE LEAST. AND IT'S ONLY 15 -- THINK OF 15 PEOPLE FACED WITH THE NUMBERS, IT'S -- WE'LL HAVE TO KEEP ADDING TO IT. THEY'RE A TERRIFIC GROUP OF PEOPLE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU. DR. HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: I MIGHT MOVE AHEAD, THEN, WITH YOUR ENDORSEMENT, MR. CHAIR, TO PRESENT SOME OF THE NAMES FOR THE COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL. LET ME CLARIFY THAT I HAVE THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO. IT WAS JUST TRAVEL.

DR. PRECIADO: SO THAT MEANS WE CAN HAVE ONE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS HERE, RIGHT? THANK YOU, DR. HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: I'VE GOTTEN IN TROUBLE. I SHOULD HAVE SHUT UP.

DR. WRIGHT: YES, OR WE'LL MOVE YOU TO CHICO.

DR. HOLMES: I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH TWO PHASES, IF I MIGHT, FOR THE FULL COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL. THE FIRST WOULD BE THE PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS FROM THE ICOC WHO WOULD SERVE ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. I'D LIKE TO READ OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS GROUP FOR YOUR DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION. SHERRY LANSING, PHYLLIS PRECIADO, JOAN SAMUELSON, DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL, JEFF SHEEHY, JONATHAN SHESTACK, AND JANET WRIGHT WERE INDIVIDUALS WHO GRACIOUSLY VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE IN THIS CAPACITY. AND WE FELT THAT THEY WERE EXTRAORDINARILY QUALIFIED AND WOULD LIKE TO PUT FORWARD TO THE BOARD THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS BE APPROVED AS DISEASE ADVOCATES WHO WOULD SERVE ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP.

MS. WILSON: SO MOVED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE HAVE A MOTION.

DR. PIZZO: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. THE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION IS IN ORDER.

MS. SAMUELSON: PROCEDURAL QUESTION. DO THE NAMED PEOPLE RECUSE OURSELVES?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES.

DR. HOLMES: YES. DO WE NEED TO GO TO THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENT ON THIS?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES, WE DO. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED. YOU'RE VERY EFFICIENT, DR. HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT GROUP, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN MAINTAIN OUR EFFICIENCY.

I'D LIKE TO ASK AT THIS TIME IF ZACH HALL WOULD COME FORWARD AND PRESENT OUR LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE FULL COMMITTEE FOR THE ALTERNATE AND THE AD HOC GROUP.

DR. HALL: LET ME SAY THAT THESE NAMES, AS YOU HEARD, WERE PRESENTED TO ME BY MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. MY JOB WAS SIMPLY TO CALL THEM AND DEAL WITH ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN THE FORM OF OUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICIES AND SO FORTH. SO THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHOOSING THESE PEOPLE LET'S ME SAY HOW GRATIFIED I AM AND HOW PLEASED I AM BY THE QUALITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS CHOSEN.

WE WILL BE JUDGED BY THE QUALITY OF THE WORK THAT WE FUND, AND THAT WILL DEPEND VERY DIRECTLY ON THE QUALITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ADVISE US ON THE SCIENTIFIC MERIT OF THESE GRANTS. AND WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING GROUP. LET ME JUST SUMMARIZE. WE HAVE FOUR NATIONAL ACADEMY MEMBERS, TWO INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE MEMBERS, THREE HHMI INVESTIGATORS, WE HAVE EIGHT BASIC SCIENTISTS, AND SEVEN WITH STRONG CLINICAL INTEREST, SO WE HAVE BALANCE IN THAT DIRECTION. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO SAW THE ARTICLE -- MIGHT HAVE SEEN THE ARTICLE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE THIS MORNING, HAROLD VARMUS HAS ALREADY PRONOUNCED ON OUR LIST SAYING THAT IT'S AN ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING GROUP. I'M VERY PLEASED AND HONORED TO PRESENT THEM TO YOU.

THEY ARE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER SUSAN BONNER-WEIR, PH.D, WHO'S AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE AT HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL AND A SENIOR INVESTIGATOR AT THE JOSLYN DIABETES CENTER IN BOSTON. HER RESEARCH CONCERNS THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE TISSUE IN THE PANCREAS THAT SECRETES INSULIN AND THE FACTORS THAT REGULATE ITS GROWTH AND DIFFERENTIATION.

DR. BONNER-WEIR HAS SERVED ON GRANT REVIEW PANELS FOR THE NIH AND THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS ON NUMEROUS EDITORIAL BOARDS.

ALI BRINVANLOU, PH.D., IS PRESIDENT AND HEAD OF THE LABORATORY OF MOLECULAR VERTEBRATE EMBRYOLOGY AT THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK. DR. BRIVANLOU IS A DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGIST WHO IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON PRIMATE STEM CELLS TO IDENTIFY FACTORS THAT DETERMINE GERM LAYER SPECIFICATION DURING EARLY DEVELOPMENT.

AMONG HIS AWARDS IS A VERY PRESTIGIOUS PRESIDENT'S, AS IN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, EARLY CAREER AWARD FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS.

THE THIRD IS PATRICIA DONOHOE, M.D., DIRECTOR OF PEDIATRIC SURGICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND PAST CHIEF OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY AT MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL.

SHE HOLDS THE MARSHALL K. BARTLEY CHAIR OF SURGERY AT THE HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL. SHE'S A MEMBER OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD AT MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, AND IS ALSO ON THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CHILD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL.

HER WORK RANGES FROM FUNDAMENTAL DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY OF THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM TO OVARIAN CANCER TO SURGICAL PROCEDURES FOR REPAIR OF CONGENITAL ANOMALIES.

SHE REALLY HAS AN EXTRAORDINARY RANGE IN HER RESEARCH CAREER. SHE'S A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE. SHE'S PRESIDENT ELECT TO THE AMERICAN PEDIATRIC SURGICAL ASSOCIATION AND HAS NUMEROUS AWARDS AND HONORARY DEGREES.

ANDREW FEINBERG, M.D., MASTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, IS DIRECTOR OF THE MEDICAL -- MEDICINE DIVISION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE AT JOHNS HOPKINS. HE AND HIS COLLEAGUES HAVE PIONEERED RESEARCH ON EPIGENETIC MECHANISMS IN HUMAN CANCERS. DR. FEINBERG HAS BEEN A HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE INVESTIGATOR AND IS A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE NIH STUDY SECTION ON CANCER GENETICS.

ALEXANDRA JOYNER, PH.D., IS A WELL-KNOWN DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGIST WHO IS A PROFESSOR OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF GENETICS, CELL BIOLOGY, AND PHYSIOLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE AT THE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE. SHE ALSO IS A HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE INVESTIGATOR, AND IS THE SKIRBALL FOUNDATION PROFESSOR OF GENETICS.

DR. JOYNER STUDIES THE CELLULAR AND GENETIC EVENTS THAT REGULATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAMMALIAN BRAIN USING THE MOUSE AS A MODEL SYSTEM.

JUDITH KIMBLE, PH.D., IS A HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE INVESTIGATOR AND VILAS PROFESSOR OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND MOLECULAR GENETICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN IN MADISON. DR. KIMBLE'S RESEARCH FOCUSES ON EARLY EMBRYOGENESIS, ORGANOGENESIS, AND CELLULAR DIFFERENTIATION IN A MODEL ORGANISM, CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS.

DR. KIMBLE IS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND IS CURRENTLY PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY AND PAST PRESIDENT OF THE GENETIC SOCIETY.

JEFF MACKLIS, M.D., IS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF NEUROSURGERY, NEUROLOGY, AND NEUROSCIENCE AT HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL AND IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED MGH-HMS RESEARCH CENTER FOR NERVOUS SYSTEM REPAIR.

DR. MACKLIS' RESEARCH CENTERS ON MECHANISMS OF BRAIN AND SPINAL CORD REPAIR WITH EMPHASIS ON NEURAL STEM CELL BIOLOGY AND INDUCTION OF NEUROGENESIS.

DR. MACKLIS' RESEARCH EXCELLENCE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY HIS RECEIPT OF THE INNOVATION AWARD FROM THE NIH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE.

STUART ORKIN, M.D., IS THE DAVID G. NATHAN PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS AT THE HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL.

DR. ORKIN'S RESEARCH FOCUSES ON THE MOLECULAR GENETICS OF HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE, MECHANISMS OF BLOOD DEVELOPMENT, AND STEM CELL BIOLOGY.

HE'S A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, AND HAS BEEN AN INVESTIGATOR OF THE HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE SINCE 1986. HE HAS SERVED AS A MEMBER OR CHAIR ON MULTIPLE ADVISORY AND REVIEW COMMITTEES AT THE NIH. JEFF ROTHSTEIN, M.D., PH.D., IS PROFESSOR OF NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE AND DIRECTOR OF THE ROBERT PACKARD CENTER FOR ALS RESEARCH AT JOHNS HOPKINS. HE OVERSEES ONE OF THE LARGEST ALS CLINICS IN THE UNITED STATES AND HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN INVESTIGATION OF BOTH THE FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISMS AND THE CLINICAL TREATMENT OF ALS.

PABLO RUBENSTEIN, M.D., IS THE FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK BLOOD CENTER'S NATURAL CORD BLOOD PROGRAM. DR. RUBENSTEIN WAS A CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF PATHOLOGY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, IS AN EXPERT IN IMMUNOGENETICS. HE DEVELOPED THE PLACENTAL BLOOD PROGRAM OF THE NEW YORK BLOOD CENTER AS A USEFUL AND POTENTIALLY WIDELY AVAILABLE SOURCE OF STEM CELLS FOR BONE MARROW REPLACEMENT.

DR. RUBENSTEIN HAS SERVED ON THE MAMMALIAN GENETICS STUDY SECTION AT NIH AND ON REVIEW COMMITTEES FOR THE JUVENILE DIABETES FOUNDATION AND THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION.

DENNIS STEINDLER, PH.D., IS CURRENTLY PROFESSOR OF MEDICAL RESEARCH AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MCKNIGHT BRAIN INSTITUTE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.

DR. STEINDLER HAS BEEN STUDYING THE GROWTH AND TRANSPLANTATION OF BRAIN AND STEM CELLS FOR OVER 25 YEARS. HE HAS RECENTLY BEEN THE CHAIR OF THE BRAIN REPAIR AND STEM CELL REVIEW PANEL AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

DR. RANIER STORB, M.D., IS THE HEAD OF TRANSPLANTATION BIOLOGY AT THE FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER IN SEATTLE. DR. STORB'S RESEARCH IS FOCUSED ON BASIC AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH AND THE BIOLOGY OF THE HEMATOPOETIC CELL TRANSPLANTATION.

CLIVE SVENDSEN, PH.D., IS DIRECTOR OF THE STEM CELL RESEARCH PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON'S WAISMAN CENTER. HIS RESEARCH CENTERS ON NEURAL STEM CELLS. HE HAS SERVED AS GRANT REVIEWER ON MULTIPLE NIH STUDY SECTIONS AND FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS.

ALLEN TROUNHSON, PH.D., IS PROFESSOR OF STEM CELL SCIENCES AT MONASH UNIVERSITY. I FAILED TO SAY THAT WE HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP HERE. AND I WAS ENORMOUSLY GRATIFIED IN TALKING TO HIM ABOUT HIS WILLINGNESS TO COME FROM MONASH TO SAN FRANCISCO SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR FOR THIS. HE IS FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIR OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL STEM CELL CENTER. HE HAS WORKED ON -- SORRY -- WORKED ON HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS AND THEIR SUITABILITY FOR TRANSPLANTATION FOR THE TREATMENT OF INFLAMMATORY LUNG DISEASE AND CYSTIC FIBROSIS. HE IS ON THE VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT'S INNOVATION ECONOMIC ADVISORY BOARD AND IS DIRECTOR OF THE VICTORIAN ENDOWMENT FOR SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE, AND INNOVATION.

FINALLY, GEORGE YANCOPOULOS, M.D., PH.D., IS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR. HE IS THE CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER AND PRESIDENT OF REGENERON LABORATORIES IN NEW JERSEY. HE IS ALSO AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

DR. YANCOPOULOS IS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES. HE IS WELL-KNOWN FOR HIS WORK ON CYTOKINES AND GROWTH FACTORS AND THEIR RECEPTORS. HE HAS RECENTLY DEVISED A METHOD FOR GENETICALLY MODIFYING STEM CELLS THAT CAN BE USED TO CREATE LIBRARIES OF STEM CELLS THAT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED.

SO A WONDERFUL LIST OF PEOPLE THAT I COMMEND THE COMMITTEE FOR CHOOSING AND RECOMMEND THEM TO YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

DR. HOLMES: MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH YOUR PLEASURE, WE WILL BRING FORWARD THIS GROUP FOR CONSIDERATION AND THEN THE ALTERNATES AND AD HOCS SEPARATE. I HAVE BUT ONE CORRECTION ON DR. HALL'S PRESENTATION, AND HE MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE IN SAN FRANCISCO.

DR. PRECIADO: I ACTUALLY WANT TO ADD TO THAT AND SUGGEST THAT WOULD HE BE WILLING, IF BY SOME MIRACLE SAN DIEGO OR SACRAMENTO GET'S THE CIRM.

DR. HALL: OF COURSE.

DR. HOLMES: LET ME, BEFORE CALLING FOR A VOTE, JUST SIMPLY REITERATE WHAT DR. HALL HAS SO NICELY SHOWN YOU, THAT I THINK WE WERE FORTUNATE IN HAVING 15 TRULY OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUALS WHO REPRESENTED DIVERSE AREAS OF SCIENCE, WHICH WAS ONE OF OUR CONSIDERATIONS. WE COULDN'T HIT EVERY TOPIC, BUT WE DID TRY TO BE DIVERSE.

I THINK THE BALANCE OF BASIC AND PHYSICIAN/SCIENTISTS IS REALLY EXACTLY WHAT THE INITIATIVE CALLED FOR US TO DO.

SO AT THIS POINT I WOULD PUT TO YOU A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CONSIDER THESE CANDIDATES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IS THERE SOMEONE WHO WOULD MAKE A MOTION, AND WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION.

DR. PIZZO: SO MOVED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MOVED BY DEAN PIZZO.

DR. LOVE: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SECONDED BY TED LOVE. WE NOW HAVE DISCUSSION. ORDER, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

DR. PRECIADO: I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE A COMMENT. THESE ARE OUTSTANDING CANDIDATES. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ENCOURAGE AND MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING DIVERSITY ON THIS PANEL. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A NEW FIELD OF SCIENCE AND RESEARCH, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE POOL IS NOT AS GREAT AS IT WOULD BE IN OTHER AREAS. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT WE MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO BE INCLUSIVE OF OTHER ETHNICITIES.

DR. HOLMES: THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AT EVERY STEP IN THE PROCESS AS WE EVALUATE CANDIDATES TO ENHANCE DIVERSITY, NOT ONLY IN THE FIELD OF REPRESENTATION, BASIC AND CLINICAL, GENDER AND OTHER TYPES OF DIVERSITY. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

DR. POMEROY: IN TERMS OF ANOTHER TYPE OF DIVERSITY, ONLY ONE OF THE 15 REALLY IS FROM INDUSTRY.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS EMPHASIZED IN PROP 71 WAS THE IMPORTANCE OF TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC INDUSTRY PARTNERS BEING PARTICULARLY EMPHASIZED FOR FUNDING. I WONDER IF YOU COULD COMMENT ON WHETHER THIS REFLECTED THE NUMBERS OR PERCENTAGES OF NOMINEES THAT CAME FROM INDUSTRY AND WHAT OUTREACH EFFORTS WERE DONE TO INDUSTRY TO GET ADDITIONAL NAMES.

DR. HOLMES: AS I MENTIONED, THAT THE NAMES THAT WE RECEIVED WERE SOLICITED IN A VERY BROAD WAY FROM NOT ONLY THE ICOC, BUT FROM THE GENERAL COMMUNITY AS WELL.

AND THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT, AND I THINK A GOOD ATTEMPT, TO GET AS MANY NOMINEES AS WE POSSIBLY COULD. WE DID DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR POINT AT OUR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ABOUT HAVING INDUSTRY REPRESENTATION. AND WE WERE QUITE PLEASED THAT WE HAD A CANDIDATE WHO FIT THAT CATEGORY.

SO IT WAS SOMETHING OF WHICH WE WERE COGNIZANT AND HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT.

DR. HALL: I JUST MAKE THE POINT THAT WE HAD ONE OTHER OUTSTANDING CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WOULD PROBABLY BE ON THIS LIST EXCEPT, AS WE EXPLORED THE CONNECTIONS OF HIS COMPANY, IT SEEMED CLEAR THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND THAT HE WOULD NOT, FOR THAT REASON, BE ABLE TO SERVE. I THINK YOUR POINT IS A GOOD ONE.

THERE ARE MANY OUTSTANDING SCIENTISTS IN INDUSTRY, AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT SINCE MOST OF THE CONTACTS OF THOSE US IN ACADEMIA ARE IN ACADEMIA.

DR. HOLMES: CLAIRE, SINCE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO ENRICH THIS LIST, I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ONGOING OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO ENCOURAGE MORE SUBMISSIONS FROM THAT AREA AS WELL.

DR. BRYANT: I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON THE WOMEN CANDIDATES ON THE LIST. THEY'RE OUTSTANDING AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THE NUMBER.

DR. HOLMES: MS. LANSING.

MS. LANSING: HAVING BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE, I CAN SPEAK WITH ACCURACY IN THE SENSE THAT WE WERE VERY, VERY MINDFUL OF THE TWO ISSUES THAT CLAIRE AND PHYLLIS ARE RAISING IN TERMS OF INDUSTRY AND IN TERMS OF DIVERSITY. AND WE WERE EXTRAORDINARILY MINDFUL OF THEM, AND THEN TRYING ALSO TO GET A BROAD REPRESENTATION FROM THE VARIOUS DISEASES THAT ARE REPRESENTED ON THIS BOARD.

BUT AFTER WE LOOKED AT ALL THOSE THINGS, WHAT CAME FIRST AND ABOVE ALL ELSE WAS THE SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS OF THE CANDIDATE. AND THAT WAS THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE NO MATTER WHAT ANYTHING ELSE WAS.

SO AS A WOMAN I CAN SAY THAT THEY WEREN'T GIVEN ANY SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THEY WERE WOMEN.

DR. HOLMES: THANK YOU.

DR. PRECIADO: I'M NOT ASKING FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.

MS. LANSING: I DIDN'T MEAN THAT THAT WAY.

DR. PRECIADO: WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT I'M ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS IS A YOUNG FIELD. SO THAT SAID, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REACH OUT. AND I ALSO WANT TO ASK DID YOU REACH OUT TO SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AS THE NATIONAL HISPANIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE CALIFORNIA -- I KNOW WE CAN'T LOOK AT CALIFORNIA, BUT THERE ARE MANY HISPANIC AND AFRICAN AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE MEMBERSHIP THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HELP YOU.

DR. HOLMES: IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE REACHED OUT TO A NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS SINCE THE THEME OF THE SEARCH WAS FOR SCIENTISTS, BE IT BASIC OR PHYSICIAN-SCIENTISTS. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE SOMEONE FROM STAFF COULD COMMENT, WHETHER WE SPECIFICALLY CONTACTED EITHER OF THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS YOU MENTIONED, WHICH ARE EXCELLENT ORGANIZATIONS.

DR. PRECIADO: I MIGHT ADD THAT YOU MAY NOT FIND THE SCIENTISTS THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IN THESE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS; WHEREAS, YOU MIGHT FIND THEM IN THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS I MENTIONED.

DR. HOLMES: I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT AS WE GO FORWARD.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE JOAN SAMUELSON HAS A POINT AND DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.

MS. SAMUELSON: IT'S A QUICK POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOLLOWING ON SHERRY LANSING'S COMMENTS, WHICH I HEARTILY ENDORSE. BUT YOU SAID YOU ENDEAVORED TO LOOK AT THE WIDE BREADTH OF DISEASES REPRESENTED ON THE COMMITTEE. AND I THINK PROBABLY WHAT YOU MEANT WAS THE DISEASES THAT THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR CURE.

MS. LANSING: ABSOLUTELY. YES.

MS. SAMUELSON: PEOPLE WITH DISEASES AND DISORDERS AND INJURIES THAT ARE NOT REFLECTED BY OUR REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS COME TO ME FREQUENTLY NOW AND SAY ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO CURE WHAT I HAVE, WHAT THEY HAVE.

AND I TELL THEM THAT I SEE MY ROLE AS A FIDUCIARY FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM ANYTHING, AND THAT'S A TALL ORDER FOR ALL OF US, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

I'M SURE THAT'S WHAT YOU MEANT.

MS. LANSING: THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WHAT I MEANT.

DR. HOLMES: MR. CHAIR, SHOULD I RECOGNIZE PEOPLE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DAVID IS THE NEXT. GO AHEAD.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. I TOO WANT TO JOIN IN THE CHORUS, DR. HOLMES AND MEMBERS, CONGRATULATING YOU ON THE HARD WORK THAT YOU DID, STAFF AS WELL. WITHOUT A DOUBT WE WOULDN'T HAVE COME UP WITH THESE 15 OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT SOME EFFORT AND WORK.

THIS IS AN OBSERVATION THAT FOR ME DOESN'T RAISE TO A CONCERN. IT'S AN OBSERVATION, BUT I DO OBSERVE THAT MS, MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS IS NOT ON THE PLATFORM. NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS THAT EXPERTISE AMONG THESE 15. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THEY'RE DISEASE GROUPS, BUT THAT'S THE CASE AS WELL PROBABLY. AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME NEURO EXPERTS ON THIS.

I'M TALKING ABOUT 400,000 OF OUR FELLOW AMERICANS WHO SUFFER FROM THIS DEVASTATING DISEASE, 50,000 OF OUR FELLOW CALIFORNIANS AS WELL. DESPITE MY OBSERVATION, I HAVE REALLY THE BELIEF THAT I KNOW THIS WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING AS THIS COMMITTEE WAS ALSO CHARGED TO DO, THAT THERE WILL BE, AS YOU SAY, OPPORTUNITIES DOWN THE ROAD TO BRING IN ALTERNATES, BRING IN AD HOCS, FOLLOW SOME DIRECTION FROM OUR PRESIDENT, DR. HALL, IN ADDRESSING ALL THESE ISSUES. BUT I FEEL COMPELLED AS THE ALS AND MS REPRESENTATIVE TO HAVE THAT NOTED IN THE RECORD.

DR. HOLMES: THANK YOU. ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE, LET ME SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND COMMENTS.

THE COMMITTEE REALLY DID WORK VERY, VERY HARD.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I'D LIKE TO FURTHER THE COMMENT MADE SO THAT EVERYONE HERE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE PATIENT ADVOCATES REPRESENT THE WHOLE SCOPE OF DISEASE. WE HAVE A BOND WITH EVERYONE WITH A FAMILY MEMBER, A CHILD, A SPOUSE, OR AGING ADULT WHO'S SUFFERING FROM CHRONIC DISEASE. I WOULD POINT OUT THE AFFIRMATIVE, THAT THERE'S NO ONE ON THIS BOARD REPRESENTING ALS, BUT THERE'S TWO MEMBERS OF THIS LIST WHO HAVE ALS SPECIALIZATIONS. SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE BEST SCIENCE WITH THE MISSION OF THOSE SCIENTISTS TO FIND THE BEST SCIENCE IN THE GRANTS THAT ARE PROPOSED, NOT TO FIND THE BEST SCIENCE THAT THEY HAPPEN TO REPRESENT, BUT TO FIND THE BEST SCIENCE AND MEDICAL PROPOSALS THAT ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE STATE AND ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE NATION.

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?

DR. POMEROY: I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. PERHAPS THIS IS FOR DR. HALL, BUT BOTH YOU AND SHERRY LANSING MENTIONED THE CONCEPT OF TERMS. AND I WONDER WHAT WE'RE APPROVING THESE PEOPLE FOR.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I CAN TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE THE INITIATIVE CALLS FOR SIX YEARS; HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED ON ONE OF THE ORIGINAL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS, ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I WAS IN THE AUDIENCE, AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED THAT, GIVEN THE DEMANDS THAT I THINK DR. LEVEY PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL BE UNDER, IT'S EXPECTED THAT THEY'LL TURN OVER SOME OF THEM IN TWO YEARS, SOME OF THEM IN THREE, SOME OF THEM IN FOUR YEARS. THERE'S GOING TO BE A NATURAL ROTATION THAT WILL DEVELOP BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS OBLIGATION AND CONTRIBUTION OF SERVICE THAT COMES WITH SERVICE ON THIS COMMITTEE. WE ALSO HAVE THE ADVANTAGE THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS CAN DRAW FROM AD HOC EXPERTISE TO DISTRIBUTE THAT BURDEN, AND WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO MAKE THAT BURDEN A REAL PARTICIPATION THAT IS AN HONOR, BUT WE WILL HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES ON THE WORKLOAD BEING PRESENTED TO THESE INDIVIDUALS.

DR. POMEROY: PERHAPS I COULD JUST ASK DR. HALL TO CLARIFY HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENT OF STAGGERED TERMS.

WERE YOU ANTICIPATING THEN STAGGERED BY NATURAL SELECTION AS OPPOSED TO STAGGERED BY APPOINTMENT?

DR. HALL: WE HAVEN'T FACED THAT ISSUE SPECIFICALLY, AND I THINK THERE IS SOME DESIRABILITY OF NOT HAVING PEOPLE TURN OVER ALL AT ONCE. I THINK WE WILL LOOK THROUGH. AND WITH SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF REPRESENTATION AT DIFFERENT TIMES, I THINK -- AND ALSO SEVERAL PEOPLE SAID TO ME, LOOK, I'M WILLING TO KNOCK MYSELF OUT FOR A YEAR OR TWO, BUT I CAN'T DO THIS FOR SIX YEARS. AND SO I SAID I WAS GRATEFUL FOR THAT. SO I THINK WE WILL JUST SORT OF DO THAT BY THE SEAT OF OUR PANTS AND WORK OUT THOSE TERMS AND SEE HOW IT WORKS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SO IT SOUNDS LIKE NATURAL SELECTION. OKAY.

ANY ADDITIONAL BOARD COMMENTS? THEN I WILL GO TO THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC COMMENTS? SEEING --

DR. FOBBS: GOOD MORNING. I'M PAM FOBBS, FRESNO. FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE ICOC WHO WERE AT OUR DIVERSITY SEMINAR LAST NIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS BECAUSE THE WEATHER WAS REALLY BAD LAST EVENING. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE NOT, I JUST WANT YOU TO HEAR MY INITIAL COMMENTS.

WE ALL GREW UP IN AMERICA, AND WHILE WE ARE NOT 5 RACIST, WE ARE LIVING IN A RACE CONSCIOUS SOCIETY. SO THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS AND FAIRNESS, IN FACT, ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. WE APPLAUD YOU IN YOUR EFFORTS TO CREATE THROUGH DIVERSITY IN ALL AREAS OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE. WE APPRECIATE THAT.

THERE ARE AREAS THAT WE WILL BE ADDRESSING AS THE DIVERSITY ADVISORY COUNCIL IN THE AREAS OF DIVERSITY AND BIOLOGICAL GENETIC MATERIALS, DIVERSITY IN SCIENTISTS, DIVERSITY IN THE STAFFING OF THE INSTITUTE, AND DIVERSITY IN THE ACQUISITION OF BUILDERS. WE'RE NOT SEEKING TO COMPROMISE DIVERSITY. WE ARE, HOWEVER -- I'M SORRY.

WE'RE NOT SEEKING TO COMPROMISE COMPETENCE FOR DIVERSITY.

WE ARE, HOWEVER, ENCOURAGING THE INSTITUTE TO TAKE THE EXTRA EQUITABLE STEPS TO INCLUDE INDIVIDUALS FROM ETHNICALLY DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU, PAM. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT, I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION. AND IS THERE A -- DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A MOTION? WE DO HAVE THE MOTION, WE HAVE THE SECOND. SO I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION, AND WE CAN DO THIS BY VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED.

UNANIMOUS AGAIN.

I WILL POINT OUT TO ALL CALIFORNIANS THIS IS A GLOBAL PLATFORM YOU'VE LAUNCHED, AND THE QUALITY OF EXPERTISE ON THIS SLATE OF GRANT REVIEWERS IS A DEMONSTRATION OF THE NATION'S VALIDATION AND SUPPORT FOR CALIFORNIA'S INITIATIVE. THE NATION IS ENDORSING THIS INITIATIVE WITH ITS VERY BEST SCIENTISTS AND PHYSICIAN-SCIENTISTS, AND SCIENTISTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD ARE PREPARED TO COME TO CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS INITIATIVE FOR THE WORLD AND FOR ADVANCING MEDICAL THERAPIES TO REDUCE HUMAN SUFFERING.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO TURN NOW AND CALL ON DR. HALL AGAIN TO PRESENT OUR LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR ALTERNATES AND AD HOC. LET ME JUST REITERATE AGAIN THAT THE QUALITY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS IS OUTSTANDING, EQUAL TO THAT IN THE FULL MEMBER GROUP, BUT SIMPLY WE COULD ONLY MOVE 15 NAMES FORWARD IN THAT FIRST GROUP.

ZACH.

DR. HALL: LET ME START WITH OUR FIRST ALTERNATE, WHO IS DR. WISE YOUNG, M.D., PH.D., PROFESSOR AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THEIR KECK CENTER FOR COLLABORATIVE NEUROSCIENCE. HE WAS PART OF THE TEAM THAT DISCOVERED AND ESTABLISHED HIGH DOSE METHYLPREDNISOLONE AS THE FIRST EFFECTIVE THERAPY FOR SPINAL CORD INJURIES, AS YOU'VE HEARD EARLIER FROM MR. REED. I DIDN'T REALIZE UNTIL HE TOLD ME HE HAD JUST BEEN SELECTED AS THE FIRST INDUCTEE --

MR. REED: CHRISTOPHER REEVE, YES.

DR. HALL: -- INTO THE HALL OF FAME FOR SPINAL CORD RESEARCH.

OUR OTHER ALTERNATES ARE MARIE CSETE, WHO IS AN M.D., PH.D., PROFESSOR OF ANESTHESIOLOGY AT EMORY UNIVERSITY, DIRECTOR OF THE HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL CORE FACILITY AT EMORY UNIVERSITY AND GEORGIA TECH. DR. CSETE'S LABORATORY STUDIES THE EFFECTS OF GASES AND FREE RADICALS ON STEM CELLS IN CULTURE AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE AGING OF STEM CELLS.

IHOB LEMISHKA, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY. HIS RESEARCH INTERESTS INCLUDE HEMATOPOETIC PATENT STEM CELL BIOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY.

OLLE LINDVALL, M.D., PH.D., CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE AND PROFESSOR AND CHAIR OF THE DIVISION OF NEUROLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LUND, SWEDEN.

DR. LINDVALL IS INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN FOR HIS WORK ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CELL REPLACEMENT THERAPY FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE AND IS A WIDELY RESPECTED INTERNATIONAL LEADER IN THIS FIELD.

RAY MACDONALD, PH.D., IS PROFESSOR OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER. HIS RESEARCH INTERESTS CONCERN PANCREATIC DEVELOPMENT.

ARTHUR NIENHUIS, M.D., IS THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF ST. JUDE'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL AND CURRENT MEMBER OF THE DIVISION OF EXPERIMENTAL HEMATOLOGY. HE IS A MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE. NEINHUIS' LABORATORY IS CONCERNED WITH STEM CELL TARGETED GENE THERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF HEMOGLOBIN DISORDERS AND IMMUNODEFICIENCIES.

JON ODORICO, M.D., IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF SURGERY AND DIRECTOR OF ISLET CELL TRANSPLANTATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE. HIS LABORATORY WORK FOCUSES ON ISLET DIFFERENTIATION FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.

RAYMOND ROOS, M.D., IS THE PROFESSOR AND FORMER CHAIR OF NEUROLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. HIS RESEARCH CONCERNS ALS, PRION DISEASES, AND MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.

HE HAS BEEN ON A NUMBER OF NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARDS AND IS A MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.

THOSE ARE OUR ALTERNATE MEMBERS. OUR AD HOC MEMBERS ARE FOUR AT THIS STAGE. DR. GEORGE DALEY OF HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL DEPARTMENTS OF BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY, WIDELY REGARDED AS ONE OF THE OUTSTANDING LEADERS IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. HE HAS DONE A VERY IMPORTANT MODEL EXPERIMENT SHOWING THAT STEM CELL REPLACEMENT CAN CURE INHERITED DISEASES IN MICE, IN A MOUSE MODEL.

DR. JOHN TROJANOWSKI -- I SHOULD SAY DALEY IS AN M.D., PH.D.

JOHN TROJANOWSKI, ALSO M.D., PH.D, ALSO PROFESSOR OF PATHOLOGY AT PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL SCHOOL.

HE HAS DONE IMPORTANT WORK IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND ALSO IN PARKINSON'S DISEASE.

JOSH SANES, PH.D., WHO WAS THE DIRECTOR FOR CENTER OF NEUROSCIENCE AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, A WELL-KNOWN DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROBIOLOGIST, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.

AND FINALLY, ALAN SPRADDLING, WHO IS PH.D. WHO IS A PROFESSOR AT THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTE FOR EMBRYOLOGY AND JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY. HE IS INTERESTED IN STEM CELLS IN A MODEL ORGANISM, DROSOPHILA. HE WAS WIDELY REGARDED AS A LEADING DROSOPHILA GENETICIST AND CELL BIOLOGIST.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. HALL.

AND, DR. HOLMES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS?

DR. HOLMES: NO. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THIS SLATE OF CANDIDATES AT THIS TIME, PLEASE, MR. CHAIR.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?

MS. SAMUELSON: QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ALTERNATE AND AN AD HOC? AND I NOTICE THAT YOU NAMED THE ALTERNATES IN A DIFFERENT ORDER FROM THE WAY THEY'RE LISTED, AND I WONDERED IF THE WAY YOU INDICATED THEM IS THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WOULD TAKE OVER FOR SOMEONE DROPPING OUT OR WHAT THE PROCESS IS.

DR. HALL: TWO QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL, THE ALTERNATES HAVE EXPRESSED THE WILLINGNESS TO SERVE FULL TIME AS A REGULAR MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEES. THE AD HOCS HAVE SAID THEY SUPPORT US, THEY'D BE HAPPY TO DO IT, BUT THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY FIND THE TIME TO BE A REGULAR MEMBER.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. HALL, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ALTERNATES ARE AVAILABLE FOR AD HOC SERVICE?

DR. HALL: YES. WE WILL CALL ON THEM AS WELL FOR AD HOC SERVICE.

MS. SAMUELSON: WOULDN'T THERE BE OTHERS, PERHAPS, THAT MIGHT ALSO BE CALLED UPON, IF NECESSARY?

MS. LANSING: IT'S AN EVOLVING LIST.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THIS IS A LIST THAT IS GOING TO GROW.

DR. HALL: WELL, I HOPE THAT WHEN WE CALL ON AD HOC MEMBERS, THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE TO COME TO THE COMMITTEE FOR EVERY AD HOC MEMBER BECAUSE WE MAY HAVE VERY SPECIAL NEEDS WHERE THERE'S A PARTICULAR GRANT THAT CONCERNS SOMETHING AND WE SAY THE ONLY PERSON THAT WE KNOW IS SOMEBODY FROM FLORIDA WHO'S AN EXPERT ON THIS.

AND WE DO NOT WANT TO COME TO THE COMMITTEE FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: FOR OUR PURPOSES TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO THE AD HOC AND POTENTIALLY THE ALTERNATES LIST THROUGH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION, AND WE CAN IDENTIFY THOSE PEOPLE. THERE MAY BE OTHERS THAT HAVE VERY SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE, BUT AT LEAST WE WILL KNOW THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN PRESCREENED AND WE KNOW THEY HAVE AGREED TO SERVE.

DR. HALL: THE AD HOCS WE MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY HERE, BOTH BECAUSE THEY HAVE SELF-IDENTIFIED AS WILLING TO HELP. AND ALSO, FRANKLY, IT'S AN ALL STAR CAST. I THINK WE ALL OUGHT TO BE IMPRESSED WITH THAT.

YOU HAD TWO OTHER QUESTIONS. ONE IS THEY WERE NOT IN THE ORDER MENTIONED BECAUSE WISE YOUNG WAS THE FIRST ALTERNATE, AND THEY WERE LISTED JUST ALPHABETICALLY.

AND THE SECOND IS I REALIZE WHEN YOU SAID THAT I SKIPPED THE LAST PAGE, AND I HAVE ONE MORE NAME IF I MAY READ IT. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. THIS ADDS TO OUR INTERNATIONAL LUSTER. THIS IS THE ALTERNATE LIST.

DR. FIONA WATT, PH.D., IS HEAD OF THE KERATINOCYTE LABORATORY AT THE CANCER RESEARCH U.K. LONDON RESEARCH INSTITUTE. SHE HAS BEEN A LEADER IN INVESTIGATION OF EPIDERMAL CELL SELF-RENEWAL AND THE USE OF STEM CELLS IN WOUND REPAIR. SHE'S A FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND THE BRITISH ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, AND IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE BRITISH SOCIETY FOR CELL BIOLOGY. I APOLOGIZE FOR LEAVING HER NAME OFF. MS. LANSING: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WHOLE BOARD UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING. WE'RE RECOMMENDING THESE ALTERNATE PEOPLE NOW. THEY WOULD FILL IN IN CASE ANY OF THE 15 SCIENTISTS DROPPED OUT. THEY'VE AGREED TO DO THAT. WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING THE AD HOCS AS SPECIAL REFERENCE PEOPLE.

NOW, WHAT I JUST WANT TO ADD, AND THIS ISN'T PART OF THE RESOLUTION, BUT I WANT EVERYONE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE, OUR LITTLE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE, AND ZACH WILL COME BACK FOR FULL BOARD APPROVAL FOR ALTERNATES.

HOWEVER, THE AD HOCS WHICH WE WILL LEAVE UP TO THE SCIENTISTS TO SAY I WANT TO GO TALK TO THIS PERSON OR I WANT TO GO TALK TO THAT PERSON, AND ZACH WON'T HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE THAT WOULD JUST BE TOO CUMBERSOME AND IT WOULD SLOW THE GRANT PROCESS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT EXPLANATION. ANY ADDITIONAL BOARD COMMENTS? BOARD'S OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENT? NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR?

DR. PIZZO: SO MOVED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PIZZO.

DR. PRIETO: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SECOND BY DR. PRIETO. I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED.

APPROVED.

(APPLAUSE.)

DR. HOLMES: MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE ONE FINAL ITEM.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSED THIS, THAT WE IDENTIFIED SOMEONE AS AN INTERIM CHAIR TO BEGIN TO WORK WITH THE CIRM STAFF IN FACILITATING AND GETTING INITIAL MEETINGS PLANNED AND PUT TOGETHER. IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT THE GROUP WILL BEGIN TO WORK EVEN OVER THE SUMMER. AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE BEGIN TO THINK RIGHT NOW ABOUT SOMEONE WHO COULD SERVE IN THIS INTERIM ROLE.

SO AT OUR SUBCOMMITTEE ON APRIL 26TH, THE GROUP AUTHORIZED ZACH TO CONTACT AN INDIVIDUAL NAMED STUART ORKIN, WHOM YOU JUST APPROVED, AT HARVARD TO INQUIRE WHETHER HE WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE AS AN INTERIM CHAIR, IF IT WERE THE PLEASURE OF THIS BODY TO DO SO. SO DEPENDING ON YOUR DECISION TODAY, WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO I'D LIKE TO BRING TO THE GROUP'S ATTENTION FOR CONSIDERATION THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DO APPOINT DR. STUART ORKIN AS THE INTERIM CHAIR OF THIS BOARD TO HELP GET THINGS GOING, COMING BACK, AS WE SAID, WITH DUE PROCESS ABOUT THE LONG-TERM POSSIBILITY HERE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MR. SHEEHY.

MR. SHEEHY: I THOUGHT THE PROCESS IS THAT -- I CLEARLY REMEMBER JONATHAN EXPRESSING SOME DISCOMFORT IN MOVING FORWARD ON THE CHAIR. AND MY RECOLLECTION OF THE PROCESS WAS THAT ZACH WAS GOING TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOME INTEREST, BUT THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS GOING TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION ON IT. THE SUBCOMMITTEE WASN'T GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON A CHAIR AT THIS POINT. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WE KIND OF SKIPPED THAT, AND JONATHAN WAS FAIRLY ADAMANT THAT HE HADN'T EVEN SEEN ANY -- HAD NO BACKGROUND, NO NOTHING ON THIS PERSON WHO'S GOING TO BE HEADING UP THIS WORKING GROUP.

SO I THINK -- I MEAN IF WE WANT TO SKIP OVER THE SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS, BUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS ACTUALLY MOOT ON THIS POINT.

DR. NOVA: COULD YOU CLARIFY WHO JONATHAN IS?

DR. HOLMES: JONATHAN SHESTACK IS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

DR. PIZZO: I SURELY NEVER WANT TO DISAGREE WITH JEFF, BUT I WAS AT THE SAME MEETING, AND I HAD A VERY DIFFERENT IMPRESSION OF THIS. AND I VIEW THIS AS AN INTERIM ACTIVITY JUST AS WE DID FOR THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE SIMPLY HELPING TO ORGANIZE THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD. I THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THAT NOMINEES HAVE COME FORWARD, AND IT'S A SPECTACULAR GROUP. SURELY ANY ONE OF THESE COULD SERVE AS CHAIR, BUT I THINK THAT, AS YOU HEARD AT THE MEETING, STU ORKIN HAS CHAIRED A NUMBER OF MAJOR COMMITTEES FOR THE NATIONAL ACADEMY, NIH.

AND I THINK WE'LL AT LEAST GET THIS LAUNCHED. I THINK WHAT IS MISSING FROM THIS IS, AS WE HEARD EARLIER THIS MORNING FROM ZACH, WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A VICE CHAIR FOR THIS, AND I THINK WE SHOULD COMPLETE OUR PROPOSAL, HAVE A VICE CHAIR FROM THE GROUP NAMED AS WELL.

IF NOT TODAY, THEN VERY, VERY SHORTLY.

DR. HOLMES: I THINK, PHIL, IF I UNDERSTOOD EARLIER, THAT THE CHARGE WAS BACK TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO COME BACK TO THIS GROUP AND ZACH WILL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT RECOMMENDATION?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ON THE -- ON HOW THE GOVERNANCE AND JOB DESCRIPTION.

MS. SAMUELSON: I GUESS THIS FOR ME AGAIN RAISES THESE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS OF THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE GRANT FUNDING PROCESS. I'VE ASKED A LOT OF PEOPLE AND ESPECIALLY PEOPLE WHO ARE IMMERSED IN THE NIH PROCESS, PEOPLE AT VERY HIGH LEVELS OF THE NIH. AND TO A PERSON THEY ALL SAID DON'T JUST DO THIS WHEN WE'RE DOING IT. AND MANY OF THEM SAY DO THIS VERY DIFFERENTLY. IF THIS IS GOING TO BEGIN SETTING UP AN NIH MODEL, THEN THAT IS IN CONTRADICTION TO THE WISDOM OF THOSE PEOPLE. AND THAT IS WHY I AM SORT OF BEATING THIS DRUM ABOUT STRATEGIC PLANNING AND GETTING THAT FOUNDATIONAL APPROACH SET AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BEFORE WE BEGIN PIECEMEAL PUTTING TOGETHER A PROCESS THAT MAY NOT BE VIABLE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, I THINK, JOAN, THERE'S A VERY BROAD AGREEMENT ON THE BOARD AND IN THE INITIATIVE THAT A STRATEGIC PLAN IS AN ABSOLUTE PRIORITY. AND I ASSURE YOU THAT THE COMMITTEE WHICH YOU SERVE WITH, AS YOU KNOW, THE PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH COMMITTEE IS MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO GET A PRESIDENTIAL DECISION SO THAT WE HAVE THAT LEADERSHIP FOR THAT STRATEGIC PLAN.

THERE ARE NO GRANTS BEFORE THE WORKING GROUP AT THIS TIME FOR PEER REVIEW. SO THIS IS, I THINK, ONLY A PRELIMINARY INTERIM ISSUE OF JUST GETTING THE COMMUNICATION SET UP, GETTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF SET UP BECAUSE THERE ARE NO GRANTS TO BE PUT BEFORE THEM AT THIS TIME.

THE LATER ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS THE INTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT WHICH THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY HAS DISCUSSED TO REBUILD THE HUMAN RESOURCES, POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWS AND POST-DOCTORAL CLINICAL FELLOWS, BUT THERE ARE NO LEVEL 1 INVESTIGATOR GRANTS, AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS INTENDED TO MOVE FORWARD VERY, VERY QUICKLY.

MS. SAMUELSON: I APPRECIATE THE COMPETING PRESSURE TO GET GOING. AND SO IF THAT'S THE UNDERSTANDING, I WOULDN'T WANT TO NOT RAISE THIS NOW AND GET A PROCESS SET IN PLACE THAT --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SO IT'S THE VERY LIMITED ROLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

DR. PIZZO: MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S PERHAPS INAPPROPRIATE TO DO THIS IN A PUBLIC FORUM, BUT SINCE WE ARE SO ATTENTIVE TO BEING IN A PUBLIC FORUM, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO JOAN SAMUELSON AS BEING THE VICE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE WITH THE GOAL THAT THAT WILL HELP TO CREATE THE KIND OF BALANCED VIEW AND PERSPECTIVE THAT I THINK WE ALL WISH TO SEE HAPPEN.

MS. SAMUELSON: IT'S A DAUNTING CHALLENGE, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONFIDENCE.

DR. HOLMES: SHALL I ASK FOR ONE THING. IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO THE GROUP IF WE COULD ASK DR. HALL TO COMMENT ON HIS CONVERSATION WITH DR. ORKIN AND HIS AGREEMENT TO THE BREVITY OF THE TIME HE MIGHT BE WILLING.

DR. HALL: LET ME MAKE TWO COMMENTS. PERHAPS I SHOULD START BY SAYING THAT LEON THAL SPOKE VERY ELOQUENTLY AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING TO THE EFFECT THAT TAKING THE POSITION OF CHAIR IS A TASK AND A CHORE THAT ONE DOES AS A MATTER OF COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY. IT CERTAINLY CARRIES VERY LITTLE HONOR, AND IT IS VERY DEMANDING OF TIME FOR VERY BUSY PEOPLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT -- IT CARRIES VERY LITTLE HONOR, AND LEON ALSO MADE THE POINT, AS WAS MADE BY BOB KLEIN, OUR CHAIR TODAY, OR SOMEONE, THAT IN TERMS OF THE VOTE, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE EITHER. THAT IS, YOU HAVE NO PARTICULAR POWER.

WITH THAT SAID, IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S A POSITION THAT IN SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ONE NEEDS SOMEBODY THAT COMMANDS THE RESPECT OF THE COMMITTEE, THAT IS FAIR, THAT CAN CONDUCT OFTEN CONTENTIOUS DISCUSSIONS IN AN EVENHANDED WAY.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO KNOW HIM, STUART ORKIN COMMANDS ENORMOUS RESPECT. I WAS ASKED BY THE COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE IF HE WERE AVAILABLE, AND I HAD -- I RECOUNT MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM. I WOULD SAY IT WAS A CONDITION OF HIS TAKING IT THAT HE ONLY DO IT FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME. AND I SAID IF HE COULD HELP GET US STARTED, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. I WAS VERY CLEAR, BY THE WAY, THAT THIS WAS NOT AN INVITATION TO DO IT, BUT JUST TO INQUIRE ABOUT HIS WILLINGNESS. AND I SAID I THOUGHT THAT NINE MONTHS WAS AN APPROPRIATE TIME. THAT COULD BE CHANGED, I'M SURE. BUT MY POINT IS IF WE WERE TO PROBABLY ASK HIM TO DO IT FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, I DOUBT THAT HE WOULD DO IT. HE DID SAY TO ME, I MUST HAVE A MASOCHISTIC STREAK FOR AGREEING TO DO THIS, BUT I WILL DO IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT, IF YOU ASK ME.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD COMMENT, AS WE MOVE THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND STEP UP THE TEMPO ON THE GRANTS SIDE, THAT PROBABLY IT WOULD BE A RELIEF FOR HIM IF THAT BECAME FIVE MONTHS OR FOUR MONTHS OR SOME VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

DR. PRIETO: THE POINT WAS MADE EARLIER TODAY THAT INTERIM CAN EASILY BECOME PERMANENT JUST THROUGH INERTIA. I WANTED TO RAISE THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS BOARD WANTS TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT INTERIM MEANS IN THESE VARIOUS INSTANCES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WOULD YOU LIKE US -- WE ARE ON A PROCESS WHERE WE WON'T BE BACK HERE UNDER THE RFP FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS EVEN ON THE INITIAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS WHERE WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE RFP PROCESS.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THAT FOUR MONTHS TO BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A QUESTION?

DR. PRIETO: I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE SHORT. I WOULD SAY --

MS. LANSING: HE WON'T DO IT MORE THAN NINE.

DR. PRIETO: I WOULD LIKE TO SET A LIMIT OF SOME SORT.

DR. PIZZO: JUST SAY NOT TO EXCEED A YEAR.

DR. HALL: I'D BE FINE WITH THAT.

DR. PRIETO: FINE WITH ME.

DR. PIZZO: THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE, CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.

MR. SHEEHY: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT STUART ORKIN BE CHAIR AND JOAN SAMUELSON BE VICE CHAIR ON AN INTERIM BASIS NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR.

DR. WRIGHT: I SECOND IT.

DR. HOLMES: THE BEGINNING TIME FOR THAT WOULD BE -- WE HAVE TO DECLARE THE BEGINNING TIME SO WE HAVE THE --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY APPROVED.

THEY WILL BE APPROVED TODAY, IF THIS MOTION WERE TO PASS.

LET ME MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CLARIFIED FOR THE RECORDER, THE MOTION WAS MADE BY JEFF SHEEHY AND THE SECOND WAS BY DR. WRIGHT. SO THAT IS THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE.

DR. STEWARD: HOPEFULLY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT HERE, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF REAPPOINTMENT.

MR. SHEEHY: I ACCEPT THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THERE'S NO -- THE MOTION DOESN'T CARRY WITH IT ANY PREJUDICE AS TO REAPPOINTMENT.

DR. MURPHY: I CERTAINLY WILL SUPPORT THAT MOTION, BUT A WORD OF CAUTION. I THINK WE ARE MAKING A MISTAKE IF THE ICOC STARTS GETTING TOO INVOLVED IN OPERATIONS OF THE INSTITUTE. AND I REALIZE WE'RE AT A VERY EARLY STAGE NOW. WE'RE JUST SETTING THE STAGE. I THINK WE DO HAVE TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT AND THOSE RUNNING THE INSTITUTE TO MAKE THE RULES AND BRING THE RULES BACK TO THE ICOC. AND I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT OF US MICROMANAGING THE INSTITUTE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY.

DR. PRIETO: I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A SEPARATE MOTION THAT ALL INTERIM APPOINTMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED A TERM OF ONE YEAR AND SHALL NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF REAPPOINTMENT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AND THERE IS -- I BELIEVE IT COVERED ALL INTERIM APPOINTMENTS ALREADY.

DR. PRIETO: I DON'T THINK IT WAS WORDED THAT WAY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: LET ME ASK THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION. YOU WERE COVERING CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS?

MR. SHEEHY: YEAH.

DR. PRIETO: IT WAS WORDED TO REFER TO THIS SPECIFIC APPOINTMENT. PERHAPS YOU WOULD ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IT APPEARS TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, THAT ALL APPOINTMENTS FOR CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS OR CO-CHAIRS WOULD BE INTERIM.

DR. PIZZO: THAT NEEDS TO BE AN ADDENDUM.

DR. PRIETO: THAT SHOULD BE AN ADDENDUM. IT'S COVERING TWO SUBJECTS.

MR. SHEEHY: I ACCEPT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND THE SECOND.

DR. WRIGHT: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MAKER OF THE SECOND ACCEPTS.

THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND AMENDED AND ACCEPTED. THE AMENDMENT IS ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER OF THE MOTION.

ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?

DR. PIZZO: ACCORDING TO ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. JUST KIDDING.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE'RE PREPARED TO LEARN AT EVERY TURN. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE? NO COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

DR. HOLMES: THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AGAIN, KATE SHREVE, MARY MAXON, AND THE REST OF THE SUPPORTING STAFF WHO WENT THROUGH 600 BIOS, AN EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT IN THIS, SHOULD BE TREMENDOUSLY COMMENDED. WE WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN TO THIS HISTORIC POINT WITHOUT THAT DEDICATION.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. WE ARE ABOUT TO GO INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL COVER, AS ANNOUNCED, TWO SUBJECTS, BOTH PERSONNEL AND SEARCH FOR THE PRESIDENT AND LITIGATION RELATED TO ITEMS THEREAFTER.

WE WILL COME BACK, AND GIVEN THE TIME, WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE TIME WHEN WE COME BACK. WE'LL EITHER GO DIRECTLY TO SITE OR DO BUDGET BEFORE SITE. BUT THE ORDER WILL EITHER BE, BASED ON THE TIME, THE SITE SELECTION FINALIZATION OR A SHORT BUDGET REVIEW AND THEN SITE.

WE THANK YOU ALL. THE MEMBERS ARE EXITING ON THE LEFT. WE WILL ATTEMPT TO DO THIS IN 45 MINUTES TO AN HOUR. DR. PRECIADO.

DR. PRECIADO: GIVEN THAT THE AGENDA WAS CHANGED THIS MORNING, DO YOU WANT TO ASK FOR -- THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE THAT CANNOT BE HERE IN THE AFTERNOON. CAN WE ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN GENERAL.

DR. PIZZO: EVEN ONE OTHER ELEMENT TO THAT BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT. THERE ARE SOME WHO WANT TO VOTE ON THIS SITE WHO HAVE TO LEAVE AT 3:00 OR 3:15 OR SO, SO I JUST WANT TO BE SURE WE GET TO THAT, SO I WOULD PROPOSE WE DO SITE FIRST, IF YOU AGREE TO THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S THE SENSE OF THE COMMITTEE.

AND ASKING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, IS ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT WHO CANNOT BE HERE IN THE AFTERNOON? COULD YOU APPROACH.

MS. ABULAD: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE. I'M SORRY. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME. I KNOW YOU'RE ALL TIRED AND HUNGRY.

MY NAME IS RUTH ABULAD (PHONETIC). I'M A PRACTICING PHYSICIAN IN LOS ANGELES. I DID MY TRAINING THERE AND CAME HERE TO THE VALLEY. I WANT TO WELCOME YOU HERE BECAUSE IT'S ADOPTED ME FOR THE PAST 16 YEARS, FRESNO AND SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WHICH IS RICH AND UNTAPPED UNFORTUNATELY.

BASICALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE RFP AND THE SITE POINTS, ONE THING I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: EXCUSE ME. IF THESE ARE SITE -- IF THESE ARE SITE COMMENTS, THEY'RE APPROPRIATE AS A PART OF THAT SITE PROCESS. ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT BE HERE?

MS. ABULAD: NO. I HAVE PATIENTS I NEED TO SEE THIS AFTERNOON. I'M SORRY. I HAVE A WHOLE -- MANY PATIENTS I HAVE TO SEE, SO I HAVE TO DO THIS NOW.

SO BASICALLY IT'S UNFORTUNATE I COULDN'T DO THIS AFTER THAT PRESENTATION, BUT BASICALLY THE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THE RFP, THE NUMBER OF POINTS THAT WERE ALLOTTED FOR THE LOCATION OF WHERE MOST RESEARCHERS ARE LOCATED. AND ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THAT SAN FRANCISCO WON OUT OVER SACRAMENTO OVER POINTS, I THINK IT PROBABLY WOULD GIVE SACRAMENTO MORE POINTS IN THAT AREA BEING THAT THOSE PROFESSIONALS, AS FAR AS COST OF LIVING, YOU KNOW, AS MANY THE BAY AREA AND SAN FRANCISCO HAVE RELOCATED BECAUSE THE COST OF LIVING IS SO GREAT, BASICALLY THEY'RE REAL ESTATE REFUGEES IN COMING TO VALLEY AREAS OR TO SACRAMENTO.

AND YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN, THAT YOU WANT THE BRIGHTEST AND THE BEST THAT'S GOING TO CARRY ON THE RESEARCH THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING AT THESE LOCATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO. MANY OF THOSE BRIGHTEST AND BEST ARE VERY YOUNG AND DON'T -- ARE NOT ESTABLISHED ECONOMICALLY AND FINANCIALLY, AND THEY'LL PROBABLY BE MORE APT, I WOULD THINK, TO BE IN AN AREA THAT IS -- COST OF LIVING IS LOW, TRANSPORTATION IS LOW. I THINK YOU BUILD THAT SOCIETY THERE, THEY WILL COME. THEY WILL BE THERE.

WHY THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF POINTS WERE ALLOTTED TO THAT ONE PARTICULAR CATEGORY AND THEN BEING NEAR SACRAMENTO IS MUCH, MUCH LESS. I DON'T KNOW WHO DECIDED WHY THOSE NUMBER OF POINTS WENT TO DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT THE CONVENIENCE FACTOR IS ON THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE, THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE WHICH EXISTS IN SACRAMENTO. I THINK THERE'S MORE APT TO BE BETTER CHECKS AND BALANCES.

ALSO TOO, I JUST THINK THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN MORE POINTS, TOTAL POINTS, AND I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE DONE BETTER AS FAR AS THE RFP.

THE SITE POINTS, AS YOU KNOW, THAT SACRAMENTO WON OUT NARROWLY; BUT I THINK IF WE CONSIDER THAT THE REPRESENTATION OF CITIZENS, THE DIVERSE POPULATION IN THE STATE, IS IN SACRAMENTO, THE MECHANISMS IS THERE, PART OF THE SET AND CULTURE, THAT SHOULD BE VERY MUCH OVEREMPHASIZED. IT WAS THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA THAT ALLOWED THIS PROPOSITION TO GO -- TO PASS THROUGH. WE SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT THAT WE ARE SERVING THEIR INTERESTS. THEY ARE OUR BOSSES. MY PATIENTS ARE MY BOSS. I AM A SERVANT LEADER TO THEM. AND IN THAT SENSE, I NEED TO BE SENSITIVE OF WHAT'S BEST. I DON'T DICTATE AND TELL THEM WHAT I THINK IS BEST FOR THEM. I ASK THEM WHAT IS BEST AND HOW I CAN SERVE THEM.

I KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU HAVE THAT TYPE OF MIND SET, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO KEEP US HONEST AND KEEP US HUMBLE. I THINK THE FACT THAT THE ACCESSIBILITY OF SACRAMENTO BY BEING IN SACRAMENTO IS ONE THING YOU SHOULD WEIGH HEAVILY.

THE OTHER THING IS POLITICALLY, AS IS, ESPECIALLY AN INCREASINGLY CONSERVATIVE MIND SET WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR THE NATION, THERE'S ALREADY A HEIGHTENED SENSE OF DEFENSIVENESS WITH SAN FRANCISCO.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE READY TO JUMP ON EVERY LITTLE THING.

YOU DON'T HAVE THAT TO THAT DEGREE WITHIN SACRAMENTO. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, THAT IF YOU WANT MORE PUBLIC -- BETTER PR OR PUBLIC SUPPORT, THAT WOULD BE A BETTER LOCATION TO CONSIDER OTHER THAN SAN FRANCISCO.

AND BASICALLY THAT'S THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THAT.

I'M SURE I'VE RUN OUT OF MY TIME.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SPENCERSTUART, WHO'S THE EXPERT IN PERSONNEL, WHETHER IT'S A PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH OR OTHER SEARCHES, ADVISED THE BOARD AND THE COMMITTEE THAT THE CONCENTRATION OF BIOMEDICAL JOBS WAS A CRITICAL ISSUE IN THE PROVEN ABILITY TO RECRUIT THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST TO HONOR OUR MISSION TO ADVANCE MEDICAL THERAPIES. AND THAT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, OVER A YEAR, PEOPLE HAVE VOTED WITH THEIR FEET, AND THEY HAVE VOTED TO -- WHETHER IT'S SAN DIEGO IS ANOTHER TREMENDOUS OF BIOMEDICAL JOBS, OF GREAT EXCELLENCE AND DISTINCTION. IN SAN DIEGO, IN THE BAY AREA, IN LOS ANGELES THERE ARE GREAT NUMBER OF BIOMEDICAL JOBS THAT DEMONSTRATE A POTENTIAL RECRUITMENT POOL OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE. AND WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WHEN RECRUITING PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE AREAS -- AREAS OF THE CALIFORNIA -- OUTSIDE OF AREAS OF CALIFORNIA, THAT IF THEY COME TO AN AREA THEY'RE MORE APT TO COME TO AN AREA THAT IF THE JOB DOESN'T WORK, THEY CAN FALL BACK INTO A MAJOR BIOMEDICAL POOL WITHOUT HAVING TO RELOCATE AGAIN.

THAT IS -- I THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. WE NEED TO ADJOURN. AND I WOULD ASK IF THERE'S ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? THESE ARE ONLY PUBLIC COMMENTS WHO CANNOT MAKE THEIR COMMENTS IN THE AFTERNOON.

MS. SOTO: MY NAME IS THIEL SOTO. I'M AN ALUMNI FROM UC DAVIS. I'M A GRADUATE STUDENT HERE AT FRESNO STATE GETTING MY MASTER'S IN PUBLIC HEALTH.

I HAD ATTENDED THE SITE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND I WANTED TO BRING UP TWO THINGS. ONE IS MY OWN COMMENTS AS WELL AS TO READ A PROXY FROM A PROFESSOR OF BIOETHICS AT UC BERKELEY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU'RE A GRADUATE STUDENT?

MS. SOTO: I'M A GRADUATE STUDENT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND YOU CANNOT ATTEND IN THE AFTERNOON?

MS. SOTO: I REALLY CAN'T. WE HAVE SOME OTHER FRESNO STATE STUDENTS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RIDE, SO I HAVE TO GO.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO COMMENT WAS THAT THERE'S TWO POINT SYSTEMS THAT HAPPENED WITH THE SITE SELECTION. AND WITH THE RFP POINT SYSTEM A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENED WITH THE SITE COMMITTEE -- SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS WHERE A LOT OF CITIES QUESTIONED A LOT OF THE POINT SYSTEMS. AND LIKE DR. RUTH ABULAD JUST QUESTIONED THE POINT SYSTEM FROM THE RFP. AND THE IMPRESSION THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE SITE COMMITTEE MEETINGS WAS THAT THE RFP POINT SYSTEM WAS TO BE USED TO NARROW DOWN THE LIST OF CITIES. AND WHEN LOOKING AT THE TOTAL NUMBER, IT PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN NARROWING DOWN, ESPECIALLY FOR SAN FRANCISCO BECAUSE THE RFP POINT SYSTEM WAS NOT DONE ENTIRELY BY THE SITE COMMITTEE. IT WAS DONE BY A COMBINATION OF THE SITE COMMITTEE AND OTHER PEOPLE.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE SITE VISIT POINT SYSTEM THAT WAS DONE BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, SAN FRANCISCO, IF YOU LOOK, OUT OF THE THREE TOP SITES, IT GOT THE LOWEST NUMBER OF POINTS. AND BOTH SYSTEMS, SACRAMENTO WAS AMONG THE TOP TWO IN BOTH THE RFP AND THE SITE VISIT POINT SYSTEM.

AND I'M SPEAKING FROM A PERSON WHO IS FROM SACRAMENTO AND HERE IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY. I REALLY BELIEVE THAT HAVING THE SITE IN SACRAMENTO WILL GIVE THE VOICE OF CENTRAL VALLEY, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, AS WELL AS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WILL HAVE MORE OF A VOICE IN THIS INSTITUTE BY HAVING IT IN SACRAMENTO.

IN TERMS OF CONCERN ABOUT THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY, I REALLY BELIEVE SACRAMENTO IS REALLY GROWING IN THIS AREA. AND SINCE AN INSTITUTE -- SINCE IT'S SO EARLY IN THE PROCESS AND IT'S IN DEVELOPMENT, THAT I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE TIME THE INSTITUTE IS GOING TO BE FULLY RUNNING. WE HAVE FACILITIES IN THE SACRAMENTO AREA THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN DIEGO, SUCH AS THE PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER AND OUR VETERINARY SCHOOL, AND, OF COURSE, WE ALSO HAVE OUR MEDICAL SCHOOL AND TEACHING HOSPITAL.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IF YOU COULD LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES.

MS. SOTO: SO I'M DONE WITH MY PERSONAL COMMENTS. AND SO I'M GOING TO READ A PROXY. DAVID WINNICOFF PRESENTS THIS COMMENT, THIS PUBLIC COMMENT. AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN OF CALIFORNIA, AS A LICENSED ATTORNEY, AND AS A PROFESSOR OF BIOETHICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, IT IS MY OPINION THAT CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE'S PERMANENT FACILITY SHOULD LIE AT THE POLITICAL HEART OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO.

THE GREATEST STRENGTH OF THIS INITIATIVE IS ITS COMMITMENT TO IMPROVING THE PEOPLE'S HEALTH. ITS GREATEST WEAKNESS IS THE LACK OF POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE FACE OF WORK THAT IS SURE TO BE POLITICALLY CONTESTED, ALLOCATING BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS, SETTING THE TRAJECTORY OF SENSITIVE BIOTECHNOLOGIES, LIKE CLONING AND CHIMERIC RESEARCH, WRITING GUIDELINES FOR HUMAN AID EXTRACTION, AND ASSIGNING PATENTS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

SOME MIGHT ARGUE THAT INSULATION FROM POLITICS WILL HELP THE INSTITUTE ACHIEVE ITS GOALS. QUITE THE CONTRARY.

VIABILITY OF THIS POLITICAL AND SOCIAL EXPERIMENT WILL REQUIRE THE TRUST AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE PEOPLE. PROP 71 EMPOWERED THE INSTITUTE TO DO MANY THINGS. IT DID NOT EMPOWER THE INSTITUTE TO STRAY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC WILL. THAT WILL IS EMBODIED IN SACRAMENTO WHERE LEGISLATORS WILL MEET CIVIL SOCIETY AND POLITICAL DIALOGUE. THE INSTITUTE SHOULD SIT CLOSE-BY SO IT MAY LISTEN. THANK YOU. FROM DAVID WINNICOFF.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: YES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND AGAIN, YOU CANNOT BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: NO.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I AM A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER AND I'M HERE ON MY OWN TIME.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU KNOW, MANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE ARE HERE ON THEIR OWN TIME. IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE A PATIENT OR SOME CRITICAL ISSUE.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'M NOT A DOCTOR.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU'RE SAYING THAT AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, GIVEN THAT YOU CONTROL YOUR OWN TIME, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON. THIS SEEMS TO BE A LESSER SACRIFICE THAN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE TRAVELED GREAT DISTANCES TO BE HERE. BECAUSE YOU ARE AN OWNER, I WOULD THINK YOU COULD CONTROL YOUR OWN SCHEDULE.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I HAVE TO GO BACK TO SACRAMENTO AND DEAL WITH MY STAFF TOO, SIR.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD ASK THAT YOU BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON. EVERYONE IS MAKING A SACRIFICE.

EVERYONE HAS TO GET BACK TO WORK. WHEN A DOCTOR HAS TO SEE PATIENTS, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU HOLD YOUR COMMENTS. THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT COMMENTS, BUT EVERYONE IS MAKING SACRIFICES TO BE HERE.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I UNDERSTAND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD ASK YOU TO HOLD YOUR COMMENTS, SIR. WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.

WE WILL RECOGNIZE YOU THIS AFTERNOON. EVERYONE HAS TO MAKE SACRIFICES TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS. WE'RE ALL MAKING THEM EVERY DAY.

WE WILL ADJOURN AND GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THANK YOU.

(THE COMMITTEE THEN RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND A LUNCH RECESS.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A REAL CHALLENGE HERE. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT EVERY REPORTER AND EVERY CAMERA THAT'S HERE TODAY, AS WE DO EVERY GREAT SCIENTIFIC ANNOUNCEMENT, FOR THEM TO BE PRESENT. THAT WOULD BE A GREAT SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA AND PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.

THERE'S AN UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF EXCITEMENT HERE AROUND THE SELECTION OF THE PERMANENT SITE AS EVIDENCED BY THE TURNOUT OF THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA. IT IS TREMENDOUSLY REFRESHING TO SEE THE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTORS AND THE CITIES MARSHALING THEIR STRENGTH TOGETHER UNITED BEHIND MEDICAL SCIENCE TO ADVANCE THE MEDICAL THERAPIES TO REDUCE HUMAN SUFFERING. ADVANCING THE STEM CELL RESEARCH FRONTIER FOR THERAPIES TO REDUCE HUMAN SUFFERING IS A TREMENDOUS GOAL SET OUT BY PROPOSITION 71. AND THE CITIES, ALONG WITH THEIR GREAT CHARITABLE AND CIVIC LEADERS, HAVE MARSHALED THEIR RESOURCES IN AN UNBELIEVABLE OUTPOURING OF STRENGTH BEHIND THE SITE SELECTION, WHICH IS ONE OF THE FIRST COMPETITIONS FOR THE RESOURCES OF PROP 71.

WE GREATLY ARE INDEBTED TO THEIR LEADERS AND CIVIC PARTNERS FOR THE TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUTIONS THEY'RE MAKING. I CAN TELL YOU WHO WILL WIN TODAY BECAUSE PATIENTS WILL WIN TODAY. CHILDREN, SPOUSES, AND AGING PARENTS SUFFERING FROM CHRONIC DISEASES WILL WIN TODAY BECAUSE THERE WILL BE 12 TO $18 MILLION NOT SPENT ON SITES, BUT SPENT ON MEDICAL RESEARCH GIVEN THE GENEROSITY BEFORE US TODAY.

MEDICAL RESEARCHERS WILL WIN TODAY BECAUSE THEY'RE DEDICATING THEIR LIFE, AND THERE WILL BE MORE RESOURCES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH AND NOT FOR FACILITIES TO HOUSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS.

AND THE TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA WILL WIN TODAY BECAUSE THE TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA WILL BENEFIT THAT MORE OF THEIR DOLLARS WILL REALLY END UP GOING TO MEDICAL RESEARCH.

WITH THAT, IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENT OF THE MOMENTUM IN THIS MEETING THAT IS VERY ESSENTIAL, AFTER THE SELECTION OF THE PERMANENT HEADQUARTERS, WE'LL ASK THE MEDIA TO MOVE TO ROOM 211, AND WE'D ASK THE MAYORS AND CIVIC LEADERS AND CHARITABLE DONORS WHO ARE WITH THEM -- 2011, IF THEY COULD ALL AGGREGATE IN ROOM 2011 SO THAT THE MEDIA HAS A CHANCE TO INTERVIEW THEM, AND YET THE MOMENTUM OF THE MEETING CAN CONTINUE.

WITH THAT, WE HAVE A PROCEDURAL ITEM, TWO PROCEDURAL ITEMS, I THINK, TO DISCUSS. ONE IS THAT THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BE ABLE TO VOTE.

AND THE SALK CONFERENCE FACILITIES WAS INADVERTENTLY INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. THE SAN DIEGO PROPOSAL HAS SEVERAL CONFERENCE FACILITIES; AND IF THAT FACILITY WERE TAKEN OUT, IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE SCORING BECAUSE THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE NUMBER OF -- SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF CONFERENCE FACILITIES THAT WOULD QUALIFY THEM FOR THE SAME SCORE. SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY SCORING THAT HAS HAPPENED TO DATE.

BUT IN ORDER FOR DR. MURPHY'S PARTICIPATION IN THIS, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IF THERE'S NOT OBJECTION FROM THE BOARD, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT SALK BE ABLE TO REMOVE THOSE CONFERENCE FACILITIES FROM THE BID WE'RE CONSIDERING. I DON'T SEE ANY OBJECTION, SO THE CHAIR WILL MAKE THAT RULING.

ADDITIONALLY, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE SAME KINDS OF TECHNICAL ISSUE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING TO CLARIFY FOR THE PUBLIC FOR DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. 21. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCLOSE FOR THE RECORD THAT I AM EMPLOYED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE CITY, AND THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO IS ONE OF THE BIDDERS. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CITY'S BID.

COUNSEL HAS ADVISED ME THAT UNDER CALIFORNIA CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS, THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED A FINANCIAL INTEREST BECAUSE IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVE THE DEPARTMENT FOR WHICH I WORK; NAMELY, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BUT THAT I MUST, NONETHELESS, DISCLOSE IT BEFORE PARTICIPATING IN THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD ALSO -- THANK YOU, DAVID. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT DR. KESSLER AND JEFF SHEEHY, WHO ARE WITH THE MEDICAL SCHOOL AT UC SAN FRANCISCO, DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE BID OF THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND THEY ARE OF THE MEDICAL SCHOOL. THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE SEPARATELY WAS INVOLVED, AND COUNSEL HAS MADE A DECISION THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. HARRISON: THAT'S CORRECT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. SO WE'RE BEING VERY CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT WE BELIEVE WE'VE EXAMINED EVERY ROLE APPROPRIATELY.

DR. POMEROY.

DR. POMEROY: I ALSO HAVE A DISCLOSURE TO MAKE.

FOR THE RECORD, THE UC DAVIS GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT INCLUDED ACCESS TO A CONFERENCE ROOM FOR CIRM AT NO CHARGE AS PART OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO'S BID. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION, AND COUNSEL HAS ADVISED ME THAT THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED A FINANCIAL INTEREST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY INVOLVE THE DEPARTMENT FOR WHICH I WORK OR THE UNIT FOR WHICH I WORK, THE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT UC DAVIS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES. THE CHAIR IS AWARE OF THE LEGAL REASONING, THE CASES, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS AND BELIEVE IT'S TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH THOSE.

THANK YOU, DR. POMEROY.

SO WITH THOSE PRELIMINARY MATTERS BEING ADDRESSED, WALTER, COULD YOU BEGIN THIS PRESENTATION WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS?

WALTER BARNES, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS, IS WITH THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE. WALTER IS ON LOAN TO THE INSTITUTE TO PROVIDE US THE ABILITY TO ADVANCE OUR MISSION. AND WALTER FROM THE INSTITUTE SIDE LED THE INSTITUTE'S PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCESS, IN THE SCORING PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES AND THEIR PARTICIPATION.

MR. BARNES: THANK YOU. I MENTIONED AT ONE OF THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETINGS THAT AFTER WORKING FOR 40 YEARS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, I HAD NEVER SEEN SUCH AN ENTHUSIASTIC RESPONSE BY BIDDERS TO A PROCUREMENT LIKE THIS. ALL 17 CITIES INCLUDED IN THE TEN BIDS THAT WERE RECEIVED EXERCISED THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF CREATIVITY IN RESPONDING TO AN RFP DOCUMENT THAT WAS EXTREMELY INNOVATIVE AND CREATIVE ITSELF.

BEFORE DISCUSSING THE RESULTS OF THE RFP AND THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK THE STAFF FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES FOR THEIR SUPPORT, PARTICIPATION, AND GUIDANCE IN THIS PROCESS.

I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT JUST TO EXPLAIN WHY THEIR PARTICIPATION WAS SO IMPORTANT. UNDER PROP 71 THE INSTITUTE AND THE COMMITTEE ENJOY CERTAIN INNOVATIONS IN GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; HOWEVER, THE INSTITUTE IS STILL A STATE AGENCY. AS A STATE AGENCY, IT'S REQUIRED TO FOLLOW CERTAIN PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES WHEN PERFORMING A PROCUREMENT LIKE THIS.

THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES WAS A CREATIVE PARTNER IN THIS EFFORT, BUT WAS ALSO THERE TO ENSURE THAT THE RESULTS WERE ARRIVED AT IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER WITH SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT A FINAL RECOMMENDATION. THE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES THAT WERE DESIGNED ARE TO ENSURE THAT A DECISION IS BASED ON OBJECTIVE FACTORS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE CIRM.

THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE MADE SEVERAL DECISIONS, AND THESE DECISIONS ARE DETAILED IN EXHIBIT 1 OF YOUR AGENDA REGARDING THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED, WHICH INCLUDED A LIST OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT ALL BIDDERS HAD TO MEET, AND PREFERENCES, WHICH WERE WEIGHTED AND USED TO SELECT THE BEST PROPOSAL. IT ALSO MADE DECISIONS ON THE PROCESS BY WHICH RESPONSES TO THE FACTORS WOULD BE CONSIDERED, WHICH INVOLVED A TWO-PART PROCESS AND A VALUATION OF THE RESPONSES TO THE RFP AND SITE VISITS BY THE MEMBERS THEMSELVES.

THESE DECISIONS WERE IMPLEMENTED BY A JOINT CIRM/DGS STAFF, AND ALL RESULTS WERE APPROVED BY THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE AT ONE OF ITS FIVE REGULAR MEETINGS.

SO DETAILS ABOUT ALL OF THESE MEETINGS, ALL OF THE DECISIONS MADE, ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND WORK THAT WAS DONE IN BETWEEN EACH OF THOSE MEETINGS IS DETAILED IN EXHIBIT 1.

ONE OF THOSE DECISIONS WAS TO PROVIDE THE FULL ICOC WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR A WINNER AND A RUNNER-UP.

THE PURPOSE OF THE RUNNER-UP IS THAT IN THE EVENT THAT LEASE NEGOTIATIONS BREAK DOWN OR THE WINNER IS UNABLE TO MEET THE TERMS OF THE BID, THE AWARD WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE RUNNER-UP.

ANOTHER DECISION WAS THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE POINTS AWARDED TO ALL FOUR FINALISTS, WHICH ARE EMERYVILLE, SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO, AND SAN FRANCISCO,

WOULD BE PROVIDED AS INFORMATION TO THE ICOC, AND THAT THE BIDDER WITH THE MOST POINTS RESULTING FROM THE REVIEW OF THE RFP DOCUMENTS AND THE SITE VISIT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDED WINNER.

IF YOU GO TO PAGE 1 OF THE ATTACHMENT -- AGENDA 7, YOU HAVE THOSE POINTS LISTED. BASED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE SITE COMMITTEE AND THOSE POINTS, THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT, FIRST, THE ICOC SELECT THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND ITS BUILDING OWNER PARTNER AS THE PERMANENT CIRM SITE.

A SECOND RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE ICOC SELECT THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND ITS BUILDING OWNER PARTNER AS THE RUNNER-UP SITE.

BEFORE YOU TAKE AN ACTION, I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES OR PERKS NOT CONSIDERED -- NOT CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL BIDS IN MAKING YOUR FINAL DECISION COULD RESULT IN A CHALLENGE BY OTHER BIDDERS AND MIGHT REQUIRE THE CANCELLATION OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

IN ADDITION, ANY CHANGES IN THE POINTS SHOULD BE BASED ON SPECIFIC INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN PROPOSALS OR EVIDENT THROUGH THE SITE VISITS IN ORDER TO AVOID THE SAME RESULT.

IN CLOSING, I ALSO WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE SITE SEARCH COMMITTEE ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE STAFF FROM CIRM AND DGS. THIS WAS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AN EXTREMELY INTERESTING PROCUREMENT, AND WE THANK THEM FOR THEIR ATTENTION TO MY RAMBLINGS AS THE BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH, AS WELL AS THEIR SUPPORT FOR ALL THE EFFORTS THAT WE MADE.

THAT'S A SUMMARY OF MY PRESENTATION. AND I'M READY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

DR. NOVA: NO. 19, TINA NOVA. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GOING THROUGH THAT. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS DONE. I KNOW HOW MUCH WORK THEY DID, AND IT'S ADMIRABLE.

I'D JUST LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMMENT FROM YOU ON THE SCORING SYSTEM, THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MATRIX SCORING SYSTEM, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THAT, AND HOW THAT'S COME ABOUT.

AND MY SECOND QUESTION IS ABOUT THE WEIGHT THAT IS GIVEN TO PHASE I VERSUS PHASE II AND WHY THERE WERE 200 POINTS VERSUS THE 90 POINTS IN THE PHASE II AND THE ADDING TOGETHER OF THOSE TO MAKE A TOTAL POINT SYSTEM.

MR. BARNES: THE INITIAL SCORING SYSTEM, WHICH WAS RELATED TO THE REVIEW OF THE BIDS, WAS DEVELOPED BY THE JOINT DGS/CIRM EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSED OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, TWO MEMBERS -- TWO EMPLOYEES WITH CIRM, AS WELL AS MYSELF.

AT THE TIME WE SAT DOWN TO DEVELOP THE SCORING SHEET, NO ONE, INCLUDING OURSELVES, HAD SEEN ANY OF THE BIDS. SO WE WERE WORKING IN SOMEWHAT OF A BLIND SITUATION TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY WAS GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN HERE.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE DID HAVE SOME FAIRLY CLEAR INFORMATION FROM THE SITE COMMITTEE BASED UPON THEIR COMMENTS AT THE VARIOUS MEETINGS AND THE RFP DOCUMENT THAT THEY HAD APPROVED AT A PREVIOUS MEETING ABOUT WHICH ITEMS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE PREFERENCE POINTS.

THERE IS -- ATTACHMENT C, I BELIEVE IT IS, IS AN EXPLANATION OF THE MATERIAL THAT -- OF THE RATIONALE FOR WHY EACH OF THE VARIOUS PREFERENCES WERE SCORED THE WAY THEY WERE. SO THAT'S THE PROCESS ON HOW THAT CAME UP.

WE ALSO ARRIVED AT THE 20 POINTS, AGAIN, BASED ON JUST THE SUMMATION OF ASSIGNING THOSE POINTS.

I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT WHEN WE TOOK THE RECOMMENDATION FOR SCORES TO THE SITE COMMITTEE AT THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING, WE LAID OUT THIS EXPLANATION, WE LAID OUT THE PROCESS, WE LAID OUT THE SCORES THAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING, AND THE SITE COMMITTEE TOOK THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND MADE A DECISION TO ACCEPT BOTH THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SCORES AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL SCORINGS THAT WE GAVE.

I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT WE GAVE A PRELIMINARY LISTING OF MATRIX SCORES, WHICH SOME OF THE CITIES INDICATED THEY FELT WERE -- HAD SOME ERRORS IN IT, SO WE DID SOLICIT AT THE SITE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD POINT OUT IN THE BID WHERE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE MISSED TOOK PLACE. AND SO THE SCORING MATRIX THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR AGENDA ITEM IS THE REVISED SCORING MATRIX THAT BASICALLY AWARDED SOME ADDITIONAL POINTS TO SOME OF THE MEMBERS.

WITH REGARD TO THE SITE COMMITTEE, THAT WAS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY -- THE SITE VISITS, I SHOULD SAY, THAT WAS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THE SITE COMMITTEE ITSELF. WE PROVIDED SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES OF WHAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT AND THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT AND A SUGGESTED SCORING METHODOLOGY FOR THAT. I THINK OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR 10 POINTS FOR SIX DIFFERENT ITEMS.

THEY ENDED UP COMING UP WITH 90 POINTS FOR SEVEN ITEMS PLUS A POTENTIAL NEGATIVE 10 POINTS RELATED TO WHAT THEY CALLED BURDEN. SO THAT DECISION WAS MADE BY THE SITE COMMITTEE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: JUST IN THE INTEREST OF COMPLETENESS, VERY QUICKLY, PRECEDING THE STEP THAT WAS JUST DESCRIBED, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE ALLOCATION OF POINTS, THOSE ALLOCATION OF POINTS CAME FROM THE RECORDS OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMITTEE IN ITS PRIOR MEETINGS. AND FROM THOSE RECORDS OF WHAT WAS IMPORTANT, THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY ALLOCATION THAT CAME UP. THE -- WALTER AND I WORKED ON THAT WITH DGS, AND THEN IT WENT TO ONE PERSON FROM EACH REGION: DR. MURPHY, DR. POMEROY, SHERRY LANSING AND I, TO SEE IF THAT ALLOCATION MADE SENSE.

AND AFTER THAT STEP, WE GAVE IT BACK TO DGS, WHO IMMEDIATELY CHANGED IT. THEY, OF COURSE, BEING A STATE AGENCY, USED TO A FOCUS ON THE FINANCIAL ISSUES, INCREASED THE ALLOCATION FOR DOLLARS OF SUBSIDY, AND ALL THREE OF THE CANDIDATES BEFORE US TODAY ARE PROVIDING TEN YEARS OF FREE RENT. SO THAT EQUALIZES THAT ADJUSTMENT.

THEY MADE SOME OTHER MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN CATEGORIES BASED ON THEIR READING OF THE COMMITTEE'S OWN PRONOUNCEMENTS IN THE TEXT AS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY.

DR. LOVE: WALTER, MANY OF US HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN A PROCESS WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS SELECTING A SITE. SO I WANTED TO JUST ASK IF YOU IN YOUR EXPERIENCE COULD PUT THAT PROCESS INTO SOME CONTEXT FOR US IN TERMS OF THE RIGOR RELATIVE TO OTHER DECISIONS THAT YOU MADE FOR SITE SELECTION. AND ALSO GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE ON YOUR SENSE OF THE INTEGRITY OF HOW THIS WAS ALL CARRIED OUT AND WHETHER ANY OF US HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT ANY OF THAT.

MR. BARNES: AS I SAID, I WORKED FOR THE STATE FOR 40 YEARS. THERE ARE TIMES IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT LONGER THAN THAT. I WILL SAY THAT I PARTICIPATED IN A NUMBER OF MAJOR PROCUREMENTS, BOTH FOR SPACE AS WELL AS FOR OTHER TYPES OF THINGS, INCLUDING I.T. SYSTEMS AND THAT KIND OF THING. THIS ONE WAS ONE OF THE LARGER AND MORE SIGNIFICANT PROCUREMENTS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN. AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE PROCESS PARTICULARLY BECOMES EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PARTICULARLY WITH THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECISION THAT GOES INTO IT. AND SO, AS I SAID, WITH DGS AS OUR PARTNER, WE MADE SURE THAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE ONE THAT WOULD HAVE AS MUCH OBJECTIVITY BUILT INTO IT, AND THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE PROVIDED TO THE SITE COMMITTEE AND THE DECISIONS THE SITE COMMITTEE WOULD BE CALLED UPON TO MAKE WERE AS OBJECTIVE AS WE COULD POSSIBLY MAKE THEM.

I FEEL PERSONALLY VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS THAT HAS GONE THROUGH BOTH FROM THE PERSONAL STANDPOINT AS WELL AS FROM THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED WITH ME ON THE EVALUATION TEAM AND, AS I SAID ALREADY, THE SITE COMMITTEE MEMBERS THEMSELVES WHO I FEEL REALLY ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO ARRIVE AT AN OBJECTIVE DECISION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU.

DR. HOLMES: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I TOO WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD THE EXTRAORDINARY WORK OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND INDICATE MY RESPECT FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND REALLY THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.

I HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WANT TO DISCUSS THIS NOW OR AT A SUBSEQUENT POINT, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER. I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY WHEN IT'S REALLY THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT'S RECOMMENDING TO THE FULL COMMITTEE WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS IS THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS ONE-HALF THE VALUE OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS' RECOMMENDATION. AND THAT SEEMS STRANGE TO ME AS PART OF THE PROCESS, AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR THE COMMITTEE SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT.

WHEN I READ THE CRITERIA FOR THE TWO GROUPS THAT LOOKED AT THIS, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE EVALUATED BY THE SITE COLLECTION COMMITTEE ARE MUCH MORE TO THE POINT OF THE FUNCTION OF WHAT THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE IS GOING TO DO, WHICH IS TO SELECT THE BEST POSSIBLE RESEARCH IN THE NATION -- I MEAN FOR THIS GROUP.

SO I'M QUITE MIFFED BY THE DISPARITY IN THE RANKINGS OF THE TWO GROUPS. AND I HOPE AT SOME POINT, MR. CHAIR, WE COULD HEAR FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE RIGHT TIME IS TO DO THAT, BUT THE PROCESS, IT SEEMS TO ME TOPSY-TURVY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I'D LIKE TO, IF POSSIBLE, GET THE PRESENTATIONS OUT ON THE TABLE. WE HAVE VERY LIMITED TIME. WE NEED TO BE VERY EFFECTIVE WITH OUR TIME, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN COMBINE THE MEMBERS' COMMENTS ON THE WEIGHTING OF ITEMS BECAUSE WHEN THEY MAKE A PRESENTATION ON WHY THEY FEEL A CERTAIN SITE IS BETTER, THEY CAN EMPHASIZE THE WEIGHTING. WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE?

DR. HOLMES: SURE.

MR. SHEEHY: I JUST WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT IT'S KIND OF CURIOUS BECAUSE THIS MIRRORS THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS. AND WE SET UP AN INDEPENDENT GROUP SEPARATE FROM OURSELVES TO GIVE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS, AND THEN WE HAVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WEIGH IN. PRESUMABLY I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD HOPE IN THE RESEARCH GRANTS WORKING GROUP THAT THE REAL WEIGHT WOULD COULD FROM THE OBJECTIVE SCIENTISTS WHO KIND OF PLAY THE SAME ROLE THAT THE GSA DID IN THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS. AND IT JUST TROUBLES ME THAT WE WOULD EVEN COUNTENANCE ASSAULTING THE OBJECTIVE PROCESS WHEN THIS MIRRORS EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO GIVE OUT $2.7 BILLION IN GRANTS. THE PROCESS THAT YOU OVERSAW WAS THE SELECTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO DO THAT.

SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. IF WE'RE GOING TO START PULLING THREADS, I THINK WE PULL A LOT OF THREADS APART.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK WE'RE ALL VERY PASSIONATE AND ALL BELIEVE WE'RE HERE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE BEST RESULT. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT, JUST AS WE HAD SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS RELATED TO THE EARLIER PANELS OR SLATES, THERE'S VERY APPROPRIATE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS NOW.

DR. HOLMES: COULD I RESPOND? THANK YOU. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE THAT I'M PUTTING A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT'S THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THE SITE COMMITTEE OF THIS GROUP THAT WENT AND LOOKED AT ALL SITES, I'M HAVING TROUBLE RECONCILING THEIR RECOMMENDATION VERSUS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FIRST COMMITTEE. MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, BUT IT SEEMED TO ME THERE WAS A DISPARITY THERE. AND I HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE I GUESS I'M TRYING TO SAY.

MR. SHEEHY: WOULD YOU HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN PATIENT ADVOCATES AND THEIR DECISIONS ON GRANTS OR THE SCIENTISTS THAT YOU PICK, THE EXPERTS THAT HAVE EXPERTISE IN BUILDING PROCUREMENT THAT MADE THIS VERY OBJECTIVE DECISION? WHILE I GIVE CREDENCE TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SITE SEARCH COMMITTEE, THEY ARE NOT EXPERTS IN BUILDING -- IN OBTAINING SITES FOR GOVERNMENT -- SPACE FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

THE STATE AGENCY THAT OVERSAW THAT PROCESS DID THAT SCORING, HAS THAT EXPERTISE, WHICH IS THE SAME ARGUMENT WE MADE IN PEER REVIEW.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. I WANT THE PRESENTATIONS AS WELL. DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL SPEAKING. I WANT TO GET TO PRESENTATIONS AS WELL. I SHARE MY COLLEAGUE, JEFF SHEEHY'S, COMMENTS. WE ALL -- AS A MEMBER, DR. HOLMES, I KNEW ABOUT THE PROCESS. WE HAD CONSTANT COMMITTEE REPORTS. I DON'T RECALL YOU EVER RAISING A QUESTION IN THAT PROCESS.

TO GET INTO THE SECOND-GUESSING GAME, WHEN WE KNOW -- MR. BARNES IS BEING MODEST. HE'S THE CZAR OF THIS PROCESS. IT WAS OBJECTIVE. IT WAS DONE WITH INTEGRITY. THERE ARE REPRESENTATIVES FROM DGS. IF YOU WANT TO ASK THEM QUESTIONS, YOU SHOULD.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DAVID, I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, SINCE WE HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION HERE, THAT WE GO FORWARD. EVERYONE HERE IS JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE BEST RESULT. DR. PENHOET.

DR. PENHOET: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR DR. HOLMES. ED, THE REASON IN SOME SENSE THERE'S A DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF NUMBERS IN RANK ORDER IS THEY MEASURE DIFFERENT THINGS. SO THE FIRST SCORING MEASURED A WHOLE SET OF CRITERIA THAT WERE DECIDED IN THE FIRST ROUND. WE WERE SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHEN WE MADE THE SITE VISITS NOT TO RECONSIDER THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE ALREADY CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST EVALUATION. WE LOOKED AT ADDITIONAL THINGS IN THE SECOND ROUND, SO IT WASN'T MEANT TO EITHER OVERRIDE OR IN A SENSE CHANGE THE OVERALL PROCESS. WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT A DIFFERENT SET OF CRITERIA DURING THE SITE VISITS THAN WERE EXAMINED IN THE FIRST.

SO THERE WASN'T AN INTENT THAT THE SITE COMMITTEE ITSELF WOULD OVERRIDE, BUT SIMPLY SUPPLEMENT WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED IN THE FIRST ROUND.

DR. BRYANT: SO THEN THAT LEADS TO THE QUESTION OF HOW THE WEIGHT OF THE DIFFERENT RATING SCALES WAS DETERMINED BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS ALSO -- THAT ACTUALLY IS WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO, I THINK, IS WHAT IS THE RELATIVE WEIGHTING THAT'S GIVEN TO THESE THINGS? I'M NOT ASKING BECAUSE I HAVE ANY PREJUDICE. I'D JUST LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT WAS DETERMINED.

DR. PRECIADO: I GUESS I'M STARTING TO GET A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THIS BECAUSE WHEN I PARTICIPATED IN THE SITE VISITS, IT BECAME VERY CLEAR TO ME WHAT MY PREFERENCE WAS BASED ON THE POINT SYSTEMS WE WERE GIVEN.

NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED TO RECOMMEND, BASED ON A POINT SYSTEM, OUR NO. 1 AND NO. 2 DECISIONS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT I CAN SAY WITH ALL HONESTY THAT I CAN GO FORWARD AND RECOMMEND SAN FRANCISCO AS NO. 1, SACRAMENTO AS NO. 2 BASED ON JUST THE POINT SYSTEM.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PRECIADO, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE IS BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE IN A VERY SPIRITED DISCUSSION ON A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING THAT YOU WERE NOT PRESENT VOTED TO ADVANCE THE RECOMMENDATION BASED UPON THE POINT SYSTEM. IT'S THE SAME COMMITTEE MEETING THAT APPROVED THE POINTS FROM THE FIRST ROUND. WE'RE ONLY CARRYING OUT THE PROCESS AS WE VOTED THROUGH THE PROCESS.

DR. POMEROY: AS A PERSON WHO WENT ON ALL THE SITE VISITS AND PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS, I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT THIS.

FIRST OF ALL, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY TO ME, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS WE EMPHASIZED THAT THE POINT SYSTEM WAS MERELY A GUIDE, AND THAT THE FINAL DECISION WOULD BE MADE ON THE CONSCIENCE OF EACH MEMBER OF THE ICOC. I THINK THAT WE DISCUSSED THE WEIGHTING, AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED BOTH SETS OF SCORES REPORTED SO THAT PEOPLE COULD MAKE UP IN THEIR OWN MIND HOW IMPORTANT RFP POINTS WERE AND HOW IMPORTANT SITE VISIT POINTS WERE.

PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE LEGITIMATELY DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT THAT.

THAT WAS THE REASON FOR GIVING ALL OF THE SCORES. I THINK THAT IN MY OPINION THIS SCORING SYSTEM, THERE WAS A WIDE RANGE OF SCORES ON THE SITE VISIT, A VERY WIDE RANGE, AND THOSE ARE OUTLINED, I THINK, IN OUR BOOK SO PEOPLE CAN LOOK THOSE OVER. AND I WILL SAY THAT I THINK FUNCTIONALLY WITH THAT RANGE THERE'S PROBABLY LITTLE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE TOP THREE SCORES. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITIES, IN FACT, COME BACK FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THESE TEN-MINUTE PRESENTATIONS AND KIND OF SUMMARIZE THE FACTS FOR EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD.

AND SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE, AS EVERYONE IS URGING, COULD MOVE ON TO THE CITY PRESENTATIONS AND EVERYONE COULD GO INTO THAT LISTENING CAREFULLY TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PRIETO, IS IT POSSIBLE --

DR. PRIETO: WILL THE BOARD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES. DR. MURPHY.

DR. MURPHY: LET ME JUST FOLLOW UP ON THOSE LAST COMMENTS. I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL PRINCIPLES THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOLLOWED. NO. 1 PRINCIPLE WAS THAT THE DECISION WOULD BE MADE BY THE ICOC, AND THAT WHAT WE WERE DOING AS A SUBCOMMITTEE WAS TEEING UP THE PROCESS FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO MAKE ITS FINAL DECISION.

THE TWO PROCEDURES, THE STAFF PROCEDURE I LOOK AT AS BUYING A HOUSE. IT'S GOING TO THE REALTOR, IT'S LOOKING AT THE DATA AND DECIDING WHICH OF THOSE PROPERTIES REALLY HAVE THE QUALITIES THAT MAKE THEM OF VALUE. THE SITE VISIT WAS GOING TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTIES, AND WE REALIZED THAT THE TWO PROCEDURES HAD DIFFERENT NUMBERS. THE FIRST PROCEDURE WAS 200 POINTS, AND THAT WAS DONE, IN MY VIEW, VERY WELL.

THE SITE COMMITTEE DECIDED THAT THE SITE VISITS WOULD BE 90 POINTS, AND I THINK THAT WAS DONE VERY WELL ALSO. THE NOTION WAS THAT WE WANTED TO PRESENT BOTH OF THOSE NUMBERS TO THE COMMITTEE SO THAT THE COMMITTEE COULD SEE WHAT THE FIRST PHASE DID AND WHAT THE SECOND PHASE DID. AND AS WAS JUST STATED, THE IDEA WAS WE WERE PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO THE COMMITTEE, AND THAT THE REASON THAT THE COMMITTEE, I THINK, ALLOWED THE TWO NUMBERS TO BE COMBINED IS THAT WE DID NOT CONSIDER THESE TO BE BINDING NUMBERS. WE CONSIDERED THESE TO BE NUMBERS SIMPLY THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED BOTH SEPARATELY AND TOGETHER. BUT AT LEAST MY FEELING WAS THAT THESE WE'RE NOT BINDING. THEY WERE NUMBERS TO GUIDE THE COMMITTEE IN ITS DECISIONS.

AND I AGREE THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE RECOMMENDED TODAY TO BRING THE FINALISTS BACK FOR THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE WE FELT THAT ONE PART OF THE PROCEDURE SHOWED ONE ASPECT, THE DGS PART, THE SITE VISIT SHOWED ANOTHER ONE, AND WE NEEDED THE COMMITTEE TO SEE THE PRESENTATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE ITS DECISION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S VERY WELL STATED. AND I'D LIKE TO INDICATE THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE SITE VISIT BETWEEN THE SCORING OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE VERY LEGITIMATE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION OF THE BEST PHILOSOPHY FOR THIS FACILITY. ONE MIGHT NOTICE, I THINK I GAVE 10 POINTS ON FUNCTION TO ALL THREE OF THESE BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE IF THERE'S A SUBURBAN PHILOSOPHY, IF THERE'S AN URBAN PHILOSOPHY, THEY CAN BOTH HAVE LEGITIMACY, AND THEY CAN ALL BE CLASS A FACILITIES, ALL BE CLASS A SITES.

SO THE POINT IS THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS TO SEE THE PRESENTATIONS AND HAVE THE VISUAL INFORMATION TO MAKE THE DECISION THEMSELVES.

DR. BLACK: I JUST WANTED TO -- JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THE PROCESS. SO AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS, WILL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO SORT OF VOTE UP OR DOWN ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, OR WILL WE GET A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUAL SITES THEMSELVES?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATION FOR SAN FRANCISCO. IF THAT DOESN'T CARRY A MAJORITY, WE'LL GO TO SACRAMENTO. IF THAT DOESN'T A CARRY MAJORITY, WE'LL GO TO SAN DIEGO. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO IN ORDER, BUT SEE WHERE WE HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES. AND AFTER WE SELECT THE SITE THAT HAS THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES, WE'LL GO TO VOTE ON THE BACKUP SITE.

DR. KESSLER: CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY. WHAT WAS AGREED TO UP FRONT AS FAR AS THE POINT SYSTEM AND THESE TWO SETS? WAS THERE AN AGREED UPON DECISION BASE THAT WAS AGREED TO BEFORE THE ACTUAL ANALYSIS TOOK PLACE?

MR. BARNES: THAT'S CORRECT.

DR. KESSLER: AND THAT AGREED UPON DECISION BASE WAS WHAT? WHEN YOU HAVE BOTH THE DGS AND YOU HAVE THE SITE SELECTION, WHAT WAS THE AGREED SCENARIO?

MR. BARNES: I GUESS I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

MS. LANSING: ALL THAT WE DECIDED IN A BLIND WAY, THAT DGS AND OUR SUBCOMMITTEE, REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, AGREED THE POINTS BEFORE ANY OF THE BIDS WERE OPENED. THEN THOSE POINTS WERE DONE AND WE WERE GIVEN THAT. THEN WE VISITED SITES. BEFORE WE VISITED THE SITES, WE HAD ADDITIONAL POINTS THAT WE WANTED TO ADD TO IT. AND THEN WE WENT AND SAW -- THAT WAS DONE BEFORE WE SAW THE SITES.

NOW, THIS IS THE IMPORTANT THING, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO GET OUT. ALL WE WANT YOU TO USE THESE POINTS FOR IS IT'S INFORMATION. WE SHOULD ALL ENTER THIS PROCESS NOW IN AN OBJECTIVE AND FAIR WAY. THE POINTS ARE THERE FOR YOU LOOK AT, BUT TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU, THEY'RE SO CLOSE THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. IT'S NOT LIKE ONE THING IS A HUNDRED POINTS AHEAD OF SOMETHING ELSE. WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. THEY WERE NEVER TO DETERMINE HOW YOU VOTE. THEY WERE ONLY AS A GUIDELINE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THEY WERE, I THINK, A GUIDANCE ON VOTING. AND ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS IS THE FIRST PART OF THAT POINT SYSTEM WAS INTENDED TO AVOID INSTITUTIONAL BIAS OR REGIONAL BIAS SO THAT YOU COULD SEE HOW POINTS WOULD MATCH UP THE CRITERIA ARTICULATED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE BEFORE THEY SAW ANY BIDS. AND THEY HAVE A VALUE IN GUIDANCE IN TELLING US HOW ON AN OBJECTIVE BASIS WHAT INDEPENDENT PEOPLE THOUGHT BECAUSE NONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS TOOK PART IN THAT PROCESS.

DR. FONTANA: DR. JEANNIE FONTANA SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF JOHN REED WHO SITS ON THIS COMMITTEE AND APOLOGIZES FOR NOT BEING HERE, BUT THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD MEETING FOR THE BURNHAM WAS OCCURRING TODAY. I'D LIKE TO JUST BRING UP AN OVERVIEW OR READ TO YOU A POSITION STATEMENT THAT HE ASKED ME TO DO.

HE WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION FOR THE ICOC TO CONSIDER IS WHAT ROLE DOES IT ENVISION FOR THE CIRM. WE HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT CHOICES. FIRST, CIRM CAN SERVE AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION THAT ROBOTICALLY PROCESSES GRANT APPLICATIONS AND PRINTS CHECKS MUCH LIKE THE CALIFORNIA RESEARCH GRANTS ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS WE HAVE CURRENTLY THAT SUPPORT BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, TOBACCO-RELATED DISEASE RESEARCH, AND HIV/AIDS.

THE CURRENT STATE GRANTING ADMINISTRATING ORGANIZATIONS DO A COMPETENT JOB AND ARE STAFFED BY DEDICATED STATE EMPLOYEES, BUT THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP WITH RESPECT TO CUTTING-EDGE THINKING ABOUT HOW TO DEFEAT THESE DISEASES.

IF THAT IS THE COMMITTEE'S INTENT, THEN IT DOES NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE WHERE THIS SITE IS LOCATED.

SECOND, IF OUR DESIRE IS THAT THE CIRM EMERGES AS AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS PROVIDING CUTTING-EDGE THINKING ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH AND THAT IS SEEN AS A THOUGHT LEADER IN THE FIELD BOTH NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY, THEN IT'S CRITICAL THAT THE HEADQUARTERS FOR THE SITE IS SITUATED IN A ROBUST ACADEMIC COMMUNITY THAT OFFERS A DIVERSITY OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR CREATIVE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS ON A DAILY BASIS. IF THAT IS THE COMMITTEE'S INTENT, THEN THERE'S NO OTHER SITE TO CONSIDER THAN SAN DIEGO.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WILL RESERVE EQUAL TIME UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT FOR SACRAMENTO AND FOR SAN FRANCISCO.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE THING CLEAR IN MY MIND. I HAVE A QUESTION. DID THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE, AND I HOPE I CAN PHRASE THIS IN A YES-OR-NO WAY. DID THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE, OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES, AS THEY WENT ABOUT THIS PROCESS DECIDE THAT THE CITY WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF POINTS WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDED SITE? ED IS NODDING YES.

SHERRY IS NODDING NO. HENCE, I'M CONFUSED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING THAT I CHAIRED, I BELIEVE THAT IT DID, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND --

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: WAS MS. LANSING AT THAT MEETING?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: EXCUSE ME. IT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDED SITE, BUT IT'S ALSO LEGITIMATE THAT THE ICOC WOULD DECIDE ON THE BEST SITE FOR THE INSTITUTE.

MS. LANSING: LET ME CLARIFY. THE WAY THAT I UNDERSTOOD IT, AND I WAS AT THE MEETING. THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS THAT THERE WAS A POINT SYSTEM, AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO BRING BACK TO THE ICOC THE POINT SYSTEM AND THE POINT RANKINGS, AND WE WERE INITIALLY ONLY GOING TO BRING BACK TWO, BUT THEY WERE SO CLOSE THAT WE BROUGHT BACK THREE. SO WE ALREADY ADJUSTED IT BECAUSE THEY WERE SO CLOSE.

ALL THAT I UNDERSTAND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, OTHERWISE THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEED FOR THIS MEETING, BECAUSE OTHERWISE EVERYBODY WOULDN'T BE UP HERE FOR TEN MINUTES SPEAKING, AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. ALL THAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO WAS TO USE THIS POINT SYSTEM AS A GUIDELINE TO INFORM US, TO PREPARE US. AND THEN WE WERE GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE VARIOUS PARTICIPANTS AND THEN VOTE WITH OUR CONSCIENCE.

DR. PIZZO: JUST A QUALIFICATION OF THAT. IF, IN FACT, THAT IS TRUE, SHERRY, AND I ACCEPT THAT THAT MIGHT BE TRUE, THEN I THINK IT DOES BEG THE PROPOSITION THAT WAS OFFERED BY OUR CHAIR. IF WE'RE THEN GOING TO VOTE AD SERIATIM STARTING WITH SAN FRANCISCO AND THEN MOVING DOWN, MY CONCLUSION FROM HIS RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE VOTING ON A PLATFORM OR A SLATE THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED. AND THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION THAN WHAT YOU ARE POSITING.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT CLEARLY THIS ISSUE HAS CAPTURED EVERYONE'S ATTENTION. AND THERE ARE MANY GOOD REASONS FOR THAT, BUT WE SHOULDN'T AT THE END OF THE DAY MISS WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT THE CIRM, WHICH IS GOING TO PROVIDE SUPPORT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO IN MANY WAYS WHILE THE ISSUE ABOUT WHERE THE LOCATION IS IS IMPORTANT, IT'S NOT AS IMPORTANT AS WHERE THE FUNDS GO TO DO THE RESEARCH THAT'S SO ESSENTIAL.

AND I ALSO FEEL IN SORT OF A DERIVATIVE WAY THAT WE HAVE TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT LIKE SOME OLYMPIC COMMITTEE JUDGES HAVE BEEN IN WHICH WE ARE BEGINNING TO DECIDE HOW WE'RE GOING TO EVALUATE THE POINTS OR AWARD THE POINTS BASED ON OUR PRIOR COUNTRY OF PREFERENCE. SO LET'S BE AS OBJECTIVE AS WE CAN AND REALLY DECIDE WHAT'S BEST TO ALLOW THE RESEARCH TO GO FORWARD AND TO ALLOW THE COMMUNITY OF EXCELLENCE TO TAKE PLACE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IF THE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD PLEASE, I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT IF WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE COMMENTS FROM THE CITIES.

MS. SAMUELSON: THAT WAS MY POINT. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE PRESENTATIONS, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION BASED ON ALL THE INFORMATION.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION, IF I MAY, EVEN THOUGH I'M PUBLIC.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: AND MY QUESTION TO YOU, CHAIRMAN KLEIN, IS I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WERE RECOMMENDING AS THE PROCESS, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE TO VOTE FOR THE CITY OF THEIR CHOICE?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, EACH MEMBER IS GOING TO VOTE FOR THE --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: EXCUSE ME, SIR. EACH MEMBER WILL VOTE FOR THE CITY OF THEIR CHOICE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, AND WE ARE GOING TO GO DOWN THE ROW AND SEE HOW PEOPLE VOTE BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THEY WERE BROUGHT TO THE COMMITTEE.

DR. FRIEDMAN MADE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WE VOTED ON AND APPROVED THAT ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY SAID WE WOULD SEND THE FIRST AND SECOND HIGHEST SCORE TO THE ICOC. WE'RE GOING TO, IN FACT, VOTE ON ALL THREE, AND WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THEM INCREMENTALLY, AND PEOPLE CAN HOLD THEIR VOTE --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: WOULDN'T IT BE MORE APPROPRIATE THE WAY THE VATICAN DOES IT FOR ELECTING A POPE OR THE WAY THE MAYOR OF -- THE CITIES ELECT MAYORS?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO. WE'RE GOING TO GO SAN DIEGO, SACRAMENTO, AND SAN FRANCISCO. WE'RE GOING TO GO IN REVERSE ORDER. AND THE CITY OF -- THE SLIDES ARE IN THE OTHER ORDER? THE SLIDES ARE IN THE OTHER ORDER. CHAIR STANDS CORRECTED. WE WILL START WITH THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

EACH CITY WILL DO TEN MINUTES, AND WE WILL STAY VERY DISCIPLINED IN THE TEN MINUTES. THERE'S NO QUESTIONS DURING THESE PRESENTATIONS OR BETWEEN PRESENTATIONS.

IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF WHEN YOU ARE MAKING THE PRESENTATIONS. YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

MR. BYERS: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BROOK BYERS.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF SAN FRANCISCO.

CIRM SHOULD BE LOCATED IN A COMMUNITY THAT HAS A VIBRANT INTERDISCIPLINARY MIX OF FIVE FACTORS: WORLD CLASS BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH AT A BROAD BASE OF DIVERSE INSTITUTIONS. TWO, CLINICAL RESEARCH TO TRANSLATE DISCOVERIES INTO EXPERIMENTAL THERAPIES. THIRD, INNOVATIVE COMPANIES THAT CAN FINISH THAT JOB OF DEVELOPMENT AND MOVE THEM FROM BENCH TO BEDSIDE, SCALABLE, WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH DRUG DEVICE COMPANIES THAT WILL DELIVER THE CELLS TO THE POINT OF USE. FOURTH, PHILANTHROPIC AND VENTURE CAPITAL IN ABUNDANCE. AND FIFTH, A POSITIVE POLITICAL AND POLICY ENVIRONMENT.

ALL THESE THINGS WORKING TOGETHER IN A COHESIVE WAY IS WHAT'S REQUIRED TO HELP CIRM BE IN A LOCATION TO BRING OUT THE BEST TEAMWORK, ATTITUDE, INSPIRATION, AND TALENT AS MEASURED BY NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS, NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS, NIH FUNDING, NUMBER OF COMPANIES, NUMBER OF TRAINED EMPLOYEES AND SCIENTISTS CAPABLE OF DOING ALL THIS. SAN FRANCISCO AND ITS BAY AREA IS THE BEST.

HOW DO I KNOW THIS? I WAS INVOLVED IN STARTING THE FIRST BIOTECHNOLOGY COMPANY IN THE WORLD, GENENTECH, 30 YEARS AGO. I WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN STARTING THE FIRST BIOTECHNOLOGY COMPANY IN SAN DIEGO, HYBERTECH, AND A VARIETY OF OTHERS UP AND DOWN THE STATE.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED IS CIRM, AS ANY NEW ENTERPRISE, NEEDS TO BE LOCATED IN A PLACE WHERE IT CAN BE SURROUNDED BY THE INSPIRATION AND THE CREATIVITY OF EVERYTHING I JUST WENT THROUGH.

IF YOU WANT CIRM TO BE SUCCESSFUL, THEN YOU HAVE TO PUT IT IN A PLACE THAT HAS THE OVERWHELMING ABUNDANCE OF WHAT I LISTED, AND THAT IS SAN FRANCISCO. THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH HAS CHOSEN THE LOCATION OF ITS CONVENTION THIS YEAR, THIS SCIENTIFIC MEETING, TO BE SAN FRANCISCO JUNE 23D AND 25TH.

I'D NOW LIKE TO INTRODUCE PAUL BERG FROM STANFORD, WHO IS A NOBEL LAUREATE RECIPIENT IN MEDICINE.

DR. BERG: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS GROUP. IT'S MY VIEW, WHICH IS A VIEW WHICH IS SHARED WIDELY AS I TRAVEL AROUND THE WORLD AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY, THAT THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA'S BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND BIOTECH INDUSTRY ARE PREEMINENT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. AND IT'S FOR THAT REASON WHICH I BELIEVE SAN FRANCISCO SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS THE SITE FOR THE INSTITUTE OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE.

I WANT TO RECALL FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT AWARE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMBINANT DNA OCCURRED IN THE BAY AREA PRIMARILY IN THE LABORATORIES OF STANFORD AND UCSF. AND FOR THAT BREAKTHROUGH, I THINK WE CAN ATTRIBUTE THE GREAT BIOTECH INDUSTRY THAT THE COUNTRY ENJOYS.

UCSF WAS ALSO ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE STEM CELL BIOLOGY BEGAN. THIRTY YEARS AGO EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS FROM THE MOUSE WERE PIONEERED AT UCSF, AND IT'S THE AVAILABILITY OF THE LINES THAT WERE GENERATED THERE THAT HAVE MADE THE ENORMOUS PROGRESS IN THAT LINE OF RESEARCH.

I THINK WHEN YOU BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT HOW YOU GO FROM THE BASIC RESEARCH TO CLINICAL APPLICATIONS, AGAIN, I THINK THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA IS PREEMINENT IN THE NUMBER OF HOSPITALS, STANFORD, UCSF, THE SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL. ALL OF THESE FACILITIES ARE REGARDED AS AMONGST THE VERY BEST IN THE WORLD. AND FOR THAT I THINK SAN FRANCISCO, AGAIN, STANDS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.

AT STANFORD THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS EXPRESSED THEIR COMMITMENT TO STEM CELL BIOLOGY BY APPROVING THE CREATION OF THE INSTITUTE OF CANCER AND STEM CELL BIOLOGY UNDER THE LEADERSHIP ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADERS, IRVING WEISSMAN, AND I THINK IT REFLECTS THE COMMITMENT OF INSTITUTIONS IN THE BAY AREA, STANFORD BEING ONE OF THEM, TO MOVING THIS FIELD AHEAD.

AND I THINK IF WE SITE THE INSTITUTE OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE THERE, I THINK WE WILL GET THE FULL EMPLOYMENT OF ALL OF THAT TALENT AND INTERACTION AND COMMITMENT THAT ALREADY IS THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. RUTTER: MY NAME IS BILL RUTTER. I WAS A FOUNDER OF CHIRON WITH ED PENHOET, SITTING JUST IN FRONT OF ME, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER COLLEAGUE, AND PRIOR TO THAT I WAS AT UCSF AS A MEMBER OF THE FACULTY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT IN WHICH MANY OF THESE DISCOVERIES INVOLVING RECOMBINANT DNA WERE DEVELOPED.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK FOR SAN FRANCISCO. I WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE THREE GENERAL POINTS. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROGRAM, UNUSUAL PROJECT THAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON, STEM CELLS. STEM CELLS HAVE BEEN KNOWN AND STUDIED IN SIMPLER ANIMALS FOR DECADES.

IN HUMANS WE KNOW VERY LITTLE.

PHENOMENOLOGICALLY WE KNOW OF THINGS THAT THEY DO IN ARTIFICIAL ENVIRONMENTS AND SOMETIMES IN REAL ENVIRONMENTS, THAT IS IN REAL HUMANS.

THE REMARKABLE THING ABOUT IT, ABOUT THE FIELD IS THAT AT THE SAME TIME WE NEED STUDIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY STUDIES, TO STUDY A BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON. WE HAVE SITUATIONS IN WHICH PRECURSOR CELLS, WHICH COULD BE STEM CELLS, OR AT LEAST PLURIPOTENT CELLS, EXIST, FOR EXAMPLE, IN CORD BLOOD AND ARE BEING USED CLINICALLY TODAY. SO WE HAVE A PROCESS IN WHICH BOTH CLINICAL ACTIVITIES ARE GOING ON IN PARALLEL TO FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY, BOTH OF WHICH NEED TO CONVERGE ON THE THEME OF HOW BEST BY WHICH MANKIND CAN BE BENEFITED.

THERE'S NO PLACE IN THE WORLD IN WHICH THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN BASIC SCIENCE AND CLINICAL SCIENCE IS BETTER THAN IN THE BAY AREA. IT STARTED IN A WAY AS A MEANS OF DIFFERENTIATING UCSF FROM OTHERS, AND STANFORD HAS A SIMILAR CONVERGENT SET OF INTERESTS BETWEEN THE FACULTY AND THE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND BASIC SCIENCES.

LET'S BE SURE THAT IN THIS CONTEXT THAT WE PUT THIS IN OUR FOCUS WHEN WE DECIDE WHERE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION IS. BECAUSE OF THE PROFUNDITY OF GOOD SCIENCE AND MEDICAL SCIENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO, AS WELL AS THE AMENITIES OF THE CITY, PEOPLE FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD WANT TO CONVERGE HERE AND WILL CONVERGE HERE BOTH IN TERMS OF DEBATING AND DEVELOPING THE SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ISSUES SURROUNDING THE SCIENCE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. RUTTER, LET ME BE HELPFUL HERE BY SAYING THAT YOU ARE DOWN TO ABOUT THREE MINUTES; AND IF THE CITY IS GOING TO DESCRIBE THESE PICTURES, THEY NEED TO DECIDE ON THEIR ALLOCATION OF TIME.

DR. RUTTER: THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY AND THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

MR. BURRELL: MY NAME IS STEVE BURRELL. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF QUICK POINTS. FIRST, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT SAN FRANCISCO IS THE CENTERPIECE OF THE WORLD'S BIOMEDICAL WORLD. AS OTHERS HAVE SAID, WE STARTED THIS INDUSTRY IN THE LATE '60S AND '70S HERE.

MORE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GRADUATES GRADUATED FROM BAY AREA UNIVERSITIES THAN ANY OTHER PLACE IN THE COUNTRY.

BOSTON IS SECOND; SAN DIEGO IS SEVENTH. THE BAY AREA LEADS IN TERMS IF NIH FUNDING. EIGHTEEN NATIONAL RESEARCH LABS AND TEN COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH LABS ARE THERE. IT LEADS IN THE WORLD'S FINANCIAL CENTER, LEGAL, BANKING, AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN SUPPORTING THIS INDUSTRY.

OUR PROPOSAL IS QUANTITATIVELY AHEAD OF ANY OTHER PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN MADE TO THE CIRM. AND AS OUR CLOSER, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM.

MAYOR NEWSOM: JUST QUICKLY AND WE'LL GET THE SLIDES UP THERE. AGAIN, JUST REINFORCING THAT SAN FRANCISCO BEING THE HUB OF THE LARGEST BIOMEDICAL COMMUNITY IN THE WORLD, 85,000 LIFE SCIENCES EMPLOYEES, OVER 800 COMPANIES LOCATED IN THE BAY AREA AND, OF COURSE, THE NEXUS BETWEEN UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS.

I REALLY WANT TO REINFORCE THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF SAN FRANCISCO. I THINK THIS IS A HUGE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FOR THIS INSTITUTE. YOU'RE NOT JUST TRYING TO MAKE A NAME IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND NATIONALLY, BUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT WITH 84 CONSULATES, COMPARED TO SAN DIEGO, COMPARED TO SACRAMENTO, I THINK IS SIGNIFICANT. WE'RE NO. 1 RANKED U.S. CITY IN THE UNITED STATES 12 YEARS RUNNING. PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO SAN FRANCISCO. AND WE THINK FROM A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF GETTING STAFF, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

BEST TRANSPORTATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

WE CAN GO DOWN THE STATISTICS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS THROUGH SF0, WHICH ARE 583 A WEEK VERSUS SAN DIEGO'S 46. SACRAMENTO HAS ONLY INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS TO MEXICO. SEVEN HUNDRED MORE WEEKLY DOMESTIC FLIGHTS THAN OUR COMPETITORS; AND, OF COURSE, MORE SERVICED CITIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAN ALL OF THE OTHER COMPETITORS.

IN TERMS OF THE SITE ITSELF, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE THE BEST SITE IN THE CONTEXT OF A NUMBER OF FACTORS. NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE MORE USABLE SQUARE FEET BEING OFFERED, BIGGER SPACE, CLASS A SPACE THAT'S FLEXIBLE, CLASS A SPACE THAT WILL BE BUILT OUT BY THE PREEMINENT ARCHITECTURAL FIRM IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT MATTER THE WORLD, GINSLER. WE ALSO HAVE EXTRAORDINARY TRANSIT ACCESS, PARKING ACCESS, AND SHUTTLE SERVICES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOUR HONOR, IF YOU COULD GO TO PICTURES IF YOU'RE GOING TO SHOW THEM.

MAYOR NEWSOM: IF I CAN INDULGE, I'LL LEAVE THAT FOR Q&A IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PICTURES.

THOSE ARE PICTURES OF THE SITE AND PROXIMITY TO UCSF.

AND THE QUALITY OF THE SITE IS SOMETHING I KNOW IS GOING TO COME UP, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST THING, IF I COULD JUST MAKE THIS POINT, UNPARALLELED INCENTIVES: 46,000 SQUARE FEET OF LABS THAT ARE UNENCUMBERED BY FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS AT OUR OWN SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL. THESE ARE FORMALLY THE GLADSTONE LABS; 2600 FREE HOTEL ROOMS, 14,000 DISCOUNTED, CLOSE TO $1 MILLION OF INCENTIVE; SEVEN CONFERENCE FACILITIES, THREE OF WHICH ARE IN THE PARAMETERS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

AND WE'RE SITTING HERE TO GUARANTEE YOU NOT ONLY THE CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU STATUS AS IT RELATES TO ACCESS TO THESE, BUT WE HAVE OUR MOSCONE CENTER, WHICH IS AVAILABLE UP TO 49,000 PEOPLE. WE HAVE BILL GRAHAM CIVIC AUDITORIUM, OUR OWN CITY HALL, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY AT THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SFO WILL GIVE UP ITS CONFERENCE FACILITIES AS YOU ENGAGE IN TRYING TO GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF THE CITY IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU'LL SEE THE FIBER NETWORK WE'RE OFFERING, THE E-NET, THE CNIC, WE GOT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OF FURNITURE, WHITEBOARDS, DIGITAL BOARDS, INTERACTIVE PLASMAS, PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, ACCESS TO 110,000 SQUARE FEET OF RECREATIONAL SPACE --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOUR HONOR, I THINK --

MAYOR NEWSOM: -- AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, INCLUDING, MOST IMPORTANTLY, UNMATCHED COMMUNITY SUPPORT. RARE DO YOU HAVE THE FAITH-BASED COMMUNITY AGREEING WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AGREEING WITH FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE SCHULTZ, SENATOR FEINSTEIN, THE HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNPARALLELED COMMUNITY SUPPORT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD THANK YOU FOR THE ELOQUENT --

MAYOR NEWSOM: WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AND WE AGREE WITH THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IF WE CAN HAVE SACRAMENTO, PLEASE. AND IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS, THERE WAS, I BELIEVE, ABOUT 11 MINUTES, AND SO SACRAMENTO AND SAN DIEGO WILL BE GIVEN 11 MINUTES.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I THINK IT'S ONE PRESENTATION AT A TIME. IF I MAY SUGGEST THE BUILDING IMAGES GO DOWN WHEN SACRAMENTO IS PRESENTING UNLESS THEY'RE SACRAMENTO'S IMAGES.

MAYOR FARGO: WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO PUT OURS UP YET. YOU SAID THERE WAS GOING TO BE 15 MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER THE TEN MINUTES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SACRAMENTO, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THEM DOWN AND PUT THEM UP WITH EACH PRESENTATION.

MAYOR FARGO: JUST TO CLARIFY, PARDON ME, PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION, WE WERE TOLD THERE WOULD BE TEN MINUTES AND THEN 15 MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT. NOW WE'RE SWITCHING TO --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: TEN MINUTES OF PRESENTATION IS FIRST FOR EACH CITY.

MAYOR FARGO: THAT WAS NOT WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD, BUT THAT'S FINE. WE ARE HERE; WE ARE READY.

DR. POMEROY: BOB, COULD I MAKE A SUGGESTION?

IT SEEMS LIKE, IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS, MAYBE THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD BE FOR EVERYONE TO TAKE JUST A THREE-MINUTE BREAK, DEBRIEF, LET THEM GET SET UP, AND THEN WE CAN PROCEED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK THEY'RE SETTING UP VERY QUICKLY, AND WE'LL GIVE THEM THE TIME TO SET UP.

OKAY. YOUR HONOR, ARE YOU PREPARED? YES.

OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED WITH SACRAMENTO'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

MAYOR FARGO: GOOD AFTERNOON. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO, I'M MAYOR HEATHER FARGO, AND I WILL BE FOLLOWED BY THE CHANCELLOR OF UC DAVIS, LARRY VANDERHOEF, AND THEN BY OUR STATE SENATOR, DEBORAH ORTIZ.

I'M GOING TO HIGHLIGHT THE ADVANTAGES OF SELECTING SACRAMENTO AS THE HEADQUARTERS LOCATION FOR THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE. AFTER ALL, SACRAMENTO IS WHERE THE PUBLIC COMES TO BE HEARD.

WE WERE PLEASED TO HOST THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE IN OUR CITY LAST WEEK. I'D LIKE TO ALSO THANK EACH OF YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF STEM CELL RESEARCH IN CALIFORNIA. OBVIOUSLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS VERY IMPORTANT. YOU ARE GIVING HOPE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO AWAIT RELIEF BASED ON YOUR DISCOVERIES. CALIFORNIA SPOKE VERY CLEARLY WITH THE OVERWHELMING PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 71, AND IT'S ENTRUSTED YOU WITH AN AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY. SACRAMENTO WELCOMES THE OPPORTUNITY TO HELP YOU FULFILL THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

YOU'RE EMBARKING ON A MISSION THAT IS VERY MUCH LIKE STARTING A BUSINESS. AND LIKE A BUSINESS, LOCATION MATTERS. AS A START-UP, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO BE IN A PLACE THAT WILL NURTURE YOU, PROVIDE WITH YOU OPPORTUNITIES, AND ALLOW YOU TO GROW AND FLOURISH.

LET ME COVER FIRST THE BUILDING, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE TO THE SIDE. WE HAVE A PICTURE OF IT. WE ALSO HAVE A PICTURE OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING IN THE PACKET IN FRONT OF YOU. THE PROPOSED BUILDING SITE IS ONE CAPITOL MALL. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL CLASS A OFFICE BUILDING. IT HAS A WELCOMING LOBBY. IT IS ALSO THE LOCATION OF THE UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, A GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT. IT HAS VIEWS OF THE CAPITOL AND DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO, AND IT HAS UNDERGROUND PARKING.

THE LOCATION, AND THERE'S A MAP HERE IN FRONT OF YOU AND ALSO IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL. IT IS IN A PREMIERE LOCATION. IT IS ADJACENT TO OLD SACRAMENTO, WHICH HAS DOZENS OF RESTAURANTS. IT IS ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER WATERFRONT WITH ITS MILES OF TRAILS. IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CITY'S NEWEST HOTEL, EMBASSY SUITES, ACROSS TOWER BRIDGE FROM RALLY FIELD, WHICH IS OUR BASEBALL STADIUM. AND LIKE A LOT OF THINGS IN SACRAMENTO, A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE THAN SBC PARK IN SAN FRANCISCO.

YOU WOULD BE SEVEN BLOCKS FROM THE STATE CAPITOL, ONE MILE FROM THE SACRAMENTO CONVENTION CENTER, WHICH IS PART OF OUR PROPOSAL AND IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH IS ALSO ADJACENT TO THE SHERATON AND HYATT HOTELS. YOU'D BE TWO BLOCKS FROM THE CROCKER ART MUSEUM, FIVE BLOCKS FROM THE AMTRAK STATION WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO SAN FRANCISCO, 15 MINUTES FROM THE AIRPORT, 15 MINUTES FROM UC DAVIS, AND 15 MINUTES TO THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS, WHICH INCLUDES THE MIND INSTITUTE, YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT IN A FEW MINUTES, THE CANCER CENTER, AND, OF COURSE, SHRINER'S HOSPITAL, WHICH RECENTLY RELOCATED FROM SAN FRANCISCO.

THE CITY IS KNOWN FOR ITS QUALITY OF LIFE AND ITS OUTDOOR RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES, WHICH WILL ALLOW YOU TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES. OUR DOWNTOWN IS WALKABLE, IT'S ATTRACTIVE, AND IT'S COMFORTABLE, AND IT'S ALSO GOING THROUGH A RENAISSANCE. WE HAVE QUALITY HOUSING NEARBY ALONG WITH PARKS, WITH MORE COMING SOON.

THE COST OF LIVING IS ABOUT HALF OF THAT OF SAN FRANCISCO. THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS AND YOUR FUTURE EMPLOYEES CAN, IN FACT, AFFORD TO BUY HOMES IN OUR CITY AND RENT IS ALSO AFFORDABLE.

WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE CULTURAL AMENITIES OF OUR CITY, ARTS, THEATRE, OPERA, ETC., ON THE MAP AND IN YOUR PACKET. WE HAVE LESS TRAFFIC CONGESTION THAN MOST LARGE CITIES IN OUR STATE, WHICH WOULD, OF COURSE, ALLOW YOUR EMPLOYEES TO EITHER WORK OVERTIME OR SPEND MORE TIME WITH THEIR FAMILIES, BUT CERTAINLY HAVE A HIGHER QUALITY OF LIFE.

IN TERMS OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WE HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE, SEISMIC STABILITY, FLOOD PROTECTION, AND A WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE POLICE TO HANDLE ANY POTENTIAL PUBLIC PROTESTS. AND, OF COURSE, MOST IMPORTANTLY IS THE PROXIMITY TO THE LEGISLATURE, THE GOVERNOR, AND THE STATE OFFICES THAT YOU WILL NEED TO INTERACT WITH.

WE HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT SACRAMENTO IS THE BEST LOCATION FOR THE INSTITUTE AND WOULD SERVE YOU AND THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA BEST BECAUSE SACRAMENTO IS THE STATE CAPITAL WHERE POLITICAL AND PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS ARE MADE. IT'S WHERE THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING HEALTHCARE ADVOCACY GROUPS, COME TO MAKE THEIR CASE AND EFFECT PUBLIC POLICY. YOU HAVE TEN YEARS OF FUNDING, AND YOU NEED TO SPEND IT WELL. BUT FOR THIS EFFORT TO CONTINUE, WE BELIEVE YOU NEED TO BE NEAR THE LEGISLATURE AND THE PUBLIC ADVOCACY GROUPS THAT WILL HELP YOU GET FUTURE FUNDING BEYOND THE INITIAL TEN YEARS.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF LETTERS OF SUPPORT. WE HAVE ONE LETTER HERE. WE HAVE 40 DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING OUR ETHNIC CHAMBERS AND OUR BIOTECH EMPLOYERS, WHICH HAVE SIGNED ON. WE HAVE A WELL-ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP WITH UC DAVIS, WHICH YOU WILL HEAR. YOU NEED TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST, AND I THINK YOU NEED TO MAKE THAT DECISION BASED ON WHERE YOU THINK THE INSTITUTE WILL BE MOST SUCCESSFUL, WHERE YOUR EMPLOYEES WILL BE THE MOST HAPPY AND EFFECTIVE, AND WHERE THE STATE TAX DOLLARS CAN BE SPENT MOST EFFICIENTLY. WE KNOW THAT'S SACRAMENTO.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE CHANCELLOR LARRY VANDERHOEF, FOLLOWED BY STATE SENATOR DEBORAH ORTIZ.

CHANCELLOR VANDERHOEF: THANK YOU, HEATHER.

AGAIN, MY NAME IS LARRY VANDERHOEF. I'M THE CHANCELLOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS. AND ON BEHALF OF UC DAVIS, I AM HERE TO SUPPORT THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO'S PROPOSAL TO HOST THE INSTITUTE'S HEADQUARTERS.

UC DAVIS IS A LIFE SCIENCES POWERHOUSE BY MANY DEFINITIONS AND IS, IN FACT, THE MOST SCIENCE INTENSIVE OF ALL OF THE UC GENERAL CAMPUSES. IT HAS EXCEPTIONAL BREADTH AND DEPTH IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AT BOTH OUR MEDICAL CENTER IN SACRAMENTO AND ON THE DAVIS CAMPUS AS WELL. AMONG OUR MANY PARTNERS ARE SUCH STATE AGENCIES AS THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AND NEARBY BIOTECH COMPANIES, SUCH AS GENENTECH, A COMPANY THAT WHEN IT CAME TIME TO EXPAND CHOSE THE SACRAMENTO AREA.

WE AWARD MORE BACHELOR DEGREES AND PH.D.'S IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES THAN ANY OTHER UNIVERSITY IN THE NATION, AND THIS YEAR WE ANTICIPATE REVENUE OF $450 MILLION IN RESEARCH FUNDS. THAT RANKS 14TH IN THE NATION. WE ARE HOME OF A SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE AND ALSO A CALIFORNIA NATIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER THAT IS ONE OF EIGHT CENTERS IN THE NATION, AND THE ONLY ONE ON THE WEST COAST. IT'S SURELY AN ESSENTIAL RESOURCE FOR THE WORK THAT WILL GATHER AROUND THE INSTITUTE.

OUR LIFE SCIENCES FACULTY ARE ALREADY WORKING WITH ADULT STEM CELLS FROM HUMANS AND NONHUMAN PRIMATES, AND WE ARE RAPIDLY EXPANDING AS ARE ALL -- MANY RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN THE COUNTRY, BUT ESPECIALLY HERE IN CALIFORNIA RAPIDLY EXPANDING OUR RESEARCH IN STEM CELLS.

WE'VE ACHIEVED OUR STATURE BY SUCCESSFULLY RECRUITING THE WORLD'S BEST SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS, EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE FROM THE SAME NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POOLS FROM WHICH THE INSTITUTE WILL BE RECRUITING. OUR SUCCESS IN ATTRACTING AND RETAINING THESE OUTSTANDING PEOPLE IS DUE TO THE QUALITY AND REPUTATION OF OUR SCIENCE, THE AFFORDABILITY, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR REGION, AND THE CRITICAL MASS AND QUALITY OF INTELLECTUAL, ENTREPRENEURIAL, AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP IN OUR REGION.

OUR UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN A COMMUNITY AND A UNIVERSITY AND THE LEGISLATURE WORK TOGETHER. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO UNUSUALLY WELL. A GOOD EXAMPLE IS THE MIND INSTITUTE.

THAT WAS BUILT BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN OF A SMALL GROUP OF PARENTS WHO WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESEARCH AND THE NEED FOR MORE RESEARCH ON AUTISM AND AUTISTIC CHILDREN.

THE STORY OF HOW THAT INSTITUTE CAME TO BE SHOWS HOW, THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS LIKE THE ONES INVOLVED THERE, WE CAN ADVANCE RESEARCH AND MEDICINE WHILE SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE INSTITUTE IN SACRAMENTO. THIS IS THE SAME BUILDING THAT HOUSES OUR NATIONALLY RANKED MANAGEMENT SCHOOL. IT IS A SCHOOL THAT IS CHARACTERIZED BY STRONG EMPHASIS IN THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF SCIENCE, THE POTENTIAL FOR SYNERGIES BETWEEN INSTITUTE STAFF AND OUR MANAGEMENT FACULTY AND STUDENTS IS IMMEASURABLY ENHANCED BY THE PROXIMITY OF THE TWO UNITS.

IT'S CLEAR TO ME HOW WISE A CHOICE FOR MANY, MANY REASONS SACRAMENTO WOULD BE AS THE SITE OF THE INSTITUTE. IT'S NOT BOOSTERISM FOR THE UNIVERSITY. I DO LOTS OF THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. AND IT'S NOT BOOSTERISM FOR THE REGION THAT PROMPTS ME TO SAY ANY OF THIS. IT'S AN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE THAT I HAVE THAT NO OTHER CITY OFFERS THE INSTITUTE THE POTENTIAL, THE POTENTIAL, THAT SACRAMENTO DOES. THIS IS BASED ON BOTH MY LIFETIME IN ACADEME ON THE EAST COAST, BUT EVENTUALLY ON THE WEST COAST, AND ON MORE THAN 20 YEARS THAT I HAVE SPENT NOW IN THE CAPITAL REGION.

THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT EACH OF THE CITIES VYING TO BE THE INSTITUTE'S HEADQUARTERS HAS MUCH TO OFFER, BUT NONE, NONE, REALLY HAS SACRAMENTO'S DRAMATIC POTENTIAL FOR GROWTH. THIS GROWTH IS FUELED BY UNIQUE ACADEMIC ASSETS, A RUNAWAY HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR INDUSTRY EXPANSION, SHORTER COMMUTING TIMES, BOTH BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN WORK AND ALSO TO THE AIRPORT, MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, DAILY ACCESS TO THE STATE'S DECISION MAKERS, AND VERY HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE IN WHAT TIME MAGAZINE HAS DESIGNATED AMERICA'S MOST DIVERSE CITY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU'RE AT THREE MINUTES. I JUST WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO ALLOCATE YOUR TIME.

CHANCELLOR VANDERHOEF: I JUST HAVE ANOTHER THREE SECONDS. IT'S THE CERTAIN AND UNIQUE POTENTIAL, THIS CLEAR FUTURE THAT ELEVATES SACRAMENTO AND CAN BEST HELP THE INSTITUTE REALIZE ITS OWN CERTAIN AND UNIQUE POTENTIAL.

NOW I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE STATE SENATOR DEBORAH ORTIZ. THANK YOU.

SENATOR ORTIZ: THANK YOU TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ICOC, SOME OF YOU WHO I WORKED WITH OVER THE YEARS AND OTHERS THAT I'VE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE TALENT OF OTHERS ASSEMBLED HERE. AND I THANK YOU FOR THE TIME YOU HAVE GIVEN THUS FAR AND THE TIME THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE IN THE FUTURE ON THIS IMPORTANT WORK.

I'M HERE TO MAKE THE CASE FOR OUR CITY, MY CITY, MY HOMETOWN. LET ME SHARE WITH YOU THAT I BELIEVE OUR CITY REPRESENTS THE BEST AND FINEST OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT REPRESENTS THAT VERY CONVERGENCE OF MEDICINE, SCIENCE, ACADEMIA, AS WELL AS THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.

IT HAS BEEN THAT VERY LOCATION THAT I WANT TO REMIND THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE A PART OF IT AND THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A PART, LET ME WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT SACRAMENTO SERVED IN YOUR GREAT MISSION.

SACRAMENTO WAS THE HOME OF THE VERY PROCESS THAT -- THE PARTICIPATORY PROCESS OF THE PATIENT ADVOCACY GROUPS, OF THE RESEARCHERS, OF THE SCIENTISTS, THE GREAT LEADERS LIKE PAUL BERG AND IRV WEISSMAN, AS WELL AS BILL RUTTER FROM CHIRON. IT'S WHERE WE SAT IN THE HALLS OF THE LEGISLATURE, IN THE COMMITTEE ROOMS OF THE LEGISLATURE AND WE DEBATED THIS GREAT DREAM.

IT IS IN THE VERY HALLS OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT OUR GOVERNOR SIGNED THE FIRST LAW IN THE NATION AUTHORIZING EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, MY BILL IN SEPTEMBER OF 2002 BEFORE ANY OTHER STATE EMBARKED UPON THAT. IT WAS IN THE HALLS OF THE STATE CAPITOL IN WHICH WE HANDLED THE VERY CONTENTIOUS DISCUSSIONS AROUND THIS ISSUE, AND WE PREVAILED. WE HAVE NOT PASSED IN OUR STATE LEGISLATURE ONE PENALIZING OR LIMITING PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN THIS INCREDIBLE POLICY AREA.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SENATOR, IF YOU COULD CONCLUDE, PLEASE.

SENATOR ORTIZ: WE'RE AT THREE MINUTES ALREADY. LET ME ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE NIH AND THE NSI AND THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ARE SITUATED IN WASHINGTON, D.C. PROP 39, WHICH WAS ENACTED BY THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS PROP 10 THAT ADMINISTER HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, HAS ALSO FOUND ITS HOME IN OUR GREAT CITY. LET ME ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THIS PROCESS A COLLABORATIVE ONE, ONE THAT HAS PRECEDENT THAT IS SUPPORTIVE, BUT IS ONE THAT THE PEOPLE DESERVE TO HAVE A VOICE IN THE HOME OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE HALLS OF THE CAPITOL. COME HOME TO WHERE THIS ALL BEGAN. COME BACK TO OUR GREAT CITY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU. SENATOR ORTIZ REALLY PIONEERED THIS AREA WITH THE LEGISLATURE. SAN DIEGO.

SAN DIEGO, ARE YOU PREPARED?

MS. MEIER WRIGHT: WE'LL NEED THE LIGHTS DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: CAN WE HAVE THE LIGHTS DOWN, PLEASE, FOR SAN DIEGO? THIS IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE LAST SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING WHERE THEY LOWERED THE LIGHTS BY PULLING THE PLUG.

MS. MEIER WRIGHT: I'M JULIE MEIER WRIGHT. I'M THE CEO OF THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND WE ARE THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S REPRESENTATIVE ON THE SAN DIEGO PROPOSAL. AND WITH BIOCOM AND CONNECT, WE'VE BUILT A VERY STRONG COALITION IN SUPPORT OF THE CIRM HEADQUARTERS.

AND OUR COMMITMENT TO YOU IS NOT SIMPLY TO BRING THE HEADQUARTERS TO SAN DIEGO, BUT TO CREATE A LONG-TERM PARTNERSHIP THAT WILL ENSURE YOUR SUCCESS. WE'RE DELIGHTED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TODAY BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT SAN DIEGO IS BY FAR THE IDEAL SITE FOR THE CIRM HEADQUARTERS IF ITS AIM IS TO BE THE GLOBAL THOUGHT LEADER IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. AND I THINK THAT WAS BORNE OUT IN THE RANKINGS IN THE SITE VISITS.

TODAY OUR PRESENTATION IS GOING TO BE MADE BY DUANE ROTH, WHO IS NOT ONLY A SAN DIEGO BIOTECH CEO, BUT HE IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF UCSD CONNECT AND A KEY MEMBER OF THE VERY BROAD COALITION THAT PUT TOGETHER SAN DIEGO'S PROPOSAL.

MR. ROTH: THANK YOU, JULIE. I HAVE A NUMBER OF SLIDES, SO I INVITE YOU TO TURN YOUR CHAIRS BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GO QUICKLY THROUGH THIS SINCE WE'RE ON THE TIMER, SO TO SPEAK.

LET ME BEGIN BY TALKING JUST ABOUT OUR FOUR PILLARS OF OUR PROPOSAL: PEOPLE, FACILITIES, THE COMMUNITY, AND, OF COURSE, GREAT SCIENCE. THIS IS WHAT YOU TOLD US WERE THE IMPORTANT THINGS ABOUT THE STEM CELL HEADQUARTERS: THE SIZE AND PROXIMITY TO THE SCIENTIFIC, BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH BASE, YOU WANTED A BUILDING THAT WAS FUNCTIONAL AND FREE, YOU WANTED INCENTIVES THAT WOULD ENHANCE THE MISSION OF THE CIRM. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WERE CONFERENCE FACILITIES, HOTELS, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PROXIMITY TO SACRAMENTO OR AT LEAST ACCESS TO, AND COST OF LIVING.

LET ME BEGIN BY THE RESEARCH CLUSTER AND START WITH THIS SLIDE, WHICH IS UP HERE ON TORREY MESA.

THERE'S A GOLF COURSE ABOUT RIGHT HERE AND TALK ABOUT 40 YEARS AGO ROGER ROVELLE HAD A VISION TO PUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO THERE AND HE DID.

COUPLE YEARS LATER A MAN NAMED JONAS SALK WALKED ACROSS THE STREET, LOOKED OUT OVER THE OCEAN AND ASKED THE CITY FATHERS TO GIVE HIM SOME LAND, AND THEY DID.

SINCE THAT TIME, THE REST IS HISTORY. THERE ARE NOW 18 BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS LOCATED IN THAT FOUR-AND-A-HALF-MILE RADIUS YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

TWENTY YEARS AGO THERE WAS ONE BIOTECHNOLOGY COMPANY IN SAN DIEGO, HYBERTEC. MY FRIEND BROOK BYERS, I THINK, HELPED FINANCE. TODAY THERE ARE 200 BIOTECHNOLOGY COMPANIES WITHIN THE RADIUS IMMEDIATELY AROUND THOSE RESEARCH CENTERS.

FINALLY, SOMETHING REMARKABLE. THE LARGE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES MOVED RESEARCH INSTITUTES INTO THIS CLUSTER. SO JOHNSON & JOHNSON, NOVARTIS, PFIZER, AND OTHERS.

WE CONSIDERED MULTIPLE PLACES TO PUT THE CIRM. WE THOUGHT ABOUT CARLSBAD. THERE'S A BIOTECH CLUSTER, BUT IT'S 20 OR 30 MILES AWAY. WE THOUGHT ABOUT SORRENTO VALLEY, BIOTECH CLUSTER, BUT IT'S TOO FAR AWAY TO GET TO THE HUB OF THIS. AND FINALLY, DOWNTOWN, AN URBAN AREA, UP AND COMING, AGAIN TOO FAR AWAY. SO WE SAID TO THE EDC, WHO WAS LOOKING FOR SITES, ANYPLACE YOU WANT AS LONG AS IT'S A PITCHING WEDGE FROM THAT GOLF COURSE, AND THAT'S WHERE WE SELECTED THE SITE, NORTH TORREY PINES ROAD, RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THIS CLUSTER.

THE BUILDING ITSELF IS A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING.

IT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE GOLF COURSE, NATURAL LIGHT, MANY PARKING SPACES, 40 COVERED. THE ENTIRE REGION IS ZONED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. THERE'S NO RETAIL. THERE'S NO ANY KIND OF ANYTHING EXCEPT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE AREA RESTAURANTS AND HOTELS.

MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE AND A SECURE AND SAFE FACILITY. IN FACT, THE CRIME RATE IN THE TORREY MESA IN 2004 WAS ZERO.

WALKING DISTANCE TO BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES, HOTELS, AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER SCIENTIFIC INDICATIONS. THE EMPLOYEES THAT WILL WORK IN YOUR INSTITUTE ALREADY WORK IN THOSE ZIP CODES THAT ARE SHOWN HERE. WE HAVE ABOUT 30,000 BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONALS IN THOSE ZIP CODES WITHIN A FOUR-MILE RADIUS OF THE HEADQUARTERS.

YOU ALSO HAVE THE 18 INSTITUTES. AND IN THOSE INSTITUTES WORK CONTRACTS, GRANTS, AND AUDIT PEOPLE. YOU WILL RECRUIT FROM THIS GROUP, AND THEY WILL SIMPLY CHANGE PARKING LOTS TO WORK IN YOUR INSTITUTE. THEY WILL NOT RELOCATE, THEY WILL NOT TAKE THEIR KIDS OUT OF SCHOOL, THEY'LL CHANGE PARKING LOTS AND MIGRATE TO WORK FOR YOU.

AND WHEN THE INSTITUTE ENDS, IF IT DOES, WE HOPE IT WON'T, THEY'LL MIGRATE BACK TO ANOTHER PARKING LOT IN THE SAME REGION.

WE HAVE WORLD CLASS SCIENCE. WE'VE RECRUITED SOME OF THE GREATEST PEOPLE, GREATEST SCIENTISTS EVER TO BUILD THESE INSTITUTES, WHICH ARE VERY YOUNG INSTITUTES THAT I JUST MENTIONED. I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL THE STATISTICS, BUT I'LL TELL YOU THAT WE RANK, AND MY NUMBERS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN MY FRIEND STEVE'S NUMBERS, BUT ACCORDING TO OUR NUMBERS, SAN DIEGO RANKS NO. 1 IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND NATIONALLY IN TERMS OF RESEARCH DOLLARS FROM NIH.

SO WHAT DID WE THINK ABOUT WHEN WE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS INSTITUTE AND WHAT WAS GOING TO BE NECESSARY? AND REALLY WE HAD A LOT OF RESOURCES COMING INTO THIS, BUT WE FELT THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WAS TO GET THIS INSTITUTE UP AND RUNNING. IT STARTED ABRUPTLY. IT WAS A BOAT, AND NOW YOU GOT TO OPERATE IT. THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR MANY DECADES.

YOU'VE GOT TO DO IT IN MONTHS.

SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP THAT? SO WE DEVELOPED THIS CONCEPT OF READINESS TEAMS WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT PEOPLE AND BRING THESE EMPLOYEES, SCREEN THEM, GET THEM READY SO YOU CAN MAKE THE DECISIONS. WE HAVE A PROGRAM THAT INVITROGEN IS GOING TO DO TO HELP EMPLOYEES BECOME ORIENTED, ADMINISTRATIVE PEOPLE, WITH WHAT STEM CELL VOCABULARY IS ALL ABOUT.

SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS, WE HAVE GREAT FIRMS, ERNST & YOUNG AND HELLER EHRMAN, AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT WE OFFER IS A COMPANY YOU PROBABLY NEVER HEARD OF, SAIC. IT'S A LITTLE COMPANY, 42,000 EMPLOYEES, HEADQUARTERED IN THE CLUSTER IN SAN DIEGO IN THAT RESEARCH MESA. THEY DO ALL THE GOVERNMENT GRANTS FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FREDERICK, NCI FREDERICK. THEY'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR OVER A DECADE.

THEY PUT THE SYSTEM IN. THEY MANAGE $3 BILLION OF CONTRACTS FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES.

THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

THEY GAVE US SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS PRICELESS TO WORK WITH, AND THAT IS ADVICE AND CONSULTATION ABOUT HOW TO BRING UP THE CONTRACTS, GRANTS, AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN A SECURE WAY THAT YOU CAN BECOME OPERATIONAL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE DEDICATED TO FIGURING OUT WHAT TO DO. WE'LL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO AND HELP WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT.

WE HAVE BEEN LOBBYING WHEN LOBBYING WASN'T POPULAR. I NOTICED DR. KESSLER HERE. I REMEMBER WHEN THE CONNECT FDA REPORT WAS PRESENTED TO HIM BY PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS AND MY PREDECESSOR, BILL OTTERSON, WHO 7 SET HIS BOTTLE OF INTERFURON ON HIS DESK AND SAID, "WE'RE NOT COMMUNICATING." HE CAME BACK NEXT YEAR AND SAID WE'RE NOT COMMUNICATING, AND EVENTUALLY DR. KESSLER LED US TO THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG USER FEE ACT AND THE MODERNIZATION OF THE FDA IN ANTICIPATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES WHERE THE FDA WOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO RESPOND TO THESE TYPES OF NEW INVENTIONS.

WE HELPED TO LOBBY TO DOUBLE THE NIH FUNDING.

PROP 71, WE'VE DONE MANY THINGS, INCLUDING GETTING ALL THE BIOTECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS TO ENDORSE THAT. WE DEFENDED AGAINST SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION. WHEN PEOPLE TRIED TO COME UP ON THE TORREY MESA IN THE EARLY '90S AND TAKE OVER THE RESEARCH INSTITUTES THAT WERE DOING ANIMAL RESEARCH, MY FRIEND, DANI GRADY, WHO'S HERE, AND BILL OTTERSON STOOD TOE TO TOE WITH THEM AND SAID THERE'S ANOTHER SIDE TO THIS STORY. WE'RE DYING OF CANCER, AND WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE NEED THIS RESEARCH TO GO FORWARD. WE'RE ON RECORD TAKING -- HOW MUCH TIME?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.

MR. ROTH: WE'RE ON RECORD TAKING THE POSITION AGAINST TWO CURRENT BILLS, THE OOCYTE DONATION BILL, BIOCOM, CONNECT, AND OTHERS. AND IF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BILL PASSES, I THINK HALF THE PEOPLE SITTING IN THIS LITTLE RECTANGLE WILL HAVE TO LEAVE THIS, AND THAT WOULD BE A SHAME, SO WE'VE COME OUT AGAINST THOSE TWO.

THESE ARE OUR ENDORSEMENTS. I WON'T GO THROUGH THOSE. COLLABORATION, I WANT TO GIVE MY FRIEND BROOK BYERS SOME PRESS. THERE'S SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT HOW UCSD, SCRIPPS, AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WORK TOGETHER.

MICHAEL PORTER, I THINK THIS IS EXTREMELY WELL RECOGNIZED, THAT THE INSTITUTES COLLABORATE WITH THE ORGANIZATIONS, AND WE HELP TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY. WE'VE CREATED MANY, MANY, MANY COMPANIES. CONNECT ITSELF HAS BEEN INVOLVED OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE CREATION OF A THOUSAND COMPANIES.

THE MILLIKIN INSTITUTE RATED THE SAN DIEGO CLUSTER LESS THAN A YEAR AGO NO. 1 IN TERMS OF ALL THE PARAMETERS YOU SEE UP THERE, AHEAD OF ALL THE OTHER CLUSTERS: BOSTON, SEATTLE, RALEIGH, AND SO ON DOWN THE LINE.

HOTELS ARE EMBEDDED AND CONFERENCE FACILITIES ARE EMBEDDED IN THAT CLUSTER. THEY ARE FOUR AND FIVE STAR. YOU GET THEM AT STATE RATES, $110 A NIGHT.

THERE'S A SAVINGS TO THE CIRM, A GREAT SAVINGS TO THEM FOR THOSE HOTEL NIGHTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE STATE RATES.

I POINT YOUR ATTENTION HERE TO THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE CAMPUS AT NIH AND THE TORREY MESA. THE EMPLOYEES ARE 17,000 NIH, 29,000; 27 INSTITUTES, 18 INSTITUTES; FIVE HOTELS. THE CONFERENCE FACILITIES, A THOUSAND AT THE LARGEST AT NIH ON THE CAMPUS. WE HAVE A 1,000, 2, 3, 4, 500 AS WELL.

THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON IN RESEARCH. WE'VE ALREADY DONE TWO STEM CELL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES FOR ABOUT 300 PEOPLE EACH LAST OCTOBER AND THIS MARCH. COST OF LIVING DIFFERENCES, WE'RE ABOUT 10 OR 11 PERCENT LESS. QUALITY OF LIFE --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: PLEASE WRAP IT UP.

MR. ROTH: -- I'LL WRAP IT UP RIGHT HERE. OKAY.

YOU HAVE A CHOICE, AND IT'S REALLY THREE CHOICES. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS CENTER SHOULD BE IN AN URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AREA, THEN YOU SHOULD PUT IT IN SAN FRANCISCO. IF YOU BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE CLOSE TO GOVERNMENT, THEN YOU SHOULD PUT IT IN SACRAMENTO. AND IF YOU BELIEVE IT OUGHT TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESEARCH CLUSTER, THEN YOU SHOULD PUT IT IN LA JOLLA. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AS I SAID, IT'S CLEAR THE PATIENTS ARE GOING TO WIN BECAUSE THESE ARE THREE EXTRAORDINARY PROPOSALS.

I HAVE ASKED IF WE CAN DO SOME PUBLIC COMMENT SO THAT WITH THE TIME REMAINING, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE OUR VOTERS HERE IN ABOUT 30 MINUTES, I BELIEVE. IS THAT CORRECT? WHO ARE WE LOSING AT 3:30? DR. PIZZO IS LEAVING AT 3:30.

WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE IS LET ME ASK THIS. HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC -- WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME COMMENT ORGANIZED IN SEQUENCE RELATED TO THE THREE PROPOSALS, BUT I NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DO WE HAVE THAT WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE COMMENTS RELATED TO EACH SPONSOR. HANDS? ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THESE, NOT RELATED TO ANY ONE OF THE THREE APPLICATIONS; IS THAT IS RIGHT? BUT NOT RELATED TO THOSE GROUPS; IS THAT RIGHT?

THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS I'LL ASK. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LATER PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT THESE ARE PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT RELATED TO ONE OF THE DELEGATIONS; IS THAT CORRECT?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: NO, SIR.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WANT TO KNOW PUBLIC COMMENT NOT RELATED TO THE DELEGATIONS. ANYONE? ONE IN THE BACK. EMERYVILLE, I'M GOING TO GIVE EMERYVILLE SEPARATE TIME AFTER WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. OKAY.

WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO HERE IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A ONE-MINUTE RULE FOR EACH COMMENT, MUCH LIKE THE REGENTS OFTEN HAVE TO GO TO. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH WEEKS AND MONTHS, AND WE WELCOME PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IT SHORT AND VERY DISCIPLINED.

I'M GOING TO START FIRST WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS RELATED TO SAN DIEGO, AND THEN I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE CITIES, AND THEN GET GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS.

SAN DIEGO FIRST.

MR. ROYSTON: ONE MINUTE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ONE MINUTE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE NARROW THIS DOWN TO SEVEN OR EIGHT MINUTES.

MR. ROYSTON: SO I'M UNDER ONE MINUTE. I JUST WANT TO LEAVE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS -- BY THE WAY, I'M IVAN ROYSTON. I'M THE FAMILY MANAGING PARTNER OF FORWARD VENTURES, ONE OF THE MAJOR LIFE SCIENCE VENTURE FIRMS IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION. BEFORE THAT, I WAS A MEMBER OF THE FACULTY AT UCSD, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SYDNEY KIMMEL CANCER CENTER, ONE OF THE MANY NONPROFIT INSTITUTES THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT ON THE MESA.

SO I WANT TO LEAVE THIS COMMITTEE WITH THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. WHY DID PFIZER CHOOSE TO BUILD AN 800,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY ON THE TORREY PINES MESA OF LA JOLLA AND ESTABLISH THIS AS ONE OF ITS TOP THREE GLOBAL R & D CENTERS? WHY DID NOVARTIS AND J & J BUILD THEIR RESEARCH INSTITUTES ON THE TORREY PINES MESA OF LA JOLLA WHEN THEY COULD HAVE BUILT THEM ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY?

THESE COMPANIES WANT TO BE PART OF THE MOST IMPORTANT, THE MOST VIBRANT, AND THE LARGEST BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH AREA IN THE WORLD. AND THAT IS WHY -- I'M FINISHING -- CIRM SHOULD PUT ITS HEADQUARTERS IN THAT CLUSTER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: NEXT.

MR. PANETTA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO TELL THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT WHEN YOU COME TO, SAN DIEGO, YOU WILL COME TO A COMMUNITY THAT WILL WELCOME YOU WITH OPEN ARMS. IN 2001, WE WELCOMED THE WORLD FOR A BIOTECHNOLOGY MEETING, AND IN 2008, ONCE AGAIN, WE WILL WELCOME THE WORLD TO SAN DIEGO.

WE WORK TOGETHER IN A COMMUNITY IN SAN DIEGO WHERE EXECUTIVES IN BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS, PEOPLE FROM THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY BREAK BREAD TOGETHER ON A MONTHLY BASIS AND KNOW EACH OTHER BY NAME. I HOPE YOU WILL COME TO SAN DIEGO BECAUSE THAT'S THE KIND OF COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO OFFER. WE WORK CLOSELY WITH OUR PATIENT ADVOCATES; WE GO TO SACRAMENTO WITH THEM REGULARLY. AND WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET BEFORE YOU TODAY TO TELL YOU ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU.

MR. HUNT: I AM LARRY HUNT. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARKINSON'S DISEASE ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO. I REPRESENT PARKINSON'S PATIENTS AND FAMILIES.

WE STRONGLY SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH. WE BELIEVE THERE'S STRONG POTENTIAL FOR CURE DOWN THE LINE.

MR. PRESIDENT, YOU'VE SAID THAT PATIENTS WIN TODAY. I ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER HOW YOU CAN MAKE PATIENTS WIN FASTER, HOW YOU CAN SPEED UP THAT PROCESS TO THE CURE.

I THINK THAT SAN DIEGO OFFERS SEVERAL THINGS THAT WILL SPEED THIS UP. IS MY MINUTE UP?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES.

MS. GRADY: MY NAME IS DANI GRADY. I'M A 17-YEAR SURVIVOR OF ADVANCED BREAST CANCER, RECURRENT BREAST CANCER, AND I'M HERE TODAY TO BE THE VOICE FOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT BE HERE FOR ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISEASE AND TO KEEP IT FOCUSED ON THE PATIENTS.

I DID COME UP WITH THE SAN DIEGO COALITION BECAUSE IN SAN DIEGO I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT WE WORK TOGETHER. THERE'S COLLABORATION. I KNOW EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE WHO'S FROM SAN DIEGO. I'M NOT A RICH WOMAN. I'M JUST SOMEONE WHO SPEAKS UP, AND THEY HAVE LET ME IN THEIR OFFICES.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING SAN DIEGO, PATIENTS ARE INVOLVED WITH THE RESEARCHERS, WITH CLINICIANS. WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. WE CAN MAKE A PHONE CALL AND GET IN. THAT RESULTED IN SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU, THE CANCER NAVIGATOR PROGRAM, WHICH IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT. IN SAN DIEGO EVERYONE DIAGNOSED KNOWS WHERE TO GO AND HOW TO GET THROUGH IT.

WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THE STEM CELL COMMITTEE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU INCLUDE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC. AND IN SAN DIEGO, WHEN THE DEBATE HAPPENS ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING, WE WILL BE THERE FOR YOU. AND WE WILL BE THERE AS PATIENT ADVOCATES AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC TO MAKE SURE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: BEAUTIFUL COMMUNICATION TOOLS. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. BURNHAM: MY NAME IS MALIN BURNHAM. I'M A NATIVE OF SAN DIEGO. I'M GOING TO TALK FAST BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME.

I'M SIMPLY A REAL ESTATE GUY. I'VE ALSO BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE BURNHAM INSTITUTE FOR OVER 20 YEARS AS ITS CHIEF CHEERLEADER. SOME PEOPLE TODAY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. AT THE BURNHAM INSTITUTE, BEFORE LAST NOVEMBER'S ELECTION, WE HAD OVER A HUNDRED FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT PEOPLE WORKING IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. WE'RE DOING IT NOW.

ONE THING THAT WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON IS WHAT'S BEST FOR YOUR STAFF. IN 40 YEARS OF COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE WORK, MY COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE PUT TENANTS INTO MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET, AND NEVER HAVE USED A SCORECARD TO DO IT. I BELIEVE THAT'S BOGUS, AND YOU SHOULDN'T DO IT. WE ARE -- WE ARE SUGGESTING YOU PUT YOUR STAFF IN THE EPICENTER OF THE STRONGEST, DEEPEST, CLOSEST KNIT CLUSTER OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES AND PEOPLE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, NOT JUST SAN DIEGO. I REST MY CASE.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE NOW GOING TO GO TO SACRAMENTO. THANK THE SPEAKERS SO MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

MS. THOMAS: GOOD AFTERNOON. TINA THOMAS FROM THE LAW FIRM OF REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE & MALEY IN SACRAMENTO, 455 CAPITOL MALL, A STONE'S THROW FROM WHERE WE HOPE YOU'RE GOING TO BE.

I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE TSAKOPOULOS FAMILY, AND WE'RE PLEASED AND DELIGHTED TO GIVE YOU AND TO OFFER TO YOU 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF CLASS A OFFICE SPACE. IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED TO YOU. IT'S SAFE, SECURE, WITH 24 HOURS OF SECURITY. WE HAVE PARKING AND WE'VE OFFERED SPACE PLANNING FOR A TOTAL OF $5.5 MILLION. AS THE MAYOR SAID, WE'RE LOCATED CLOSE TO THE CAPITOL, THE AMTRAK, LIGHT RAIL, I-5, 99, 80, AND THE AIRPORT.

BUT BEYOND THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES, THE TSAKOUPOULOS FAMILY WOULD LIKE TO ALSO URGE YOU TO LOCATE AT THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. YOU'RE A STATE AGENCY. WE WANT YOU THERE. PROP 71 LISTS -- SETS FORTH A NUMBER OF OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES THAT YOU AS THE COMMITTEE HAVE TO CONFORM WITH. COMBINE THAT WITH THE ROBUST PHYSICAL FACILITIES OF UC. WE WANT YOU TO JOIN THE FIRST FIVE COMMITTEE AND THE PROP 63 COMMITTEE IN SACRAMENTO. IT'S A WINNING COMBINATION. THANK YOU.

MR. GARDNER: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CHUCK GARDNER. I'M ACTUALLY ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE UC DAVIS MIND INSTITUTE. I THINK THE MIND INSTITUTE HAS PROBABLY RUN A LOT OF PARALLEL COURSES TO WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING RIGHT NOW. I THINK WE ARE PROBABLY LARGELY REGARDED AS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN THE HISTORY OF THE STATE.

IF YOU READ YOUR NEWSPAPER THIS MORNING, YOU WILL PROBABLY SEE THAT WE MADE ONE OF THE BIGGEST DISCOVERIES IN AUTISM IN OVER 60 YEARS OF ITS HISTORY.

BUT I WANTED TO SAY THAT THE REASON THAT WE WERE SUCCESSFUL AT THE MIND INSTITUTE IS WE HAD ACCESS, AND IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, OF ALL THE GREAT PROPOSALS WE'VE HEARD TODAY, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OTHER CITY THAT HAS WHAT SACRAMENTO HAS. THAT'S ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC PROCESS. AND WITHOUT THAT ACCESS, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL AS WE WERE AS QUICKLY AS WE WERE. BEING ABLE TO SEE YOUR STATE LEGISLATOR IN A MATTER OF MINUTES, NOT A MATTER OF HOURS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

I KNOW THERE MAY BE SOME CONCERNS THAT ACCESS MAY ACTUALLY RESULT IN MEDDLING. IN OUR CASE I WAS SURPRISED, BUT IT DIDN'T RESULT IN MEDDLING ACTUALLY BECAUSE THE LEGISLATORS HAD MINUTES ACCESS TO US AND US TO THEM. THEY ACTUALLY LEFT US ALONE BECAUSE THEY KNEW IF WE WERE DOING ANYTHING UNFORETOLD, THAT THEY COULD COME SEE US. SO THANK YOU.

MS. FREISNER: GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JOANNA FREISNER, AND I'M A POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHER AT UC DAVIS. I'VE LIVED IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MY WHOLE LIFE, AND I WENT TO UC BERKELEY AS AN UNDERGRADUATE BEFORE MOVING ON TO UC DAVIS TO ENTER THE GENETICS PROGRAM. WHILE I ENJOYED MY TIME AT UC BERKELEY, I NOTICED AN IMMENSE DIFFERENCE AS SOON AS I WENT TO UC DAVIS.

THE ATMOSPHERE WAS DIFFERENT. THE CAMPUS WAS FRIENDLY. IT WAS OPEN, AND IT FELT LIKE A COMMUNITY EXISTED, A COMMUNITY MADE UP OF FACULTY, STAFF, AND STUDENTS, BOTH GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE. THERE WAS A PALPABLE FEELING OF COLLEGIALITY AND RESPECT THAT WASN'T LIMITED TO SIMPLY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE FACULTY OR EVEN BETWEEN FACULTY AND GRADUATE STUDENTS.

THIS FEELING OF COMMUNITY EXTENDS TO BEYOND THE CAMPUS ITSELF AND INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CITY OF DAVIS, WHICH IS A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, RAISE A FAMILY, AND A GREAT PLACE TO PLAY. I LOVE TO GO OUTSIDE AND RIDE MY BIKE AROUND SACRAMENTO AND DAVIS AREAS.

THIS LAST DECEMBER I COMPLETED MY PH.D. IN GENETICS WHERE I STUDIED DNA REPAIR IN PLANTS OF ALL THINGS BECAUSE THE GENES IN REPAIR PATHWAYS ARE THE SAME.

THE PLANTS ARE A GREAT MODEL SYSTEM FOR DNA REPAIR. I URGE YOU TO STRONGLY CONSIDER THE NETWORK OF RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION AT UC DAVIS WHEN DECIDING THE LOCATION. WE WELCOME YOU TO THE REGION AND HOPE YOU WILL JOIN OUR COMMUNITY.

MR. COELHO: MY NAME IS PHIL COELHO. I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THERMOGENESIS CORPORATION IN RANCHO CORDOVA, AND I LIVE IN SACRAMENTO.

THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 71 AND THE CREATION OF THE ICO WAS A REMARKABLY DEFT AND DARING POLITICAL ACT. NOW IT FALLS TO THE ICOC TO DELIVER THE GOODS.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE EASY. THERE ARE FORMIDABLE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS TO BE OVERCOME. AND THE CIRM MAINLY NEEDS TO BEFRIEND AND EDUCATE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, STATE AND HEALTH AUTHORITIES, AND PUBLIC TO FULLY UNDERSTAND AND EMBRACE PROPOSITION 71'S LONG-TERM MISSION AND TO WORK WITH THE STATE TO GET ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN THE FUTURE.

IT IS LIKELY THAT THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND SAN DIEGO WILL RECEIVE THE GREATEST SHARE OF PROPOSITION 71'S $3 BILLION IN GRANT MONEY. THE VERY SUBSTANTIAL SIZE OF THEIR BIOTECH INFRASTRUCTURE MAKES THAT A REASONABLE OUTCOME, BUT THESE AWARDS SHOULD BE ANNOUNCED BY CIRM LOCATED ELSEWHERE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU.

MR. COELHO: SPECIFICALLY IN SACRAMENTO. IT IS, IN FACT, THE BULLY PULPIT OF THE STATE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU.

MR. PEREZ: JOSE PEREZ, PUBLISHER OF LATINO JOURNAL. AND YOU'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE, AND I ECHO THAT, BUT THE MESSAGE I WANT TO GIVE YOU IS THAT THE LATINO COMMUNITY IN CALIFORNIA IS HUGE. IT'S LIKE 11 MILLION PEOPLE, 33 PLUS PERCENT.

IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE GOVERNING BODY RIGHT HERE, THE QUESTION IS DOES IT LOOK LIKE THAT. THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHERE IS THE POPULATION LOCATED? MOSTLY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, RURAL, CENTER VALLEY, SAN JOSE. AND INTERESTINGLY, WHERE THERE'S GREATEST ISOLATION FOR LATINOS IS ACTUALLY IN THE BAY AREA. IT'S IN SAN FRANCISCO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, LOOK AT THEIR WORKFORCE, LOOK AT THEIR GOVERNANCE, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE CALIFORNIA. DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE. PUT IN IT SACRAMENTO, THE MOST DIVERSE COMMUNITY IN CALIFORNIA.

MS. FERN: HI, MY NAME IS JUDY FERN. I MOVED TO SACRAMENTO FROM SAN FRANCISCO ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, AND I WANTED TO OPEN WITH A QUOTE. "IN SUMMARY, THE INSTITUTE MUST WORK CLOSELY WITH THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT IF IT'S TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND TO ACHIEVE THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY AND EXCELLENCE TO WHICH WE ASPIRE. MOST OF ALL, WE LOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING WITH YOU TO ADVANCE STEM CELL RESEARCH. TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE MEDICAL HISTORY IN CALIFORNIA." TESTIMONY OF ZACH HALL, PROP 71 OVERSIGHT HEARING, MARCH 9, 2005, THE CAPITOL.

AT THIS HEARING THIS QUOTE, COMBINED WITH THE SENATOR'S STATEMENTS CHANGED MY LIFE. I'M NOW GOING FROM A VOLUNTEER OF JDRF TO ACTUALLY LEAVING THE FOOD BUSINESS WHERE I'VE BEEN EMPLOYED FOR 12 YEARS TO BE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OUR CHAPTER. IT IS THE COMBINED EFFORTS OF THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT HELPED ME MAKE THAT DECISION.

AND I THINK THAT YOU CAN OFFER THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY IN THE CAPITAL FOR THE REST OF CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU.

MR. BUTLER: GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN KLEIN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DAVE BUTLER. I'M SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT WITH SACRAMENTO METRO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE PUBLIC SECTOR IN SACRAMENTO. WE'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN OUR REGION.

OUR LEADERSHIP INCLUDES MOST OF THE STATE'S LARGEST EMPLOYERS, INCLUDING INTEL, HP, SBC, BANK OF AMERICA, WELLS FARGO, PG&E. THE METRO CHAMBER AND OUR AFFILIATE, THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WORLD TRADE CENTER, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GROWING AND EXPANDING BUSINESSES BOTH DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY FROM AGRI BUSINESS TO BIOSCIENCE.

AS YOU'VE HEARD, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS COMBINED WITH UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, SUTTER, KAISER, CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, COMPRISE AN INCREASINGLY EXPANDING NODE OF BIOSCIENCE WITHIN OUR REGION.

ONE LAST THING BECAUSE I'M PAID TO DO THIS. THE BUSINESS COMMUNITIES OFFERED A HOST OF INCENTIVES TO YOUR ORGANIZATION TO LOCATE IN SACRAMENTO. WE'D BE HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE WITH YOU.

MR. JACOBS: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MATT JACOBS.

I'M A LAWYER FROM SACRAMENTO. AND I WANT TO TALK VERY BRIEFLY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT NOBODY HAS MENTIONED SO FAR, AND THAT IS THAT THERE'S SOMETHING OF A PRESUMPTION ACTUALLY IN CALIFORNIA LAW THAT ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SHOULD BE IN SACRAMENTO. FOR EXAMPLE, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 450, ENTITLED "LOCATION" STATES THAT, QUOTE, THE PERMANENT SEAT OF GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE IS AT THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO. THERE'S GOOD REASONS FOR THAT.

THERE ARE EFFICIENCIES FROM CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT. THAT'S, IN FACT, WHY WE HAVE CAPITALS IN THE FIRST PLACE. ANY AGENCY THAT IS NOT HEADQUARTERED IN SACRAMENTO HAS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR NOT BEING IN SACRAMENTO.

SO THAT PRESUMPTION IS THAT ALL AGENCIES ARE IN SACRAMENTO. THAT PRESUMPTION IS STRENGTHENED BY PROPOSITION 71 HERE, WHICH REQUIRES CLOSE COORDINATION. JUST ONE FINAL THING, THE CAPITAL IS THE CAPITAL FOR A REASON. IT'S THE LOCUS OF ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. IT SHOULD BE THE LOCUS OF THIS ONE. THANK YOU.

ASSEMBLYMEMBER JONES: MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, ASSEMBLYMEMBER DAVE JONES. I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF CHAIRING THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. TWO SIMPLE POINTS.

FIRST, FUNDAMENTALLY YOU'RE LOCATING AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS. WE CAN THINK OF NO BETTER PLACE TO LOCATE THAT HEADQUARTERS THAN SACRAMENTO. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEAL POINTS AND COMPARE THEM, THIS IS THE BETTER DEAL.

SECOND POINT. WHY DO ALL OTHER QUASI-PUBLIC OR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION HEADQUARTERS LOCATE IN SACRAMENTO?

IT'S ACCESS TO THE DECISION MAKERS. YOU WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO DRIVE HEALTH POLICY INTO THE NEXT DECADES, INTO THE NEXT CENTURY. THE PLACE TO DO THAT IS IN SACRAMENTO.

DECISIONS GET MADE IN A VERY SHORT TIME. IT'S ACCESS.

IT HELPS YOU MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, INFLUENCE THOSE DECISIONS. YOU CAN DO THAT IN SACRAMENTO. WE URGE YOU TO PICK SACRAMENTO. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: HE'S THE MOST PRECISE ONE-MINUTE SPEAKER WE'VE HAD ALL DAY.

SAN FRANCISCO, CAN WE HAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO SPEAKERS, PLEASE.

MR. VAN GORDER: DANA VAN GORDER, STATE POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO AIDS FOUNDATION. IT'S AN HONOR TO BE HERE GIVEN OUR AFFINITY FOR THE GENESIS OF YOUR WORK FOR WE TOO DEAL WITH THE HOSTILITY TO SCIENCE THAT IS PREVALENT IN OUR COUNTRY TODAY.

GIVEN THE STRONG HISTORY OF HIV RESEARCH AND PIONEERS LIKE J. LEVEY AND PAUL VOLBERDING AND UCSF AND GLADSTONE, IT IS ENTIRELY FITTING THAT THE INSTITUTE IS LOCATED IN SAN FRANCISCO.

AS AN ORGANIZATION, A FOUNDATION, AND AS A LEADER OF THE HIV COMMUNITY, WE BELIEVE WE CAN PROVIDE THE INSTITUTE WITH CERTAIN THINGS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND CERTAIN EXPERTISE. WE CAN CERTAINLY HELP TO GUIDE THE DIRECTION OF RESEARCH WITH REGARDS TO HIV AND AIDS, AS WELL AS CLINICAL TRIALS. WE CAN CONSULT ON ETHICAL AND BIOETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO YOUR WORK, AND WE CAN BUILD COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE MISSION OF YOUR ORGANIZATION AMONG ADVOCACY GROUPS BEYOND THE HIV AND AIDS COMMUNITY.

WE STAND WITH OUR MAYOR, IN WHOM WE HAVE GREAT RESPECT AND LOYALTY, AND ASK THAT YOU TO APPROVE THE BID.

THANK YOU.

MR. REED: UNFORTUNATELY, WE MUST STILL DEFEND STEM CELL RESEARCH. THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS IS TO HAVE A SHOWPLACE. WHAT BETTER PLACE THAN THE NO. 1 DESTINATION IN AMERICA, WHICH IS SAN FRANCISCO.

MY SON, ROMAN REED, IS PARALYZED. ONE DAY I HOPE HE WILL WALK AGAIN. SAN FRANCISCO IS A PART OF THAT DREAM. THANK YOU.

MR. SCHUPPENHAUER: MIKE SCHUPPENHAUER. I GRADUATED WITH A PH.D. FROM THE *SWISS FARRELL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE FIELD OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION. I CAME TO THE U.S. IN THE YEAR 2000 AS AN IMMIGRANT TO THE LOCATION WHERE I BELIEVE THE NEW TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION WILL START, NO MATTER WHAT THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IS.

I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY OF SAN JOSE AFTER I HAD A SUCCESSFUL CAREER IN EUROPE WORKING WITH THE GERMAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON VARIOUS BIOTECH INITIATIVES. I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY OF SAN JOSE. I THINK WE SUBMITTED AN OUTSTANDING PROPOSAL THAT WOULD HAVE ACHIEVED YOUR GOALS; HOWEVER, LOCATING THE INSTITUTE IN THE BAY AREA IS, AFTER ALL, NOW THE BEST SOLUTION FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SAN FRANCISCO IS THE BEST CHOICE TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS OF THE STATE'S VOTERS AND PROP 71 ARE MET. AND THAT IS WHY SAN JOSE'S MAYOR RON GONZALES HAS PUT HIS VOTE AND ENDORSEMENT AND THE ECONOMIC POWER OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE BEHIND THE PROPOSAL OF THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

THANK YOU.

MR. AMON: MY NAME IS NATHAN AMON. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF A BUSINESS TRADE ASSOCIATION MADE UP OF THE CEO'S OF THE LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN SAN FRANCISCO.

THE DECISION YOU ARE ABOUT TO MAKE TODAY IS NOT ABOUT THE PAST. IT'S ABOUT THE FUTURE. IF THE CIRM IS SUPPOSED TO BE SUCCESSFUL, IT WILL BE BECAUSE OF THE GLOBAL IMPACT THAT IT HAS AND THE GLOBAL ATTENTION THAT IT WILL ATTRACT. SAN FRANCISCO IS THAT INTERNATIONAL CITY, IT IS THAT GLOBAL CITY.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS.

SACRAMENTO HAS FIVE INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS A DAY, SAN DIEGO 46, 540 IN SAN FRANCISCO. WE HAVE 84 CONSULATES, NOT FIVE LIKE SACRAMENTO OR 26 IN SAN DIEGO.

PLEASE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF YOUR COLLEAGUES, THE ONES THAT DID THE HARD WORK, THAT UNDERSTAND THAT SAN FRANCISCO, AN INTERNATIONAL AND GLOBAL CITY, SHOULD BE THE HOME OF THE CIRM.

MR. BLITCH: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS LEE BLITCH.

I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. WE WERE THE FIRST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ENDORSE THE INITIATIVE WHEN IT STARTED, THE FIRST MAJOR BUSINESS ORGANIZATION.

I HAVE 75 MEMBERS ON MY BOARD. THEY VOTED 100 PERCENT. WE DID THIS BEFORE WE FOUND OUT HOW THE GOVERNOR WAS GOING TO GO OR TESTING THE WINDS OR WHAT WAS POLITICALLY CORRECT. WE'VE BEEN BEHIND THIS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

ALSO REFLECTED WAS THE FACT THAT THE CITIZENS OF SAN FRANCISCO VOTED 71 PERCENT IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSITION WHEN IT CAME OUT, NOT A SLIM MAJORITY. SO THE COMMUNITY IS SUPPORTED. MOST OF ALL, I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, 650 DELANCEY, AROUND THE CORNER. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS YOU TO COME IN THERE. IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. LOVE TO HAVE YOU OVER FOR COFFEE OR WINE.

PLEASE USE THE DATA MATRIX LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO USE DATA WHEN YOU DO YOUR GRANTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

RABBI WEINER: GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS RABBI MARTIN WEINER. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE MANY CHURCHES, SYNAGOGS, MOSQUES, AND TEMPLES WHICH ARE PART OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERFAITH COUNCIL. I'M A PAST CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL AND NATIVE OF SAN FRANCISCO.

OUR COMMUNITY'S INTERFAITH COUNCIL, IT'S AN ORGANIZATION THAT BRINGS TOGETHER PEOPLE OF VARIOUS RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS TO BUILD UNDERSTANDING, TO WORK ON VITAL COMMUNITY PROJECTS. I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT YOU SHOULD -- IF YOU SHOULD DECIDE TO LOCATE THE HEADQUARTERS IN SAN FRANCISCO, THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF THE BAY AREA AND OF THE CITY ITSELF WOULD EXTEND A VERY WARM AND SINCERE WELCOME TO THE SCIENTISTS, THE STAFF, THEIR FAMILIES.

IN ADDITION TO ALL THE MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES IN THE CITY, IT'S ALSO A HOME TO MANY WONDERFUL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO WHICH A NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS ARE AFFILIATED. THANK YOU.

MR. KIWATA: GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M RICHARD KIWATA WITH AN ENTITY CALLED GLOBAL BIO. WE ARE LOCATED IN SAN FRANCISCO PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE NONSTOP FLIGHT ACCESS.

YOU CAN FLY NONSTOP TO OSAKA, TOKYO, HONG KONG, LONDON, PARIS, ETC. AND OUR ENTITY HAS THE SUPPORT OF JAPAN AS WELL AS THE PREFECTOR OF OSAKA.

THERE ARE THREE S'S IN JAPANESE BUSINESS CULTURE AS THE THREE BEST PLACES TO WORK IN THE WORLD STARTING WITH S. THERE'S ONLY ONE IN CALIFORNIA. THERE'S SINGAPORE, THERE'S SYDNEY, AND THERE'S SAN FRANCISCO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. CONAHAN: THANK YOU. DENNIS CONAHAN, SAN FRANCISCO'S CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE WITH ME IN MY HANDS HERE A MEMO AND LETTER SIGNED BY 16 MAYORS FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 18 SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS LEADERS, AND 51 ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM AROUND THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. THAT'S TRULY AMAZING IN ITSELF.

AND THE CONSUL, JUST FOR A FRAME OF REFERENCE, REPRESENTS NINE BAY AREA COUNTIES AND OVER SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE.

LET'S THINK ABOUT BASICS FOR ONE SECOND. WE HEARD ABOUT REAL ESTATE. I'VE BEEN IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS FOR OVER 30 YEARS. IT'S A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE, 46,000 LAB SITES -- SQUARE FEET OF LAB SPACE IS AVAILABLE, 2600 HOTEL ROOMS VERSUS SAN DIEGO'S 50 HOTEL ROOMS, THE MOSCONE CONVENTION FACILITY, CITY HALL AND THE VARIOUS HOTELS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, UNPARALLELED.

$500,000 WORTH OF FREE FURNITURE. AND, OF COURSE, SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. THANK YOU.

MS. REED: HELLO. MY NAME IS GLORIA REED. MY SON IS ROMAN REED, QUADRIPLEGIC. SAN FRANCISCO IS OFFERING $18 MILLION FOR RESEARCH. THE NEXT HIGHEST IS 12,000. I'M AN HISPANIC FROM SAN FRANCISCO.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU. VERY QUICKLY, ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS THAT ARE NOT PART OF A DELEGATION? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD HAVE EMERYVILLE SPEAK A LITTLE LATER? GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS? NO OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS. I'D LIKE TO GO TO THE BOARD COMMENTS. IF THE BOARD WILL MAKE THEIR COMMENTS BRIEF, BUT COVER ALL YOUR POINTS SO AS MANY BOARD MEMBERS CAN TALK AS POSSIBLE.

DR. PRIETO: I'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS BRIEF, UNDER A MINUTE, IF I CAN. I APPRECIATE THAT OUR SCORING SYSTEM THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN DOING THIS EVALUATION WAS AN ATTEMPT TO BE FAIR AND OBJECTIVE, BUT I THINK AS A BOARD WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AND TO CONSIDER FACTORS THAT CAN'T BE REDUCED TO PURE NUMBERS.

I THINK HUMANS ARE SUBJECTIVE CREATURES. WE'RE NOT REALLY CAPABLE OF COMPLETE AND TOTAL OBJECTIVITY, AND I THINK IT'S MORE HONEST TO PUT OUR BIASES ON THE TABLE.

SO I WILL PUT MINE IN FAVOR OF SACRAMENTO. I'M VERY HAPPY THAT MY WIFE BROUGHT ME THERE AND HAVE NEVER REGRETTED IT.

THE NIH AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH FUNDING ARE LOCATED IN AND AROUND WASHINGTON, D.C., AND I THINK THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR THAT. THEY'RE PUBLIC AGENCIES SPENDING THE PUBLIC MONEY FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. THAT IS WHAT WE HOPE TO BE.

I THINK THERE'S NO REASON TO HIDE FROM THAT, AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE PROUD THAT THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA HAVE THEIR CONFIDENCE IN THE EFFORT WE'RE UNDERTAKING.

GOOD QUALITY SCIENCE DOES REQUIRE INDEPENDENCE, IT REQUIRES AUTONOMY, BUT IT ALSO REQUIRES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THIS KIND OF A SETTING.

I THINK THAT LOCATING IN SACRAMENTO IS A STATEMENT OF TRANSPARENCY. IT'S A STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE FROM THE PUBLIC, FROM ITS REPRESENTATIVES, AND THAT WE INVITE THEM TO SEE WHAT WE ARE DOING, JOIN IT, AND SUPPORT US.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SHERRY LANSING.

MS. LANSING: FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT ALL THREE CITIES ARE EXTRAORDINARY. I THINK THAT WE HAVE WHAT I WOULD CALL A HIGH CLASS PROBLEM. WE REALLY HAVE A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT CHOICE TO MAKE. AND IS THIS NOW THE APPROPRIATE TIME WHEN I CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF EACH OF THE VENUES?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES.

MS. LANSING: SO THE FIRST THING I WANT IS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, AND THIS WOULD APPLY TO EVERYBODY. ARE WE ALLOWED TO TAKE FREE HOTEL ROOMS AND FREE CONVENTION CENTERS?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES.

MS. LANSING: WE ARE. WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE STATE RATES?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THAT'S RIGHT.

MS. LANSING: SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR SAN FRANCISCO. PERHAPS YOU CAN -- WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER IT. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF VARYING THINGS ABOUT THE BUILDING. I WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE THE BUILDING IN PERSON, AND I'D LIKE YOU TO DESCRIBE, IF YOU CAN, WITH PICTURES OR VERBALLY, THE FIRST FLOOR. WHAT'S ON THE FIRST FLOOR?

WHAT'S ON THE VARIOUS FLOORS OF THE BUILDING?

MAYOR NEWSOM: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE, AND AGAIN, WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION. ONE OF THE FRUSTRATIONS IS THAT WE HAD FEWER PEOPLE FROM THAT COMMITTEE SEE THE SAN FRANCISCO SPACE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER PROPOSALS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: COULD STAFF HELP HIM HOLD IT UP, PLEASE?

MAYOR NEWSOM: THAT'S WHY. APPRECIATE THE QUESTION AND APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW YOU THE SITE. SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT, THE ALTERNATIVE SITE THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE IN 18 MONTHS, WHICH WE THINK PROVIDES EXTRAORDINARY FLEXIBILITY TO THIS INSTITUTE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: FOCUS ON THIS SITE, PLEASE. MAYOR NEWSOM: IT'S PART OF THE BID. YOU WILL SEE HERE A PICTURE. THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM RIGHT ABOVE THE SPACE IN ONE OF THE UNITS THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED SEEN OUT FROM THE SPACE TOWARDS THE BAY, TOWARDS OBVIOUSLY SBC PARK.

THIS IS A SCHEMATIC OF THE ACTUAL SPACE. YOU CAN SEE THE TRANSPORTATION RIGHT DOWN THE LINE ON THE FAR LEFT OR THE FAR RIGHT, DEPENDING ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

YOU WILL SEE THE CALTRANS STATION RIGHT THERE, WHICH EXTENDS RIGHT DOWN INTO THE SAN JOSE AREA, AND THEN RIGHT HERE AS WELL IS 12.7 MILES AWAY FROM THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

IN ADDITION, THIS IS A LARGER PERSPECTIVE, TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE QUALITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION IN AND AROUND THE AREA. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST DYNAMIC AREAS IN SAN FRANCISCO. AL GORE AND HIS NEW TELEVISION NETWORK JUST MOVED LITERALLY A FEW DOORS DOWN BECAUSE OF THE DYNAMISM OF THE AREA AND THE EXCITEMENT AROUND IT.

RIGHT HERE IS AN ACTUAL SCHEMATIC OF THE PLACE, GIVES YOU A PERSPECTIVE OF CALTRANS STATION, PAC BELL HERE, AND AGAIN MISSION --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: COULD YOU POINT OUT THE BUILDING FOR THEM?

MAYOR NEWSOM: RIGHT HERE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THIS BUILDING IS RIGHT THERE, RIGHT ON THE CORNER.

MAYOR NEWSOM: RESTAURANTS, RETAIL, HOTELS ALL NEARBY.

MS. LANSING: THE BUILDING WAS DESCRIBED -- I TRULY WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE THE SITES. THE BUILDING WAS DESCRIBED, AND I HOPE I'M CORRECT, BY PEOPLE THAT SAW IT AS HAVING A SAFEWAY ON THE BOTTOM, AS HAVING A MCDONALD'S OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WHAT'S ON THE FIRST FLOOR?

MAYOR NEWSOM: THERE'S NO SAFEWAY ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THERE'S NO MCDONALD'S ON THE FIST FLOOR.

MS. LANSING: WHAT IS ON THE FIRST FLOOR?

MAYOR NEWSOM: AROUND THE BACK THERE IS A MCDONALD'S THAT'S BEING TORN DOWN FOR A HOTEL AS PART OF THE EXCITEMENT AND DYNAMISM OF THE AREA. THERE IS A BOOK STORE ON THE BOTTOM. IT'S A CLASSIC SMART GROWTH CONSTRUCTED PROJECT RIGHT ALONG A KEY TRANSIT CORRIDOR WITH DENSITY AROUND THE NOTION THAT YOU HAVE RETAIL ON THE BOTTOM, COMMERCIAL IN THE MIDDLE SPACE, AND RESIDENTIAL ABOVE. SO THERE IS -- SAFEWAY IS DOWN THE BLOCK AT THE FAR END OF THAT PHOTO. YOU'VE GOT RIGHT ON THE BASE HERE A BOOK STORE AND THEN YOU'VE GOT SOME RETAIL STORES RIGHT NEXT DOOR, BUT NO MCDONALD'S.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: BARNES AND NOBLE IS ON THE BOTTOM.

MS. LANSING: SO YOU HAVE BARNES AND NOBLE AND RETAIL STORES.

MAYOR NEWSOM: YOU'VE GOT TO BE FAIR TO BORDERS. SINCE THE BORDERS FAMILY LIVES IN SAN FRANCISCO, I'LL BE GENEROUS.

MS. LANSING: HONESTLY, I'M NOT TRYING TO IN ANY WAY IMPUGN NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO YOU HAVE A BORDERS AND YOU HAVE OTHER RETAIL STORES ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

MAYOR NEWSOM: ACTUALLY IN THIS BUILDING NEXT DOOR DOWN THE LINE THERE'S RETAIL STORES.

MS. LANSING: THEN WE WOULD BE ON WHAT FLOOR? MAYOR NEWSOM: THIRD FLOOR.

MS. LANSING: SO FOR TWO FLOORS OR ONE FLOOR?

MAYOR NEWSOM: IT'S ONE LARGE FLOOR WITH VERY LARGE CEILINGS, 28,000 TOTAL SQUARE FEET.

MS. LANSING: AND THEN YOU HAVE CONDOMINIUMS ABOVE IT?

MAYOR NEWSOM: AND THAT'S ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WAS TAKEN. RIGHT THERE YOU WILL SEE TWO FLOORS ABOVE.

MS. LANSING: SO IT'S A MULTI-USE BUILDING?

MAYOR NEWSOM: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. LANSING: I BELIEVE THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION FOR SAN FRANCISCO, BUT I HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS.

MAYOR NEWSOM: JUST QUICKLY BECAUSE I THINK THIS HAS NEVER GOTTEN THE ATTENTION. WE SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SITE, TALKING OF LOCATION, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT LOCATION, IN YOUR PACKET AT NO COST FOR AN EQUIVALENT SIZE SPACE RIGHT NEXT TO THE GLADSTONE INSTITUTE IS ALEXANDRIA THAT'S BUILDING THIS SPACE AND IS ABOUT TO HIT GROUNDBREAKING WITHIN 60S DAYS. IF THINGS CHANGE IN YOUR INSTITUTE, IF DYNAMICS CHANGE, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY AT NO COST TO MOVE LITERALLY FIVE BLOCKS AWAY INTO THIS SPACE, WHICH IS, I THINK, AN EQUIVALENT SPACE IN TERMS OF ITS FUNCTION AND BEAUTY AND PROXIMITY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WHAT THE MAYOR IS SAYING IS THAT THE ACTUAL APPLICATION PRESENTED A SITE WITH THE ABILITY TO RELOCATE THE SITE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE INSTITUTE IF WE CHOSE TO WHEN THE OTHER BUILDING WAS FINISHED, SO THEY GAVE US SOME FLEXIBILITY.

MS. LANSING: WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO MOVE TO THE OTHER SITE?

MAYOR NEWSOM: PURELY UP TO YOU. WE LIKE OPTIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND FLEXIBILITY. THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY LOCATION. I SAY 13.3 -- IT'S AMAZING SOME OF THE MYTH THAT'S BEEN CREATED AROUND IT. MAYBE I'M A LITTLE DEFENSIVE IN THIS CONTEXT, THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A WORLD CLASS AREA BY ANY OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. YOU CANNOT -- PEOPLE ARE -- 96 PERCENT OF THIS AREA IS ALREADY BOOKED UP WITH OCCUPANTS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SO HIGHLY DESIROUS TO BE RIGHT NEXT TO THE MISSION BAY AREA. MS. LANSING: ON THIS OTHER BUILDING, THAT WOULD BE COMPLETED WHEN?

MAYOR NEWSOM: IN 18 MONTHS.

MS. LANSING: AND IS THAT -- THEN YOU'RE OFFERING SPECIFIC FLOORS?

MAYOR NEWSOM: THE TOP FLOOR.

MS. LANSING: THE TOP FLOOR, AND IT WILL ALSO BE A MULTI-USE BUILDING.

MAYOR NEWSOM: PRIMARILY, THOUGH IT WILL HAVE LABS AND BIOSPACE AND BC'S. IT'S KIND OF A MIXED USE SPACE, BUT FOCUSED. ALEXANDRIA IS ONE OF THE LARGEST REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SO IT'S PRIMARILY FOR BIOTECH, LIFE SCIENCES, NANOTECH, AND RELATED INDUSTRIES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DR. LEON THAL HAS A QUESTION.

DR. THAL: SAN FRANCISCO. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BIOTECHNOLOGY SECTOR AND THIS LOCATION?

MAYOR NEWSOM: ALEXANDRIA IS BUILDING OUT FOR SPEC IN THE MIDDLE OF -- THIS WHOLE AREA IS A REDEVELOPMENT AREA WITH 6,000 NEW UNITS OF HOUSING THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED, THE ANCHOR OF WHICH IS THE 43-ACRE UCSF MISSION CAMPUS BAY SITE. SO RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THIS CURRENTLY IS THE GLADSTONE INSTITUTE, WHICH IS ALREADY BUILT. THIS IS 1700 OWENS, AND IT'S LITERALLY TO THE SOUTH OF THAT. AND IT'S BUILT BY ALEXANDRIA, WHICH HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY OR RATHER PURCHASED THE LAND AND IS DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY.

DR. THAL: BESIDES THE UCSF BUILDOUT, ARE THERE OTHER BIOTECHNOLOGY COMPANIES IN THE AREA?

MAYOR NEWSOM: THERE'S A NUMBER. STEVE, YOU WANT TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE?

MR. BURRELL: THIS PARTICULAR AREA SHOWS THE ENTIRE BIOMEDICAL COMMUNITY THAT'S BEING BUILT. IT'S THE CENTERPIECE OF UCSF'S NEW MISSION BAY CAMPUS. IN THE BLUE THERE'S HOUSING UNITS BEING BUILT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND THE ALEXANDRIA PROPERTIES ARE BEING INDICATED NOW. ALEXANDRIA, BY THE WAY, IS A NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE LISTED PUBLICLY HELD REIT SO THAT IT'S THE LARGEST PROVIDER OF SPACE TO THE BIOMEDICAL COMMUNITY IN THE U.S.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: JUST ONE THING TO TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF MISSION BAY. SO MISSION BAY HAS -- THE 43-ACRE RESEARCH CAMPUS WILL HAVE 9,000 RESEARCHERS AND STAFF AT FULL BUILDOUT. THERE'S ABOUT 2500 OR SO NOW ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH CONSTRUCTION.

THE SITE THAT THE MAYOR WAS REFERRING TO IS LOCATED ON BLOCK 41. IT WILL BE BUILT THIRD QUARTER NEXT YEAR. THE SITE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY, YOU CAN HAVE IT FOR TEN YEARS, YOU CAN HAVE IT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. IT'S REPRESENTED BY THE GREEN DOT ON THE UPPER PART OF THE MAP. REALLY WHAT IT IS IS IT'S A TRADE-OFF BETWEEN BEING CLOSE TO THE BALLPARK, RIGHT NEXT TO CALTRANS, AND TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES THERE, OR IF YOU WANT TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE -- DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE RESEARCH FACILITY. YOU CAN MOVE TO THE RESEARCH FACILITY IN 18 MONTHS, BE IN THIS TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH BUILDING THAT THE INSTITUTE IS BUILDING.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK WE'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION. I THINK THERE ARE QUESTIONS DOWN AT THIS END;

IS THAT CORRECT? DR. MURPHY.

DR. MURPHY: MR. MAYOR, I WAS THE ONE THAT RAISED THE ISSUE ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST SAW IT, IT STRUCK ME AS A MULTI-USE BUILDING, AS YOU DESCRIBE. BUT MY FIRST REACTION WAS IS THIS REALLY THE ARCHITECTURE WE WANT FOR A WORLD CLASS SITE? YOU WENT VERY QUICKLY.

I GUESS WHAT I NEED IS A CLEAR STATEMENT AS TO WHAT EXACTLY IS THAT RETAIL SPACE AT THE BUILDING? IS THERE SOMEONE OF YOUR GROUP THAT CAN NAME EVERY ONE OF THE RETAIL SHOPS?

MR. BYERS: AS THE MAYOR SAID, THIS BUILDING IS A TYPICAL MIXED USE BUILDING TYPICAL OF SAN FRANCISCO WHERE YOU HAVE OFFICE ABOVE GROUND-FLOOR RETAIL, TYPICAL OF AN URBAN CITY WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF POPULATION DENSITY. THE RETAIL RIGHT BELOW THE SITE IS A BORDERS BOOKS. GOING FURTHER DOWN ALONG KING STREET TOWARDS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING WE HAVE A AMICE'S PIZZA, STARBUCKS, AND THEN AN URBAN SAFEWAY, THEIR NEW MODEL, WHICH HAS A LOT OF GOURMET FOOD. SO YOUR EMPLOYEES WILL BE ABLE TO EAT RIGHT ON SITE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IS THAT IN THIS BUILDING OR A SEPARATE BUILDING?

MR. BYERS: IT'S ON THE OTHER HALF OF THE BUILDING. IT'S TECHNICALLY ONE BLOCK. THERE'S A COURTYARD IN THE MIDDLE, SO IT PHYSICALLY LOOKS SEPARATED, BUT IT'S ONE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SO THE ANSWER IS IT PHYSICALLY LOOKS SEPARATE BECAUSE THERE'S A COURTYARD IN THE MIDDLE, BUT IS TECHNICALLY PART OF THE SAME OWNERSHIP.

MR. BYERS: ABSOLUTELY. IT'S ALL OWNED BY ONE COMPANY.

DR. MURPHY: MAY I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. WHEN WE TOURED THE BIOTECH PART, YOU'RE RIGHT, MAYBE A HALF MILE, QUARTER MILE IS THE NEW UCSF BUILDING, THE GLADSTONE BUILDING, AND THEN THERE'S THIS LARGE VACANT AREA, WHICH I ASSUME IS WHERE YOU ARE INDICATING THAT THE BUILDOUT IS GOING TO BE. AND THIS IS A BIOTECH BUILDOUT, INCLUDING THE UCSF BUILDOUT; IS THAT RIGHT? CAN YOU GIVE US A TIME FRAME OVER -- HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE, DO YOU THINK, TO BUILD THAT OUT? AND DO YOU HAVE PERMISSION?

AND DO YOU HAVE CLIENTS TO FILL ALL THE BIOTECH SPACE THAT YOU FEEL WILL BE BUILT? SO WHEN WILL IT HAPPEN?

AND HOW COMMITTED IS THAT SPACE?

MR. BYERS: I THINK MR. BURRELL MENTIONED ALEXANDRIA JUST MADE AN ACQUISITION OF ABOUT 2 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF BIOTECH ENTITLEMENT THERE. THEY'RE GOING FORWARD WITH THE FIRST BUILDINGS, BREAKING GROUND NEXT MONTH. WE EXPECT ALL OF THAT ENTITLEMENT WILL BE UP IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.

THE FIRST BUILDING WILL BE ON-LINE THIRD QUARTER NEXT YEAR. THERE'S A TOTAL OF SIX MILLION SQUARE FEET OF ENTITLEMENT THAT IS ALL FULLY PERMITTED, FULLY ENTITLED.

SEVERAL DEVELOPERS ARE MOVING FORWARD RIGHT NOW WITH THEIR FINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, SO YOU ARE GOING TO SEE STUFF COMING OUT OF THE GROUND.

DR. MURPHY: IS IT FULLY COMMITTED TO BE BUILT?

MR. BYERS: YES.

DR. MURPHY: GIVE ME A TIME FRAME AS TO WHEN IT WILL ALL BE DONE AND THAT LARGE LOT WILL BE FILLED.

MR. BYERS: WITHOUT -- I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPERS ABOUT THEIR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, BUT I WOULD SAY WITHIN THE NEXT TWO TO THREE YEARS, YOU WILL SEE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT. WHETHER ALL SIX MILLION SQUARE FEET WILL BE BUILT IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, THAT'S A LOT OF ABSORPTION, BUT CERTAINLY -- THE HEART OF THE MISSION BAY PROJECT, THE UCSF CAMPUS IS ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH. 2.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET TOTAL IN THAT CAMPUS, AND THEY'RE ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH. AS YOU SAW, THERE'S STILL CONSTRUCTION GOING ON.

DR. LEVEY: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE, CAN SOMEONE COMMENT -- ALL THESE PROPOSALS ARE GREAT. I DON'T SEE HOW CIRM CAN LOSE IN EITHER CITY. ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ASK IS THERE ANY SUBSTANCE TO THE FACT THAT AS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, WE HAVE TO BE IN SACRAMENTO? THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: NO.

DR. LEVEY: AND THE SECOND IS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING AT BREAKNECK PACE, GOOD RHYTHM. HOW DISRUPTIVE WILL THIS BE TO MOVE THIS ELSEWHERE? I GUESS I'D DIRECT THAT TO YOU, CHAIRMAN KLEIN.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THE ISSUE IS THAT WE DO HAVE A TREMENDOUS INTERFACE WITH SACRAMENTO. WE HAVE CRITICAL LEGISLATION GOING. WE HAVE BRIDGE FINANCING FOR PROGRAMS GOING. WE HAVE A STAFF IN PLACE. AND I THINK WE NEED TO ACCEPT WHATEVER THE DISRUPTION AND THAT CHALLENGE IS AND MOVE TO THE BEST SITE THAT THE INSTITUTE, THE BOARD DECIDES ON, BUT IT IS A CHALLENGE, LIKE MANY THINGS. WE WILL MEET THE CHALLENGE, BUT IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHALLENGE.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT, AS I'VE STATED PUBLICLY MANY TIMES, THAT THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ISSUES THAT ARE VERY SUBSTANTIAL.

THERE ARE FINANCIAL ISSUES. THERE ARE PATENT HOLDERS IN THIS STATE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. THERE ARE LEGISLATIVE AUDITS, THERE'S BOND FINANCING TO DEAL WITH. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT MAKE IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE ACCESS TO SACRAMENTO, WHICH IS WHY THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT CRITERIA THAT WAS ARTICULATED. AND AS LONG AS WE RECOGNIZE AND MAKE PROVISION THAT WE CAN QUICKLY ACCESS THAT ANY TIME OF DAY OR NIGHT, ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, FORGETTING WHETHER -- WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIVE TO SACRAMENTO. IT IS THE CAPITAL. AND WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIVE TO IT. IF WE TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT, WE'LL MAKE THE ARRANGEMENTS AND GET THROUGH THE RELOCATION.

DR. LEVEY: IS THERE A VALID -- IS THERE A LAW THAT WE HAVE TO BE IN SACRAMENTO?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: NO. IT'S JUST THE KEY IS ACCESSIBILITY AT ANY TIME, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

THAT'S WHY IT WAS A CRITERIA.

DR. STEWARD: THANK YOU. THERE WAS A COMMENT EARLIER ON ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RFP AND SITE VISIT POINTS, AND MAYBE AN IMPLICATION THAT ICOC MEMBERS WOULD NOT AGREE WITH RFP POINTS OR THE SITE VISITING TEAM. I GUESS I PUT A GREAT DEAL OF STOCK IN MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE TAKEN SO MUCH TIME IN LOOKING AT ALL OF THIS. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK: DID THE TEAM, SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE, DO THEY AGREE WITH THE RANKINGS IN THE RFP PROCESS, MAYBE NOT TO THE NUMBER, BUT JUST THE RANKINGS?

DR. PENHOET: IF I COULD RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE MOTION MADE BY DR. FRIEDMAN AND VOTED UPON BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

THAT WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD GENERATE THESE TWO RANKINGS. AND THEN IT WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC AS A WHOLE ON THE BASIS OF THE NUMERICAL SCORES. SO THAT WAS AN OFFICIAL ACTION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

HAVING SAID THAT, THERE IS NO BINDING -- IT DOESN'T BIND THE ICOC IN ANY WAY TO MAKE ITS OWN DECISION. BUT THE COMMITTEE DECIDED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FORMALLY IN A PUBLIC MEETING AND VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE POINT SCORE. SO WE CAME TODAY WITH THE RECOMMENDATION; HOWEVER, AT THE FINAL MEETING WE DECIDED THAT SACRAMENTO AND SAN DIEGO WERE SO CLOSE, THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

DR. PRECIADO: WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD TAKE THE POINTS FORWARD. THAT IS TRUE. HOWEVER, IT WAS TRUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE WANTED TO HOLD DISCUSSION BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF YOU LOOK AT NO. 1 AND NO.

2, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, NO. 1 WOULD NOT BE MY NO. 1 CHOICE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND GET THIS DONE VERY QUICKLY. DR. KESSLER.

DR. KESSLER: JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ASKED WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE, THE AREA LOOKS LIKE. WE HAVE LITERALLY RENTED, PROBABLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE FEET, WE HAVE LEASED A SPACE LITERALLY ADJACENT TO THAT BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET. NOT ONLY IS THE MISSION BAY AND THE ALEXANDRIA, BUT THE EXISTING PROPOSAL IS RIGHT NEXT TO A NUMBER OF OUR KEY DEPARTMENTS. IT'S A VERY DESIRABLE LOCATION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A VERY CLEAR STATEMENT. I MADE THE STATEMENT BEFORE. I THINK ALL THREE OF THESE SITES REPRESENT THE GOLD STANDARD FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. THE SAN FRANCISCO SITE UNDER THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE STANDARDS FOR AN URBAN SITE WITH MIXED USE BEING AN EXTRAORDINARILY RECOMMENDED WORK ENVIRONMENT IS A GOLD STANDARD FOR THAT. THE SAN DIEGO SITE, FOR A SUBURBAN LOCATION ON A CAMPUS WITH -- IN A BIOMEDICAL CAMPUS IS A GOLD STANDARD FOR THAT. AND THE SACRAMENTO CAMPUS IS A COMBINATION BECAUSE IT'S A GOLD STANDARD BUILDING NEXT TO OLD SACRAMENTO WITH ALL OF THE AMENITIES AND BENEFITS THAT YOU WOULD LOOK FOR IN A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT.

SO WE HAVE TREMENDOUS SITE LOCATION.

DR. PIZZO: I THINK THIS HAS BEEN VERY, VERY HELPFUL. MAYBE TEN IS THE NUMBER BECAUSE MY OLYMPIC CRITERIA MIGHT STILL APPLY.

I THINK WE CAN SPEND A LONG TIME FURTHER IN THE DISCUSSIONS. WHAT I'M HEARING ARE MANY OPINIONS, ALL VALID, BUT THEY ARE OPINIONS. I WOULD ASK US, BECAUSE TIME IS PRESSING, THAT WE REALLY CALL THE QUESTION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE DR. POMEROY.

DR. PIZZO: YES, YOU CAN ASK DR. POMEROY, OF COURSE.

DR. POMEROY: AS SOMEONE WHO SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE SITES, I DID WANT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED AND THEN MAKE JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS.

FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THE CHALLENGE WITH INTERPRETING THE RANKINGS FOR THE SITE VISITS IS THAT IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE SCORES, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR BOOK, THEY -- EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE PLACES HAD SOME NO.

1 RANKINGS AND SOME NO. 3 RANKINGS. AND SO I THINK THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET THE AVERAGING OUT OF THE SITE VISIT POINTS. SO I'LL JUST SAY THAT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE MY IMPRESSIONS OF THE SITE VISIT VERY BRIEFLY. FIRST, I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALL THREE CITIES. THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC PROPOSALS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE REMEMBER THE PURPOSE OF THIS. AND SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING ON IS SOME OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF WHAT THE INSTITUTE SHOULD DO AND SHOULD BE. AND THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND THIS MAY REFLECT THE FACT THAT I CHOOSE TO LIVE IN SACRAMENTO, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS INSTITUTE WILL BE OUR FACE TO THE PUBLIC. AND THAT'S HOW THE MESSAGE WILL GET OUT ABOUT STEM CELL. THAT'S HOW WE WILL INTERACT. AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE COME ACROSS AS INCLUSIVE TO ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES AND THAT WE DO HAVE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE LEGISLATURE, THAT WE DO HAVE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. WE DO HAVE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH PATIENT ADVOCATE GROUPS, ACADEMIA, AND INDUSTRY.

AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT I AM FROM SACRAMENTO, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, ALL OF THOSE COME TOGETHER MOST EFFECTIVELY TO COMMUNICATE, TO DEVELOP THE PUBLIC POLICIES IN A PLACE LIKE SACRAMENTO. THANK YOU.

DR. MURPHY: LET ME GIVE YOU THE SAN DIEGO PERSPECTIVE. I THINK BOB MADE AN EXCELLENT POINT. ALL THREE SITES ARE EXCELLENT. THE TWO SITES, SAN FRANCISCO AND SACRAMENTO, ARE BUSINESSLIKE BUILDINGS. THEY WILL BE A GOOD SITE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT OF GRANTS.

MY OWN VIEW IS THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO DO SOMETHING BIGGER THAN THAT. WE CAN NOT ONLY MANAGE AND ADMINISTER GRANTS, BUT WE CAN CREATE A PLACE WHERE SCIENTISTS ARE GOING TO WANT TO COME AND THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO VISIT, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO SIT DOWN AND CHAT WITH EACH OTHER. THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE THAT VERY IMPORTANT INVOLVEMENT WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH THE STAFF TO MAKE IT A VIBRANT SCIENTIFIC VENUE.

IN MY VIEW THE SAN DIEGO SITE, WHICH HAS OUTDOOR SPACE, IT'S IN A VERY NICE RURAL SETTING. IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE HIGH TECH AREA, IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO ALL THESE RESEARCH INSTITUTES YOU TALKED ABOUT. TO ME IT'S THE HIGHEST DENSITY OF SCIENCE IN A LOVELY SETTING, WHICH I THINK NEEDS TO BE OUR NO. 1 PRIORITY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE THAT I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THIS CONCEPT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR TREMENDOUS REACH IN THIS CONCEPT. I BELIEVE THIS IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS. IT'S A SCIENTIFIC FUNDING HEADQUARTERS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF WE ARE GOING TO REACH TO THE WORLD, IF WE ARE GOING TO BRING THE BEST MINDS OF THE WORLD TOGETHER, IF WE ARE GOING TO BRING THE BEST MINDS OF THE NATION TOGETHER, WE ARE NEEDING CONFERENCE FACILITIES, CONFERENCE FACILITIES THAT HOUSE NOT A HUNDRED OR 200 OR 300, BUT A THOUSAND AND 2,000 AND 5,000 BECAUSE WE NEED THE REACH OF THE WORLD, WE NEED LEVERAGE ON OUR SITE. WE NEED THE BEST MINDS AND THE BEST RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD SO WE'RE COMPLEMENTARY IN OUR RESEARCH.

WHEN OUR STAFF GOES OUT TO THESE CONFERENCES, THEY WILL LOOK AT 30, 40, 50 DIFFERENT SPEECHES IN ONE DAY, IN TWO DAYS TO SEE AND COMPARE THE LEADING FRONTIER OF SCIENCE AROUND THE WORLD. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO BRING THE RESOURCES OF THE WORLD AND THE NATION TO OUR DOORSTEP. AND I WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHY I RANKED SAN FRANCISCO ABOVE THIS BECAUSE THIS IS TO LEAD THE WORLD, IT IS TO LEAD THE NATION, AND THOSE RESOURCES ARE VITAL TO IT.

I DEEPLY RESPECT THE CONTRIBUTIONS BROUGHT TO US BY THE OTHER CITIES. I DEEPLY RESPECT THE DIFFERENCE IN VISION BECAUSE EACH ONE HAS ITS GREAT MERITS, AND WE HAVE A PHENOMENAL CHOICE BEFORE US.

MS. WILSON: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I MEAN SAN DIEGO HAS BEEN ABLE TO HOST HUGE CONFERENCES, HUGE CONVENTIONS. IT'S NOT JUST SAN FRANCISCO THAT CAN DO THAT. IT MAY NOT BE MOSCONE CENTER FIVE MILES AWAY, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NO MORE THAN 20 MILES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: GAYLE WILSON, I WAS COMMENTING ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SEVEN VENUES THAT ARE FREE UP TO 40,000 PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE 16,000 HOTEL ROOMS. WE HAVE A VERY NARROW AND LIMITED BUDGET ADMINISTRATIVELY, LIMITED TO 6 PERCENT; WHEREAS, MANY FOUNDATIONS WORK ON 12 PERCENT. SO THE ISSUE IS DO WE HAVE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO US TO MARSHAL AND CONTROL THESE CONFERENCES WITHOUT THESE INCENTIVES? THAT'S THE QUESTION.

DR. BLACK: I THINK THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE VERY PROUD THAT WE HAVE INCREDIBLE PROPOSALS FROM THREE GREAT WORLD CLASS CITIES. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I THINK, DID A GREAT JOB. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT, AS A COMMITTEE, WE BE ALLOWED TO VOTE INDIVIDUALLY FOR EACH CITY RATHER THAN SORT OF AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE GOING THROUGH ONE AT A TIME.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT THAT PROPOSAL, AND WE COULD GO THROUGH AND SEE HOW MANY VOTES ARE FOR EACH CITY, IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN WE'D VOTE BETWEEN THE TOP TWO. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS ACCEPTABLE?

DR. PIZZO: DO THAT NOW.

DR. STEWARD: I GUESS I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE REALLY NEED TO BASE OUR VOTES ON OBJECTIVITY. I THINK WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO POINT AT THE END OF THE DAY TO THE THINGS THAT WE USE TO MAKE OUR DECISION AND NOT JUST OUR PERSONAL CHOICES. LET ME MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. I DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THAT FOLLOWS FROM THAT.

IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY ONE SITE DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE CENTERED IN A PLACE WITH LOTS OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH GOING ON. AND THAT'S REALLY THE FUNDAMENTAL DECISION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PREFERENCES, POINT NO. 1, ACCOUNT FOR 60 POINTS.

WHAT I WOULD TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE DECIDE WHETHER THAT'S IMPORTANT OR NOT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. STEWARD. DR. BLACK, WOULD YOU MAKE -- IS THAT A MOTION?

DR. BLACK: IT'S A MOTION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IS THERE A SECOND?

DR. PIZZO: SECOND.

MR. SHEEHY: CALL THE QUESTION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IT APPEARS THAT THE SENSE IS TO HAVE A VOTE ON THAT MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION.

OPPOSED? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW.

WE WILL SEQUENTIALLY GO THROUGH THE THREE STARTING, WITH SAN FRANCISCO. THAT'S FINE. WE WILL DO IT THAT WAY.

ROLL CALL VOTE AND WOULD YOU PROCEED, MELISSA, WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE?

MS. KING: DR. PAUL JENNINGS FOR DAVID BALTIMORE.

DR. JENNINGS: I NEED A CLARIFICATION. WHAT IS PRECISELY --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE -- YOU'RE GOING TO SAY SAN FRANCISCO, SACRAMENTO, OR SAN DIEGO.

WHAT IS YOUR FIRST CHOICE?

DR. JENNINGS: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: BOB PRICE FOR DR. BIRGENEAU.

DR. PRICE: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: KEITH BLACK.

DR. BLACK: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: SUSAN BRYANT.

DR. BRYANT: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: MICHAEL GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: FRANCIS MARKLAND FOR BRIAN HENDERSON.

DR. MARKLAND: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: EDWARD HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: DAVID KESSLER.

DR. KESSLER: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: BOB KLEIN.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: SHERRY LANSING.

MS. LANSING: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: GERALD LEVEY.

DR. LEVEY: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: TED LOVE.

DR. LOVE: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: RICHARD MURPHY.

DR. MURPHY: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: TINA NOVA.

DR. NOVA: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: ED PENHOET.

DR. PENHOET: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: PHIL PIZZO.

DR. PIZZO: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: CLAIRE POMEROY.

DR. POMEROY: I'LL BE DIFFERENT. SACRAMENTO.

MS. KING: PHYLLIS PRECIADO.

DR. PRECIADO: SO DO I. SACRAMENTO.

MS. KING: FRANCISCO PRIETO.

DR. PRIETO: SACRAMENTO.

MS. KING: JEANNIE FONTANA FOR JOHN REED.

DR. FONTANA: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: JOAN SAMUELSON.

MS. SAMUELSON: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: JEFF SHEEHY.

MR. SHEEHY: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: OSWALD STEWARD.

DR. STEWARD: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: LEON THAL.

DR. THAL: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: GAYLE WILSON.

MS. WILSON: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT.

DR. WRIGHT: SAN FRANCISCO.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IT'S NOT OVER. THE TWO TOP VOTE GETTERS HERE, I BELIEVE, ARE SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN DIEGO.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE NEED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TOP TWO VOTES AT THIS POINT. WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL BETWEEN THE TOP TWO. AND THOSE ARE SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: I WOULD JUST ASK THE AUDIENCE. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO ANOTHER ROLL CALL VOTE, SO THANK YOU.

ACTUALLY I'M GOING TO TURN THAT BACK OVER TO BOB.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THE VOTES, I UNDERSTAND, ARE --

MR. HARRISON: THIRTEEN FOR SAN FRANCISCO, 11 FOR SAN DIEGO, AND THREE FOR SACRAMENTO.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SOUNDS LIKE SACRAMENTO IS PRETTY IMPORTANT HERE.

DR. POMEROY: I'LL TELL YOU SACRAMENTO IS IMPORTANT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WHAT IS THE COMMITTEE'S -- I THINK WHAT WE REALLY SHOULD DO IS GO BACK THROUGH THE ROLL CALL, IF WE COULD, PLEASE.

DR. PIZZO: NO ABSTENTIONS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD SUGGEST IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO START WITH SACRAMENTO. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE SAME WAY. ROLL CALL. MELISSA, CAN YOU PROCEED THROUGH THE ROLL CALL? THE CHOICES ARE SAN FRANCISCO OR SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: DR. PAUL JENNINGS FOR DAVID BALTIMORE.

DR. JENNINGS: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: BOB PRICE FOR ROBERT BIRGENEAU.

DR. PRICE: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: KEITH BLACK.

DR. BLACK: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: SUSAN BRYANT.

DR. BRYANT: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: MICHAEL GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: FRANCIS MARKLAND FOR BRIAN HENDERSON.

DR. MARKLAND: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: ED HOLMES.

DR. HOLMES: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: DAVID KESSLER.

DR. KESSLER: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: BOB KLEIN.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: SHERRY LANSING.

MS. LANSING: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: GERALD LEVEY.

DR. LEVEY: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: TED LOVE.

DR. LOVE: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: RICHARD MURPHY.

DR. MURPHY: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: TINA NOVA.

DR. NOVA: SAN DIEGO.
r>
MS. KING: ED PENHOET.

DR. PENHOET: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: PHIL PIZZO.

DR. PIZZO: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: CLAIRE POMEROY.

DR. POMEROY: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: PHYLLIS PRECIADO.

DR. PRECIADO: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: FRANCISCO PRIETO.

DR. PRIETO: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: JEANNIE FONTANA FOR JOHN REED.

DR. FONTANA: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: JOAN SAMUELSON.

MS. SAMUELSON: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.

MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: JEFF SHEEHY.

MR. SHEEHY: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: OSWALD STEWARD.

DR. STEWARD: SAN FRANCISCO.

MS. KING: LEON THAL.

DR. THAL: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: GAYLE WILSON.

MS. WILSON: SAN DIEGO.

MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT.

DR. WRIGHT: SAN FRANCISCO.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WHAT IS THE COUNT?

MR. HARRISON: SAN FRANCISCO HAS 16 VOTES, SAN DIEGO HAS 11.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I AM INSPIRED BY THE COMMITMENTS OF THE OTHER CITIES THAT ARE HERE THAT ARE IN THE FINALISTS IN THE COMPETITION. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EMERYVILLE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE EMERYVILLE MAKE A STATEMENT AT THIS TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE PHENOMENAL QUALITIES IN EACH OF THESE CITIES IN EACH OF THESE APPLICATIONS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT --

EXCUSE ME -- I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE DELEGATION FROM EACH OF THESE CITIES FOR THEIR TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUTION.

LET US FOCUS FOR A MOMENT HERE ON THE EMERYVILLE SPEAKER.

MR. SEARS: I'M JEFF SEARS OF WAREHAM DEVELOPMENT. I'M HERE WITH CHRIS BARLOW. WE'RE THE DEVELOPER PARTNERS WITH THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE. I BROUGHT A LETTER FROM THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE, AND I'LL JUST PARAPHRASE BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANY MORE TIME.

THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE WANTED TO EXPRESS, ONE, THAT THEY AND WE ARE THRILLED THAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY HEADQUARTERED IN EMERYVILLE. AND THE MAYOR AND ALL THE CITY COUNCIL WANT TO EXTEND WHATEVER CAPABILITIES THEY HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THE TRANSITION PERIOD FRUITFUL FOR YOU. WE'RE THRILLED THAT YOU'VE BEEN THERE IN THAT 1.2 SQUARE MILE CITY. WE'RE THRILLED THAT YOU WILL BE NEARBY.

WE THINK THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BIOTECH CLUSTER IS A CRITICAL ONE AND IT WILL BENEFIT YOU. SO RATHER THAN READ IT ALL, THIS WAS DELIVERED TO YOUR EXISTING HEADQUARTERS, WHICH IS THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE, WE WERE THRILLED TO BE THE IN OLYMPICS EVEN THOUGH WE FINISHED OUT OF THE MEDALS.

(APPLAUSE.)

MR. BARLOW: MY NAME IS CHRIS BARLOW. I'M ALSO WITH WAREHAM DEVELOPMENT. I'LL ALSO PARAPHRASE, BUT THIS IS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO REBECCA DONNACHIE YESTERDAY.

YOUR CURRENT LEASE IN OUR BUILDING ALLOWS FOR SEVEN MONTHS OF FREE RENT FOLLOWED BY THREE MONTHS OF DISCOUNTED RENT AND ONE MONTH OF FULL RENT AND EXPIRES END OF JANUARY. IN A GESTURE OF GOODWILL, BOTH YOUR ORGANIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, WE'D LIKE TO AMEND YOUR LEASE TO GIVE YOU A FULL PERIOD OF FREE RENT RIGHT THROUGH 1/31.

(APPLAUSE.)

MR. BARLOW: THEREBY MAXIMIZING THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR YOUR RESEARCH INTO STEM CELLS IN CALIFORNIA. ALSO, SHOULD YOUR MOVE TO SAN FRANCISCO NOT BE AS SMOOTH AS OUR COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE JUST LEFT WOULD LIKE TO THINK, WE WILL HAPPILY EXTEND THAT LEASE FOR ANOTHER 60 DAYS PAST JANUARY 31ST AT NO COST TO YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

MR. BARLOW: SO ON BEHALF OF ALL THE LIFE SCIENCE COMMUNITY IN THE EAST BAY, IT'S BEEN OUR HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO BE YOUR HOST AND FIRST LANDLORD, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO A LONG AND FRUITFUL RELATIONSHIP. GOOD LUCK.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU. AND THIS IS A GREAT FACILITY. I'M GOING TO GIVE A FIVE-MINUTE REST BREAK FOR EVERYONE, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO RECONVENE. DR. POMEROY.

DR. POMEROY: I HAVE A COMMENT. I WOULD ASK JUST EVERYONE FOR ONE MINUTE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FORMAL MOTION FROM THIS COMMITTEE TO THANK THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE AND THE DEVELOPER FOR THEIR GENEROSITY AND THE HIGH CLASS FACILITIES THAT THEY'VE GIVEN TO US OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IS THERE A SECOND?

DR. PRECIADO: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PRECIADO. A VOICE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR. THANK YOU.

(A RECESS WAS TAKEN.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE'RE RECONVENING. WE HAVE TO GET THESE ACTION -- THE TRAINING GRANTS CONSIDERED HERE.

LET'S SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT TO WORK WITH HERE IN TERMS OF THE BOARD.

DR. HALL: ALL RIGHT. THE EXCITEMENT IS OVER, AND NOW THE REAL EXCITEMENT STARTS. THIS IS ACTUALLY A MOMENTOUS OCCASION.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. MURPHY IS COMING. COULD THE STAFF GO OUT AND PLEASE LET THEM KNOW THAT WE'RE WITHIN THREE OF A QUORUM?

MS. SAMUELSON: IS THERE ANYONE THAT HAS A FLIGHT FROM FRESNO TO SAN FRANCISCO EARLIER THAN 8:20?

I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THE FLIGHT OPTIONS ARE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: JOAN, WE CAN PROVIDE A RIDE AS WELL. JOAN, YOU CAN RIDE WITH ME.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE A QUORUM?

MR. HARRISON: WITH DR. MURPHY WE HAVE A QUORUM.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU. DR. HALL, COULD YOU PROCEED WITH THE TRAINING GRANT ITEM.

DR. HALL: IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO LEAVE IN THE NEXT TWO MINUTES, I WILL MAKE THIS THE FASTEST TALK YOU EVER HEARD IN YOUR LIFE. I VERY MUCH WANT TO REQUEST ACTION ON THIS BECAUSE, AS I SAID, IT'S A VERY EXCITING MOMENT IN OUR HISTORY HERE BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS OUR FIRST PROGRAM.

MANY OF YOU SAW THE MATERIAL LAST MEETING, ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT GET TO FORMALLY PRESENT IT. THIS MEETING WHAT I WILL BE PRESENTING IS A TRUNCATED VERSION OF THAT. WE HAVE SCALED IT DOWN BECAUSE OF THE LITIGATION AND THE PROSPECT THAT WE MAY BE WORKING ON A BIT REDUCED DOLLARS, AND SO WE HAVE SCALED BACK THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU SAW BEFORE. I WANT TO QUICKLY PRESENT THE PROPOSAL HERE.

BECAUSE WE ARE EAGER TO MOVE AHEAD, WE HAVE ALSO WRITTEN AN RFA WHICH IS IN YOUR MATERIALS. WE WILL NOT, IN GENERAL, BRING EACH AND EVERY RFA TO YOU FOR APPROVAL.

WE WILL PRESENT THE CONCEPT, GET DIRECTION FROM YOU, AND WE WILL WRITE IT AND SEND IT OUT BASED ON YOUR PROSCRIPTION, BUT WE WON'T, I HOPE, REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE DOCUMENT EACH TIME. BUT THIS TIME I WANTED YOU TO SEE IT. AND IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS, MODIFICATIONS BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE DISCUSSION HERE, PLEASE GET THEM TO US.

NOW, THE IMPETUS FOR THIS IS THAT WITH THE GRANTS THAT WE SEND OUT, WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE A VASTLY EXPANDED WORKFORCE ON STEM CELL RESEARCH IN CALIFORNIA.

IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THAT WORKFORCE, WE NEED TO BEGIN NOW TO TRAIN STEM CELL RESEARCHERS. WE NEED TO TRAIN THEM AT THE PREDOCTORAL LEVEL. WE NEED TO TRAIN THEM AS POST-DOCS, AND WE ALSO NEED TO TRAIN CLINICAL FELLOWS.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL MOVE UP THROUGH THE RANKS; THAT IS, IF THEY'RE PRE-DOCS, THEY WILL BECOME POST-DOCS, THEY WILL THEN TAKE POSITIONS, AND IT IS THESE PEOPLE AS WE GO THROUGH WHO WE HOPE WILL BE APPLYING TO US FOR GRANTS, DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY ARE NOW, IN THREE, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEARS. SO THIS IS PART OF THE EXCITEMENT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND IT REALLY IS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FIRST STEPS IS TO BUILD OUR INTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE OBVIOUSLY CANNOT SUPPORT ALL STEM CELL TRAINEES IN THE STATE, AND SO OUR PURPOSE IS TO ENCOURAGE INSTITUTIONS TO DEVELOP COURSES OF INSTRUCTION IN STEM CELL BIOLOGY. WE ALSO HAVE AS AN AIM TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF STEM CELL RESEARCH. AS YOU WILL SEE, WE ARE REQUIRING THAT EACH INSTITUTION PROVIDE SUCH A COURSE FOR ITS TRAINEES. AND ALSO, WE WANT TO FACILITATE WHERE APPROPRIATE INTEGRATED TRAINING AND BASIC AND CLINICAL ASPECTS OF STEM CELL RESEARCH; THAT IS, WE WANT TO BRING THE BASIC SCIENTISTS AND THE CLINICAL SCIENTISTS IN CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER AS PART OF THE SAME TRAINING PROGRAM WHERE THEY WORK TOGETHER, LEARN FROM EACH OTHER, AND WHERE THEY DEVELOP WHAT WE HOPE WILL BE OVER THE LONG TERM INTEGRATED TRANSLATIONAL PROGRAMS THAT WILL MOVE DISCOVERIES FROM THE LABORATORY INTO THE CLINIC.

AND FINALLY, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE A DIVERSE WORKFORCE. AND EACH OF THESE ITEMS IS REFLECTED IN OUR RFA. THE FEATURES ARE, AS I HAVE SAID, PROVIDING FOR TRAINING AT THESE THREE LEVELS. THE TRAINING WILL BE OFFERED BY NONPROFIT, ACADEMIC, AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE RECOGNIZE IS THAT DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS HAVE DIFFERENT CAPABILITIES. THAT IS, TRAINING OF CLINICAL FELLOWS CAN ONLY OCCUR IN PLACES THAT HAVE CLINICAL PROGRAMS, EITHER HOSPITALS OR MEDICAL SCHOOLS. TRAINING FOR PREDOCTORAL STUDENTS CAN ONLY OCCUR WHERE THERE ARE, IN FACT, IN PLACE DOCTORAL TRAINING PROGRAMS.

AS I HAVE SAID, WE WANT EACH INSTITUTION TO HAVE A SINGLE INTEGRATED PROGRAM, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS HAVE DIFFERENT CAPABILITIES. AND AS I WILL SHOW YOU IN JUST A MOMENT, WE, THEREFORE, HAVE DEVISED A PLAN WHERE WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES --

THREE LEVELS OF TRAINING, IF YOU WILL.

WE WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT FOR THESE PURPOSES, STEM CELL BIOLOGY IS BROADLY INTERPRETED; THAT IS, INCLUDING MODEL SYSTEMS AND INCLUDING ADULT AND FETAL AND EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. THE BIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES ARE SIMILAR, THEY'RE INTERRELATED, AND WE THINK IT'S THIS BROAD TRAINING THAT WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT GOING FORWARD.

FINALLY, WE HAVE IT AS A SPECIFIC AND CONSCIOUS AIM OF THIS TO FOSTER AN INTEREST IN DISEASE AND IN FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY; THAT IS, WE WANT OUR BASIC SCIENTISTS TO LEARN ABOUT AND BE INTERESTED IN SPECIFIC DISEASES AND TO BE AWARE OF THEM. AND WE ALSO WANT THE CLINICIANS WHO START WITH A DISEASE FRAMEWORK TO HAVE THE BEST POSSIBLE TRAINING IN FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY.

WE WILL OFFER SUPPORT FOR THE TRAINEES, STIPEND SUPPORT, AT THE THREE LEVELS. WE WILL OFFER RESEARCH FUNDS; THAT IS, FUNDS THAT TRAINEES CAN TAKE INTO THE LABORATORIES AND USE TO HELP FUND THEIR RESEARCH. WE WILL PAY PARTIAL TUITION ACCORDING TO NIH FORMULA. WE WILL PAY FEES AND HEALTH INSURANCE, AND WE WILL ALSO PROVIDE, ACCORDING TO A FORMULA, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FOR CLASSROOM COURSES AND FOR PROGRAM. WE WILL NOT PAY ALL EXPENSES, BUT WE WILL PROVIDE SUPPORT THAT WILL ENCOURAGE INSTITUTIONS TO PUT IN PLACE THESE TRAINING PROGRAMS.

AND, AGAIN, LET ME POINT OUT THAT THE TRAINING PROGRAMS ARE NOT JUST FOR THE TRAINEES THAT WE SUPPORT WITH STIPENDS. IN A SENSE THAT IS TO ENCOURAGE INSTITUTIONS TO PUT TOGETHER TRAINING PROGRAMS THAT WILL BENEFIT AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND THAT WILL BRING IN PEOPLE FROM MANY DIFFERENT AREAS WHO WANT TO LEARN ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH, INCLUDING VARIOUS BRANCHES OF BIOLOGY.

AND IN INSTITUTIONS WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE, THERE MAY BE PEOPLE IN ETHICS OR IN LAW OR IN OTHER AREAS THAT WISH TO COME AND LEARN FROM AND BE ENRICHED BY THE RESOURCES OF THESE TRAINING PROGRAMS.

SO THE WAY WE HAVE STRUCTURED IT IS ACCORDING TO THREE LEVELS WHICH ARE AIMED AT DIFFERENT SIZE INSTITUTIONS. AND THE POINT HERE IS THAT WE DON'T WANT A SMALLER INSTITUTION WHICH MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE VERY FOCUSED AND VERY EXCELLENT TRAINING TO HAVE TO COMPETE WITH AN EXTREMELY LARGE INSTITUTION HEAD TO HEAD THAT CAN OFFER A VERY LARGE PROGRAM. SO THE POINT IS WE WILL HAVE A NUMBER OF COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING PROGRAMS WHICH WE SEE AS SPONSORING UP TO 16 TRAINEES. THESE WOULD OFFER TRAINING AT THREE LEVELS, PREDOCTORAL, POSTDOCTORAL, AND CLINICAL. AND THAT THESE GRANTS WOULD BE UP TO 1.25 MILLION PER YEAR FOR THREE YEARS.

NOW, I SAY UP TO BECAUSE THE MIX OF THE TRAINEES WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT STIPEND LEVELS MAY DIFFER AT DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS, AND THINGS LIKE TUITION COSTS AND OTHERS MAY COME IN. THAT'S THE GENERAL PLAN.

WE THEN IMAGINE THAT THERE WILL BE INSTITUTIONS THAT WILL WANT TO DO AN INTERMEDIATE TRAINING PROGRAM.

THESE ARE INSTITUTIONS THAT MAY NOT HAVE A VERY WELL-DEVELOPED STEM CELL PROGRAM AT THE MOMENT. THEY MAY BE INSTITUTIONS THAT DON'T HAVE A MEDICAL SCHOOL, SO THEY CAN'T OFFER A CLINICAL PROGRAM OR DON'T HAVE PREDOCTORAL TRAINING SO THEY CAN'T OFFER THAT. BUT THEY CAN OFFER TWO OF THE THREE LEVELS, EITHER PRE AND POST OR POST AND CLINICAL. THESE WOULD BE SMALLER, UP TO TEN TRAINEES, AND, AGAIN, UP TO $800,000 PER YEAR FOR THREE YEARS.

FINALLY, THERE WILL BE SOME INSTITUTIONS THAT WILL OFFER VERY SPECIALIZED TRAINING PROGRAMS. THEY MAY HAVE NEITHER, FOR EXAMPLE, CLINICAL FACILITIES NOR PREDOCTORAL PROGRAMS. THEIR FACULTY MAY PARTICIPATE IN PREDOCTORAL PROGRAMS AT ANOTHER INSTITUTION, BUT THEY MAY HAVE A VERY STRONG RESEARCH PROGRAM IN STEM CELL BIOLOGY AND WISH TO OFFER POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING. THESE, AGAIN, WOULD BE UP TO SIX TRAINEES AND HALF MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR THREE YEARS.

OUR STIPENDS AS ARE FOLLOWS. THE PREDOCTORAL WILL BE SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THE NIH. THAT'S A MISTAKE I MEANT TO TAKE OUT. THE POSTDOCTORAL STIPENDS, AND WE DO THAT BECAUSE OF IN CALIFORNIA MOST INSTITUTIONS CANNOT RECRUIT EFFECTIVELY BY OFFERING JUST THE NIH STIPEND, SO THIS HELPS THAT PROBLEM. THE POSTDOCTORAL STIPENDS ARE GEARED TO THE NIH LEVELS. AND THEN WE GIVE A CLINICAL FELLOW A STIPEND, WHICH IS ALSO A LITTLE BIT RICHER THAN PROVIDED BY THE NIH, AND WE THINK IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE WHO UNDERGO LONG CLINICAL TRAINING TO DO THIS WITHOUT SOME KIND OF HELP.

THAT IS, MANY END UP MEDICAL SCHOOL IN DEBT. THEY THEN HAVE A CHOICE OF GOING INTO PRACTICE OR GOING INTO THE LAB, AND IT'S A BIG HELP IF WE'RE -- IF WE ARE GOING TO ATTRACT THEM, WE NEED TO GIVE THEM A REASONABLE STIPEND.

THEY ARE GENERALLY MUCH FURTHER ALONG IN TERMS OF YEARS OF TRAINING IN THOSE OTHER CATEGORIES.

AS I SAID, HEALTH INSURANCE FEES, TUITION SUBSIDY FOR PREDOCTORAL FELLOWS. AND THEN ANNUAL SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH SUPPLIES, TRAVEL, BOOKS. SOMEBODY SAID THIS SHOWED -- THIS BETRAYED MY GENERATION, THAT ANYBODY WOULD BE INTERESTED ACTUALLY IN BUYING A BOOK, ANY STUDENT TODAY. BUT AT ANY RATE, THEY CAN GET A LAPTOP IF THEY WANT. SO THIS WOULD BE THE STIPENDS THAT WE WOULD OFFER. ADMINISTRATIVE AND COURSE SUPPORT, THIS JUST FILLS THAT OUT. WE WILL OFFER INDIRECT COST TO THE INSTITUTION OF 10 PERCENT, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THE NIH, WHICH IS 8 PERCENT.

AND HERE'S THE SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WE IMAGINE. WE IMAGINE THAT THERE WILL BE UP TO SIX OF THE TYPE 1S, UP TO SIX OF THE TYPE 2S, AND UP TO SIX OF THE TYPE 3S. IF WHEN THE GRANTS COME IN, WE NEED TO READJUST THAT, WE CAN DO SO, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY IMAGINE.

THIS WOULD GIVE US, THEN, AT THE NUMBER OF TRAINEES PER GRANT THAT YOU SEE THERE, WE WOULD BE SUPPORTING 192 TRAINEES IN 18 INSTITUTIONS. AND THE TOTAL COST OF THIS WOULD BE A LITTLE OVER $15 MILLION PER YEAR. WE WOULD OFFER THESE TRAINING GRANTS FOR INITIALLY THREE YEARS. AND IF OUR FINANCIAL STATUS IMPROVES AND BECOMES CLEAR, THEN WE CAN CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF EXTENDING THEM TO FIVE OR MAKING THAT COMMITMENT LATER, BUT INITIALLY WE PLAN TO OFFER THEM FOR THREE YEARS. WE THINK THIS WOULD PROVIDE A ROBUST START TO TRAINING STEM CELL RESEARCHERS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I THINK THE IDEA OF HAVING AS MANY AS 18 INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN THIS IS THRILLING. AND ALSO THE FACT THAT WE'LL BE TRAINING DIRECTLY ALMOST 200 TRAINEES SUPPORTING DIRECTLY, AND THEN INDIRECTLY WE THINK THE BENEFITS OF THIS WILL RADIATE OUT TO MANY, MANY MORE PEOPLE AND WILL BE VERY POSITIVE EFFECTS ON THE CAMPUSES.

NOW, I SHOULD SAY WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT PEOPLE WILL START A PH.D. IN STEM CELL BIOLOGY. THAT ISN'T THE POINT. THE POINT IS TO TAKE STUDENTS WHO ARE IN DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY PROGRAMS, WHO ARE IN NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAMS, WHO MAY BE IN ENGINEERING PROGRAMS, WHO MAY BE IN CHEMISTRY PROGRAMS, BUT WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN STEM CELL BIOLOGY, BRINGING THEM TOGETHER IN THESE CROSSCUTTING PROGRAMS. AS I SAID BEFORE, IN PLACES WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE, THAT THE EXTENSION AND THE EFFECT, THE INFLUENCE OF THESE TRAINING PROGRAMS MAY BE EVEN BROADER INTO AREAS LIKE PHILOSOPHY AND PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW AND THE REST.

SO THAT IS WHAT WE PROPOSE. I HAVE A COPY OF THE RFA IN YOUR BOOKS. AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU FOR IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTE TO ISSUE THE RFA THAT WE HAVE FOR A TOTAL OF 15.3 MILLION A YEAR FOR THREE YEARS IN THE FIRST FUNDING CYCLE. AND IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE MAKE THEM, AND WE WOULD THEN SHAPE THE RFA WITHIN THE GUIDELINES THAT YOU SUGGEST HERE OR DOCTOR IT UP AS YOU WISH.

LET ME JUST SAY I HAD PREVIOUSLY A SCHEDULE SLIDE; THAT IS, HOW DO WE ANTICIPATE THAT THIS WOULD MARCH OUT GOING FORWARD. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, FOR GOOD LUCK, I TOOK IT OUT. WE THINK WE CAN GET THE RFA OUT WITHIN A COUPLE WEEKS NOW THAT ARLENE CHIU IS ON BOARD AND CONNIE ATWELL, WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE TODAY AS OUR CONSULTANT. SO WE ARE BUILDING UP OUR WORKFORCE. MARY MAXON, OF COURSE, HAS BEEN THE OTHER PERSON WITH ME WORKING ON THE SCIENCE.

WE THINK WE CAN GET THE RFA OUT. WE THEN NEED TO -- WE WILL HAVE LETTERS OF INTENT, ASKING PEOPLE TO SEND IN WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS WHETHER THEY INTEND TO APPLY AND WHAT KIND, TYPE 1, TYPE 2, TYPE 3. THAT WILL GIVE US AN, IDEA, THEN OF HOW MANY APPLICATIONS WE'LL HAVE, WHAT KINDS THEY'LL BE, AND HELP US PLAN. AND THEN WORKING WITH OUR NEW VICE CHAIR AND WITH THE CHAIR, WE WILL BEGIN TO PLAN FOR A STUDY SECTION MEETING -- SORRY -- A WORKING GROUP MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE -- WE THINK WE CAN DO THAT IN LATE JULY, MAYBE EARLY AUGUST. AND THEN WE WILL HOPEFULLY COME BACK TO YOU WITH SOME GRANTS TO RECOMMEND IN THE FIRST OF SEPTEMBER, FIRST OF OCTOBER.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TREMENDOUS WORK AND DEDICATION IN MOVING THIS FORWARD.

MARY, I KNOW THAT YOU WORKED VERY HARD TO SUPPORT THIS EFFORT AS WELL AS SOME OTHER STAFF MEMBERS, BUT IT'S A TREMENDOUS EFFORT YOU PUT FORWARD.

DR. PRECIADO: I'M REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THIS MOVING FORWARD AS WELL. I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE GRANTS OR THE RESEARCH TRAINING GRANTS THAT WILL BE OFFERED IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY. WE DON'T HAVE A MEDICAL SCHOOL OR A UNIVERSITY WITH A MEDICAL SCHOOL. WE'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THAT.

DR. HALL: YOU HAVE A HOSPITAL.

DR. PRECIADO: WE HAVE A HOSPITAL.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: UC SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL.

DR. PRECIADO: YES. WE HAVE THAT. THAT MEDICAL SCHOOL IS NOT LOCATED IN FRESNO. IT'S LOCATED IN SAN FRANCISCO.

DR. HALL: LET ME SAY A WORD ABOUT THAT. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. WE HAVE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIPS. ONE THAT I KNOW VERY WELL IS THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND USC, OR IN THE SAN DIEGO AREA WE HAVE THE SALK, WE HAVE THE BURNHAM, WE HAVE UC SAN DIEGO. AND WE IMAGINE -- AND THEN YOU HAVE THE FRESNO PROGRAM AND YOU HAVE UCSF ATTACHMENT THERE.

SO WE IMAGINE, THEN, THAT IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO HAVE A GRANT FROM, LET'S SAY, SAN DIEGO, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM UC SAN DIEGO THAT WOULD BE A TYPE 1 GRANT, PREDOCTORAL, POSTDOCTORAL, CLINICAL. THEN THERE ARE ALSO MIGHT BE GRANTS FROM THE BURNHAM FOCUSING ON POSTDOCTORAL OR THE SALK FOCUSING ON POSTDOCTORAL. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S LOCAL HOSPITAL THAT'S AFFILIATED THERE THAT'S SEPARATELY INDEPENDENT FINANCIALLY OR NOT, BUT ONE COULD IMAGINE AT USC THAT CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL L.A., FOR EXAMPLE, MIGHT PUT IN A SEPARATE ONE OR EVEN THE LOCAL HOSPITAL HERE.

SO IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE DOING WORK THAT'S RELATED TO STEM CELL WORK THAT COULD OFFER TRAINING, THEN I DON'T SEE ANY REASON --

DR. PRECIADO: I THINK WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WE -- FRESNO AREA, CENTRAL VALLEY JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE PULL THAT SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN DIEGO AND SACRAMENTO HAVE. THERE'S NO WAY THE CENTRAL VALLEY IS EVER GOING TO COMPETE UNLESS WE START MAKING A MOVEMENT TO BE INCLUSIVE IN THE WORK THAT IS GOING ON IN FRESNO. THERE'S SOME WORK GOING ON. IT'S JUST NOT AT THE LEVEL OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN DIEGO, AND SACRAMENTO.

MY FEAR IS THAT IF WE DON'T OUTREACH TO USC, FRESNO, WE DO HAVE A NEW MEDICAL RESEARCH BUILDING GOING UP, IF WE'RE NOT INCLUSIVE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT RESEARCH GOING ON THERE, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. NIH, WE NEVER GET NIH FUNDING. CAL STATE FRESNO DOES, BUT WE DON'T.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PRECIADO, ISN'T THERE STEM CELL RESEARCH GOING ON UC MERCED?

DR. PRECIADO: THERE IS. DR. MARIA PELLAMANCHINI IS DOING WONDERFUL WORK THERE IN CANCER.

YEAH, THEY WOULD BE SOMEBODY THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE ABLE TO COMPETE.

DR. HALL: WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU AND TALK ABOUT THAT. UNDERSTAND, FOR TRAINING, OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO BRING TRAINEES TO PLACES WHERE --

THERE HAS TO BE SOMEBODY THERE TO TRAIN THEM.

DR. PRECIADO: THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM THOUGH. THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM IS THAT'S ALWAYS THE REASON GIVEN IS THAT WE CAN'T HELP YOU, PHYLLIS, IN FRESNO BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY THERE DOING WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WANT TO DO. THE SOLUTION HAS TO GO BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST IS WHAT MY SUGGESTION IS.

DR. HALL: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK IT IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN AND A SERIOUS PROBLEM FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW. BUT I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM THAT GOES BEYOND THE TRAINING GRANT. IT IS --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: LET'S ADDRESS IF WE CAN --

MS. SAMUELSON: I HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO THAT POINT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK WE HAVE AN OUTSTANDING COMMENT FROM DR. PRICE.

DR. PRICE: I DON'T KNOW HOW OUTSTANDING IT IS.

NO. 1. YOU SPOKE ABOUT COMPLEMENTARY INSTITUTIONS OFFERING OR APPLYING SEPARATELY FOR SEPARATE GRANTS. DO YOU NOT FORESEE COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS BETWEEN COMPLEMENTARY --

DR. HALL: YES. WE WELCOME THAT, BUT EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE WILL HAVE TO STAND OR FALL ON ITS OWN.

DR. PRICE: YOU WOULDN'T IMAGINE A TRAINING GRANT WHICH WOULD COMBINE UC BERKELEY AND UCSF FOR A PRE, POST, CLINICAL EFFORT?

DR. HALL: WELL --

DR. BRYANT: HE SAYS A SINGLE INSTITUTION.

DR. PRICE: SINGLE INSTITUTE.

DR. HALL: IT'S GOES TO THE SINGLE INSTITUTION.

DR. PRICE: WHAT ABOUT SUBCONTRACT?

DR. HALL: WHAT YOU COULD DO WOULD BE -- I DON'T THINK THAT IS IN THE SPIRIT OF GETTING -- WHAT YOU COULD DO WOULD BE, SINCE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROGRAM AT BERKELEY, LET'S SAY, THAT'S GOING TO TRAIN PREDOCTORAL FELLOWS AND POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWS, SO THAT ALREADY QUALIFIES YOU FOR A TYPE 2. YOU COULD SAY THAT PART OF OUR TRAINING PROGRAM ACTUALLY WILL BE TO USE A LABORATORY COURSE AT UCSF, AND THEY HAVE AGREED TO THAT. WE WILL OFFER THEM A COURSE IN -- THEIR STUDENTS ARE GOING TO TAKE A COURSE IN METAL ENGINEERING.

DR. PRICE: IT'S JUST THAT A LOT OF THE GRANTING WORK IN THE SCIENCES NOW IS MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL.

DR. HALL: WE ENCOURAGE MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, BUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS TO HAVE EACH INSTITUTION HAVE ITS OWN GRANT, WHICH THEN WILL RELATE TO OTHERS. AND THAT COULD VERY WELL --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND WHILE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POLICY, DR. HALL, WOULD YOU COMMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD WHETHER THERE WILL BE ANY EFFORT HERE AT THE INTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITH BUILDING THE HUMAN RESOURCES IN THIS FIELD TO ASK IN THE RFP FOR INSTITUTIONS TO REACH OUT FOR DIVERSITY?

DR. HALL: ACTUALLY IT IS IN THE RFP. WE ASKED THEM TO RESPOND AND EXPLICITLY SAY WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO ABOUT TRYING TO GET A DIVERSE POPULATION OF TRAINEES. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE ASKED TO EXPLICITLY ADDRESS. I FORGET THE EXACT WORDING.

DR. PRECIADO: THERE ARE MINORITY SUPPLEMENTS.

DR. HALL: WE SAY EARLY ON AT THE BEGINNING THAT THIS IS THE CASE, AND THEN WE SAY AS PART OF THE PLAN, WE ASK THE PROGRAM -- EVERY PROGRAM THAT APPLIES WILL BE ASKED TO SAY WHAT ITS PLANS ARE FOR INCREASING THE DIVERSITY OF ITS TRAINEES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I'M GOING TO TURN THE CHAIR OVER TO DR. PENHOET FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE THE STATE FINANCE COMMITTEE STAFF IS MEETING AND NEEDS AN URGENT ANSWER AS THEY'RE PREPARING FOR MONDAY. I WILL BE BACK MOMENTARILY.

MS. SAMUELSON: WE'RE CONTINUING ON THE SAME SUBJECT. OKAY. I GUESS TWO SUGGESTIONS. ONE WOULD BE THAT THE PROCESS GETS BUILT INTO AN UNUSUALLY LONG PERIOD FOR OUTREACH -- DEVELOPING THE OUTREACH TO THE POPULATION OF CLINICS AND RESEARCH LABS AND SO ON THAT MAY BE INTERESTED IN SUBMITTING A LETTER OF INTENT SINCE WE'RE STARTING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME AND BECAUSE WE MIGHT BE REACHING OUT TO INTERESTED PARTIES WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE RECIPIENT, FOR EXAMPLE.

DR. HALL: WE HAVE IDENTIFIED, I GUESS, AS PART OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE BEFORE I GOT THERE A LIST OF SOME 70 ODD INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT ARE THOUGHT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDS FROM THE CIRM. AND SO WE CERTAINLY WOULD CONTACT EACH OF THEM AND INVITE THEM TO SUBMIT.

MS. SAMUELSON: PERHAPS LOOK A LITTLE HARDER AND INVITE, SAY, PHYLLIS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO ASSIST STAFF IN BEING SURE THAT FOLKS WHO MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE, BUT AREN'T ON THE LIST COULD APPLY. PERHAPS ALSO CONSIDER GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY IN THE KIND OF TRAINING -- THE OBJECTS OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM, I GUESS. THE TRAINING PROGRAMS MIGHT BE RUN BY FOLKS IN, LET'S SAY, THE BAY AREA, FOR EXAMPLE, BUT HAVE AS PART OF THEIR OBJECT TRAINING RESEARCHERS, SCIENTISTS, CLINICIANS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, FOR EXAMPLE.

ARE YOU FOLLOWING? THAT MIGHT FACILITATE, AND I CAN SEE VARIOUS BENEFITS.

DR. HALL: I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO UCSF ABOUT THAT AND SEE IF THEY'LL INCLUDE THAT IN THEIR PROGRAM AS PART OF THEIR DIVERSITY PLAN MAY BE ONE POSSIBILITY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE.

DR. PRIETO: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE QUESTION DR. PRICE RAISED. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THE RFP COULD NOT INCLUDE SPECIFICALLY MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL GRANTS WORKING ON AN INTEGRATED PROGRAM?

DR. HALL: SO ONE OF THE THINGS -- WE CAN DO THAT, BUT IT HAS TO RISE OR FALL AS ONE.

DR. PRIETO: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND.

DR. HALL: IF YOU COUPLE THREE OR FOUR INSTITUTIONS TOGETHER, THEN THEY EITHER RISE OR FALL ON THEIR OWN. AND THEN THE WHOLE THING GOES IF THERE'S A WEAK PART. OUR SENSE IS THAT WE SHOULD GIVE THE MONEY TO THE OTHER -- THE POINT WE THINK IT'S HEALTHIER TO HAVE THE MONEY GO TO INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONS SO THAT THE BURNHAM, FOR EXAMPLE, DOESN'T HAVE TO GET ITS MONEY FROM UC SAN DIEGO ON A SUBCONTRACT, THAT THE BURNHAM ITSELF HAS ITS OWN MONEY THAT IT CAN USE FOR ITS OWN TRAINING PROGRAM. AND WE WANT THE BURNHAM ALSO TO DEVELOP, AS AN EXAMPLE, NOTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT, BUT WE WANT AN INSTITUTION LIKE THAT TO DEVELOP ITS OWN TRAINING PROGRAM. AND WE THINK THE LINKS TO OTHERS WILL BE STRONG.

OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE AT VARIOUS LOCALES MAKE IT SEEM AS IF THIS WOULD WORK QUITE WELL.

DR. PRIETO: SO WE DON'T FORESEE THAT WE'D BE ANYBODY'S SOLE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THEIR TRAINING PROGRAM?

DR. HALL: FOR STEM CELL BIOLOGY.

DR. PRIETO: FOR STEM CELL BIOLOGY? THEY WOULD ALSO BE DEVELOPING OTHER RESOURCES.

DR. HALL: THEY WOULD DRAW FROM PROGRAMS --

THERE WILL BE STUDENTS INTERESTED IN STEM CELL BIOLOGY THAT WE DON'T PAY FOR. ALSO, THEY WILL DRAW THESE STUDENTS, IN THIS CASE OF PREDOCTORAL FELLOWS, AS I SAID, A VARIETY OF TRAINING PROGRAMS WHICH COULD RANGE ACROSS A WIDE AREA AND ALSO DEPEND ON THE INSTITUTION. THAT IS, COULD BE ENGINEERING. NOT EVERY PLACE HAS AN ENGINEERING SCHOOL. COULD BE A DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, NEUROSCIENCE, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. TREMENDOUS -- WHAT WE WANT ARE PROGRAMS THAT DRAW -- BRING TOGETHER STUDENTS FROM ALL THESE AREAS OR WHATEVER RELEVANT ONES THERE ARE, HAVE THEM BE TRAINED, WORK TOGETHER, IN THAT SENSE PARTICIPATE IN A TRAINING PROGRAM. AND WE SEE THAT AS THE BEST WAY TO MARSHAL THE DIVERSE SCIENTIFIC TALENTS, IF YOU WILL, THAT WE NEED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF STEM CELL BIOLOGY IN MEDICINE.

DR. BRYANT: SO I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE DOING IT THIS WAY, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO GO IN WITH MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS THAT ONE OF THE GOALS IS TO FOSTER COLLABORATION OUTSIDE OF THE INSTITUTION. I THOUGHT IT WAS ANYWAY, THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO -- I MEAN THAT IS THE TREND. SO IF YOU CAN DO PART OF THE PROGRAM, IT CAN BE DONE BY FACULTY AT DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS. THAT MIGHT BE A STRENGTH IN SOME CASES, SO NOT TO ELIMINATE THAT AS A POSSIBILITY.

DR. HALL: MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS THAT AT ANOTHER TIME. I THINK IT IS A MORE COMPLICATED SOLUTION. AT LEAST THAT'S THE CONCLUSION THAT WE CAME TO PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE FUNDS FLOW, PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS INTERDEPENDENCIES, AND ALSO THEN OUR CATEGORIES GET COMPLICATED. YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE AS BIG A GRANT AS YOU WANT OR AS SMALL A GRANT AS YOU WANT. IT SEEMED TO US THAT IT WAS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED TO DO IT THAT WAY.

THIS WAY THE MONEY GOES DIRECTLY TO A PARTICULAR INSTITUTION. WE SEND MONEY. WE THINK THIS IS A STRENGTH TO 18 INSTITUTIONS.

JOAN, I DIDN'T ANSWER THIS, WITH 18, THESE WILL BE, WE HOPE, SCATTERED OVER THE STATE SO THAT WE'LL PROVIDE GEOGRAPHIC OPPORTUNITIES, BUT STUDENTS MAY TAKE COURSES AT OTHER CAMPUSES IF THEY SO WISH.

DR. MARKLAND: AS I UNDERSTAND THE RFA, SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS CAN USE THE SAME TRAINING PROGRAM AND INDICATE IN THE LETTER OF INTENT THAT THEY WILL BE APPLYING SEPARATELY?

DR. HALL: NO. NO. SO WE WOULD ANTICIPATE IN YOUR CASE GETTING AN APPLICATION, LET'S SAY WE COULD, FROM USC, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL L.A., AND CALTECH, THREE SEPARATE APPLICATIONS, BUT THE CALTECH APPLICATION MIGHT SAY WE PLAN TO SEND OUR STUDENTS TO UCHLA TO TAKE A LABORATORY COURSE, AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM. THE CHLA PEOPLE WOULD PARTICIPATE PRESUMABLY AS USC FACULTY GIVING PREDOCTORAL TRAINING GIVEN AT USC, BUT THEY MAY WISH TO HAVE THEIR OWN POSTDOCTORAL AND CLINICAL TRAINING PROGRAM. AND THAT THIS COULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE OTHERS, BUT AGAIN BE SEPARATE -- THREE SEPARATE AND INTERLINKED PROGRAMS, BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO YOU TO PUT THAT TOGETHER; AND IF IT WERE BE DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY, THEN IT'S NOT DEPENDENT. IF ONE OF THE THREE WERE NOT ACCEPTED FOR SOME REASON, IT WOULDN'T JEOPARDIZE THE OTHER TWO NECESSARILY.

DR. STEWARD: ZACH, YOU PROBABLY HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS OR THOUGHT ABOUT IT, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ISN'T PRESENT HERE IS LET'S CALL IT INDIVIDUAL FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM. AND I REALIZE WE CAN'T PROBABLY PUT IT ON THE TABLE AS AN ACTION ITEM, BUT TO THINK ABOUT WAYS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES OF DIVERSITY. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE COULD EASILY IMAGINE A FACULTY MEMBER AT A CAMPUS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY WHO WANTED TO DEVELOP STEM CELL EXPERTISE. AND MAYBE HAVING A SEPARATE PROGRAM AVAILABLE FOR A SUCH PERSON COULD APPLY FOR A YEAR'S SUPPORT FOR A SABBATICAL TO WORK IN THE STEM CELL LAB.

IT'S NOT PART OF THIS PROGRAM.

DR. HALL: WE'RE TRYING TO GET SORT OF A PLAIN VANILLA PROGRAM STARTED TO WHICH WE CAN LATER ADD. I WOULD SAY THAT ONE OF THE INTERESTING SUGGESTIONS THAT'S COME UP THAT YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN, PHYLLIS, IS THE SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE NOT ONLY GOING TO NEED SCIENTISTS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TECHNICAL PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE LABS. AND SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS HAVE TRAINING PROGRAMS AT THE SORT OF JUNIOR COLLEGE OR CITY COLLEGE LEVEL, VERY HIGH MINORITY POPULATION. AND ONE OF THE RESEARCHERS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE TALKED TO AT CALTECH HAD HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE COME TO THESE TRAINING PROGRAMS IN THE LAB.

HE MADE AN INTERESTING POINT. HE SAID FOR MOST OF THEM, GETTING A PH.D. IS NOT A REALISTIC OPTION GIVEN THEIR BACKGROUND. SOMETIMES THEIR VERBAL SKILLS AREN'T GREAT, BUT TURN THEM LOOSE IN THE LAB AND GET THEM STARTED AND THEY TURN OUT TO BE FANTASTIC.

SO THERE IS A SUGGESTION ON HAVING A PROGRAM THAT WOULD BE AIMED, NOT JUST AT PRODUCING PH.D.'S, BUT IT WOULD BE PRODUCING LABORATORY TECHNICIANS, THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO -- ACTUALLY CARRY OUT SOME OF THESE EXPERIMENTS. MANY OF THESE EXPERIMENTS, AS SOME YOU MAY KNOW, REQUIRE QUITE DELICATE LABORATORY SKILLS. THIS CAN BE TAUGHT AND TRAINED, AND WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF STARTING SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS. IT'S SOMETHING WE'LL DO THAT LATER ON.

BUT I ACTUALLY FOUND THAT A VERY EXCITING IDEA BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD INCREASE OUR -- PEOPLE FROM WHOM THIS IS A BENEFIT IN TERMS OF THE TRAINED PERSONNEL BEYOND THE KIND OF PEOPLE THAT YOU FIND AT TOP-FLIGHT UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS AND GRADUATE SCHOOLS AND ALL THE REST, BUT IT WOULD REACH OUT TO A BROADER SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION, SOME OF WHOM MAY NOT BE FOR REASONS OF INCOME OR PREVIOUS TRAINING FOR WHOM PH.D.'S JUST MAY NOT BE A REALISTIC OPTION.

DR. THAL: VERY SMALL POINT. THE TRAINING OF THE CLINICAL FELLOWS, THE AMOUNT PROBABLY SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE THAN THE 65,000. THE K AWARDS HAVE ACTUALLY CREPT UP OVER THE YEARS SO THAT MOST K AWARDEES ARE NOW RECEIVING AROUND 75,000 FROM NIH. JUST LIKE TO MAKE IT AT LEAST COMPETITIVE.

DR. HALL: THE K AWARDS ARE -- WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THAT LATER PERHAPS. I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. WE KEYED THESE TO BE A PART OF A UNIVERSITY, WHAT THEY PAID THEIR CLINICAL FELLOWS. THIS WAS MORE OR LESS KEYED TO THAT.

THE K AWARDS ARE SORT OF THE TOP-OF-THE-LINE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALMOST READY TO GO OFF INTO INDEPENDENT LABS. I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO CHAT WITH YOU ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE SEND THIS OUT TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO DO THAT. THANK YOU.

DR. PRECIADO: ZACH, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES. I THINK THAT, IN FACT, YOU DO FIND A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS ATTENDING THESE COLLEGES. IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO GET A PH.D. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SOME OF THE TECHNICAL AND BENCH RESEARCH KINDS OF ACTIVITIES ARE OPEN TO ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO ATTEND THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE. COMMUNITY COLLEGES ARE AFFORDABLE TO THE UNDERREPRESENTED COMMUNITIES IN A WAY THAT OTHER HIGHER INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT.

DR. HALL: ABSOLUTELY. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS WHAT IF WE HAD TRAINING PROGRAMS THAT WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ACTUALLY --

DR. PRECIADO: I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE --

DR. HALL: -- TRAIN THEM TO DO THESE KIND OF DELICATE MANEUVERS.

DR. PRECIADO: I THINK THAT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA. IN ADDITION, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE PROGRAMS THAT REALLY PUSH THEM TO GO BEYOND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

DR. HALL: OKAY.

DR. BRYANT: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WE HAVE A MASTER'S IN BIOTECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AT UCI, WHICH IS A TWO-YEAR RESEARCH PROGRAM THAT TRAINS STUDENTS IN JUST THAT -- SUCH THAT WAY TO GO INTO INDUSTRY. SO I THINK THAT -- AND THAT WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF BEING A TECHNICIAN REALLY. IT'S AT THAT LEVEL THAT YOU CAN GET THAT EXPERTISE. THAT'S A GOOD MODEL.

DR. HALL: YES. THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THESE PROGRAMS AROUND. WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEM YET, BUT I JUST SAW THAT AS A VERY INTERESTING POSSIBILITY. I HOPE WE'LL BRING IT TO YOU IN THE FUTURE.

DR. POMEROY: MY QUESTION IS MUCH MORE MUNDANE.

I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE'S NO FACULTY SALARY SUPPORT INCLUDED IN THIS TRAINING GRANT. AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES A PROGRAM DIRECTOR AND COUPLE OF KEY FACULTY CAN BE QUITE SIGNIFICANT. AS MANY OF US KNOW, IN THE UC SYSTEM, MANY OF THE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE FACULTY, FOR EXAMPLE, DON'T HAVE ANY STATE BASE, AND THEY MUST WORK IN CLINIC TO GENERATE THEIR SALARIES OR GENERATE SALARIES OFF OF RESEARCH GRANTS IF THEY'RE NOT IN CLINIC.

SO I WONDER HOW MUCH ROOM THERE IS IN THIS PROPOSAL, NOT FOR THE PERSON WHO GIVES AN INDIVIDUAL LECTURE OR HAS SOMEONE IN THEIR LAB, BUT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEADER AND SOME KEY FACULTY TO GET SOME FACULTY SALARIES.

DR. HALL: SO THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE STIPEND. MARY, HELP ME. I THINK IT'S $3500 PER TRAINEE THAT GOES TO THE PROGRAM. AND THEY CAN USE THAT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES. THEY CAN USE IT TO SUPPLEMENT AN ACADEMIC SALARY. THEY CAN USE IT ANY WAY THEY WANT TO. IF YOU GET INTO BIG-TIME ACADEMIC SALARIES, IT REALLY CUTS VERY HEAVILY INTO YOUR TRAINEE PROGRAMS. MY OWN EXPERIENCE WAS THAT FOR EXCITING AREAS LIKE THIS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE GETTING FACULTY TO PARTICIPATE. IF YOU WANT TO BRING IN SOMEBODY FROM THE OUTSIDE, WHICH YOU CAN DO OCCASIONALLY --

DR. POMEROY: WELL, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE COMMENTS FROM THE OTHER DEANS, BUT AS A DEAN, I CAN TELL YOU VERY STRONGLY THAT IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO DEVOTE 30 PERCENT EFFORT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO BEING A PROGRAM DIRECTOR OF A NEW TRAINING PROGRAM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SALARY SUPPORT FOR THAT.

DR. BRYANT: SPEAKING FROM THE BASIC SCIENCE SIDE, THEY DO REQUIRE A SMALL STIPEND, BUT IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF WHAT WOULD BE ACHIEVED FROM THAT. WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO MAKE THEIR OWN SALARY.

DR. POMEROY: SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE ARE DIFFERENT THAN BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES.

DR. HALL: IS THAT TRUE IN THE BASIC SCIENCES?

I KNOW IN THE CLINICAL DEPARTMENTS IT'S OFTEN TRUE, BUT IN THE BASIC SCIENCES --

DR. POMEROY: IN BASIC SCIENCE WE HAVE MANY PEOPLE IN THE N RESIDENT SERIES IN THE UC SYSTEM WHO HAVE TO GENERATE THEIR SALARIES COMPLETELY FROM GRANTS.

DR. HALL: I THINK OUR CONCERN IN THIS WAS TO MAKE THE MONEY GO AS FAR AS POSSIBLE IN TERMS OF STUDENT SUPPORT. I THINK IF WE GET OUR FINANCES STRAIGHTENED OUT AND THE LITIGATION SOLVED, THEN I THINK WE CAN THINK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE GENEROUS IN THAT REGARD.

I SHOULD SAY ALSO ANOTHER ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED IS TRAINING FOR FACULTY, AND OUR OWN VIEW IS THAT THAT SHOULD BE LINKED TO SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND WOULD BE PART OF PERHAPS AN INNOVATION GRANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD COME ALONG AT A LATER TIME. SO --

DR. PENHOET: MAYBE IF WE COULD RETURN TO THE ISSUE, WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO EMPOWER ZACH AND STAFF TO GO FORWARD AND SEND OUT RFA'S. AND WE DISCUSSED MANY OF SORT OF TWEAKS, IF I MIGHT, TO THE PROPOSAL WE GOT TODAY, BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSAL IS FOR THREE LEVELS OF FUNDING.

MS. SAMUELSON: ONE MORE QUESTION. COULD YOU ELABORATE ON YOUR REFERENCES TO ENGINEERING AND THEN TO -- I THINK YOU MENTIONED ETHICS AND THE LAW OR SOME COMBINATION LIKE THAT. AND MIGHT ANY OF THAT ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING AT SOME POINT WE WOULD WANT, WHICH IS TRAINING OF THE ICOC, AT LEAST THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT SCIENTISTS TO GET US UP TO SPEED.

DR. HALL: I THINK IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL FOR ICOC MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE COURSES. AND I THINK, AGAIN, AS WE MOVE ALONG, I THINK IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL EVEN TO HAVE TRAINING FOR ICOC MEMBERS. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I'M A LITTLE UNEASY ABOUT STIPENDS FOR ICOC MEMBERS.

MS. SAMUELSON: EVERYONE IS.

DR. PENHOET: IF I MIGHT, ZACH, I THINK THE CORE OF THE PROPOSAL IS $15.2 MILLION A YEAR IN THREE TIERS OF GRANTS. AND SOME OF THESE WILL SHIFT AROUND A LITTLE BIT, AND ZACH WILL BRING US A PROGRESS REPORT BEFORE WE MAKE ANY FINAL GRANTS, AND WE WILL ADDRESS A NUMBER OF THESE ISSUES. BUT IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD, ZACH NEEDS AUTHORITY TODAY TO GO FORWARD AND SEND OUT RFA'S BASED ON THESE SORT OF MACRO LEVEL PRINCIPLES WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING SUBJECT TO FURTHER ANALYSES.

TED. WE DO HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS TO COVER.

DR. HALL: YES, WE DO.

DR. LOVE: I'D LIKE TO ADD IN --

DR. HALL: I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU GO UNTIL I GET SOMETHING.

DR. LOVE: I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD ANY DISCUSSION MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDED ACTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RFA, TARGET THE AMOUNT OF 15.3 MILLION PER YEAR FOR THREE YEARS, AND ALSO THAT WE CHARGE THE STAFF WITH SHAPING THE RFA AS OUTLINED IN THE ACTION.

DR. BRYANT: SECOND.

DR. PENHOET: DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR. I'M SORRY. PLEASE.

MR. SCHUPPENHAUER: TWO COMMENTS. HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN RESEARCH ON THE EUROPEAN SIDE, I JUST WANTED TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE EUROPEAN MODEL AND EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH PROGRAMS. MOST OF THE RESEARCH FUNDING IN EUROPE IS GIVEN OUT AT LEAST TO TWO INSTITUTIONS FROM THE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE STRENGTHS OF THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AT THIS POINT. I THINK THAT MODEL IN EUROPE WORKS VERY WELL, AND I THINK YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THAT VERY SERIOUSLY TO REQUIRE, IN FACT, TWO INSTITUTIONS -- TWO DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS.

IF YOU IN PARTICULAR ARE LOOKING AT THE HEATED DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAD IN THE COMPETITION OF WHERE TO LOCATE THE INSTITUTE, I THINK IT WILL BE VERY A STRONG POINT TO FOSTER COLLABORATION. IT COULD EVEN BE DIVIDED UP IN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND REQUIRE THAT, NO. 1.

NO. 2, HAVING BEEN A SCIENTIST WHO HAS ACTUALLY WORKED IN TISSUE CULTURE AND CELL CULTURE, ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES THAT I FACE IS ACTUALLY TRAINING PEOPLE THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR ME, WITH ME IN CELL CULTURE AND TISSUE CULTURE. I THINK IT IS A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY TO WAIT UNTIL THE PH.D. LEVEL OR THE MASTER'S LEVEL TO EDUCATE PEOPLE AS TO HOW TO PROPERLY HANDLE BOTTLES, HOW TO WASH, WHAT IS CLEAN, NOT TO FORGET PUTTING SOLUTIONS INTO A BIOREACTOR WHEN YOU'RE STARTING IT UP SO THAT YOU'RE BURNING OUT THE HEATING THINGS, ETC., ETC. YOUR COLLEAGUES AT GENENTECH CAN TELL YOU AT WHAT LEVEL WE HAVE THE STAFF THAT IS WORKING THERE. IT IS ONE OF THE KEY PROBLEMS WHEN YOU ARE GETTING INTO GNP PRODUCTION IN THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY. A LOT OF THE STAFF IS NOT APPROPRIATELY EDUCATED.

I'M MISSING THIS POINT ABOUT BUILDING A WORKFORCE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. THIS IS NOT ONLY AFFECTING CENTRAL VALLEY, BUT IT'S ALSO AFFECTING OTHER CITIES WHERE THE WORKFORCE IS BUILT AND SUPPORT. I THINK THOSE TWO POINTS NEED TO BE INCORPORATED IN THAT PROPOSAL. THANKS VERY MUCH.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'M JESSE REYNOLDS FROM THE CENTER FOR GENETICS IN SOCIETY. AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF GENERALLY POSITIVE COMMENTS.

WE SAID BEFORE THAT THE STANDARDS FOR CONDUCTING THIS RESEARCH ARE VERY CRITICAL; AND ALTHOUGH THE CENTER HAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE BALANCE REPRESENTED ON THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP, WE'RE ENCOURAGED TO SEE THAT AT LEAST IT APPEARS NO RESEARCH GRANTS ARE GOING TO BE GOING FORWARD UNTIL AT LEAST THE INTERIM RESEARCH STANDARDS ARE IN PLACE AND, INSTEAD, IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THE TRAINING GRANTS, WHICH DON'T SEEM TO PRESENT THE TYPE OF PROBLEMS THAT NEED THE STANDARDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND WE'RE PARTICULARLY ENCOURAGED BY HAVING THE PRESENCE OF A COMPONENT TO LOOK AT THE ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF STEM CELL RESEARCH AS PART OF THE TRAINING GRANT. WE HOPE THAT MAINTAIN -- THAT CONTINUES TO -- BECOMES A SERIOUS AND RIGOROUS COMPONENT OF THIS TRAINING AND HOPEFULLY OF ALL TRAINING INTO STEM CELL RESEARCH BECAUSE, AS WE'VE SEEN, RESEARCH MATTERS.

AND WHILE ON THE TOPIC, FOR THE FUTURE, I'D RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER SOMETHING OF A DEDICATED STREAM OF FUNDING FOR WORK OF THIS TYPE, ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATION TRAINING, BOTH IN THE RESEARCH AREA AND THE TRAINING OF SCIENTISTS IN THIS AREA. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. REYNOLDS. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.

MR. GANCHOFF: MY NAME IS CHRIS GANCHOFF. I'M A GRADUATE STUDENT AT UCSF, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE DRAFT OF THE RFP LOOKS GREAT. I WOULD JUST PROPOSE ONE LITTLE CHANGE, WORDSMITHING.

ON PAGE 5 WITH THE COURSES, THE RFP CALLS FOR A MANDATORY COURSE IN ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS. AT UCSF, WE'RE ON THE QUARTER SYSTEM. THAT'S NINE WEEKS, AND REALLY THE ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS ARE SO COMPLICATED, THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO COVER THEM ALL IN ONE COURSE. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT PERHAPS MANDATORY COURSES ALLOWING FOR DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS CAN BE CAPTURED AND NOT JUST COMPRESS THEM INTO ONE NINE-WEEK, TRUNCATED, DASH, COMPLICATED WORK.

DR. HALL: LET ME JUST SAY THAT WE HOPE THERE WILL BE COURSES; HOWEVER, WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT EACH ONE OF THE TRAINEES SUPPORTED BY OUR STIPENDS TAKES AT LEAST ONE COURSE. AND THAT'S THE INTENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT HERE. I WAS ABLE TO COME AFTER WORK AND SEE PART OF THIS BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR RESIDENTS OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE AND STATE OUR CONCERNS, SO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING THIS DAY. IT'S PROBABLY BEEN A VERY LONG DAY ON YOUR PART.

AS I SAID, I'M A NEUROLOGY NURSE PRACTITIONER.

I SEE DEGENERATIVE DISEASES ALL THE TIME HERE IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY. AND I AM ALSO, I UNDERSTAND, ONE OF THOSE RARE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY. SO I AM REQUESTING THAT THE COMMITTEE REALLY THINK ABOUT THE CENTRAL VALLEY WHEN YOU ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DISTRIBUTING THIS MONEY. WE HAVE A VERY TALENTED POOL HERE WHO, OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEARS IN THE PAST, HAS BEEN PRETTY MUCH NEGLECTED. HOWEVER, WE HAVE A LOT OF INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS GOING ON. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DO HAVE THE HEART CENTER FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.

THAT'S A COMBINATION OF FRESNO UNIFIED AND CLOVIS UNIFIED, AND WE ARE WORKING TO HAVE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROMOTED IN OUR HIGH SCHOOLS.

I WOULD -- I UNDERSTAND THAT DEANS HAVE TO START LOOKING FOR PH.D.'S, BUT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET PH.D. CANDIDATES UNLESS YOU START WITH THEM IN HIGH SCHOOL. PLEASE THINK ABOUT US WHEN YOU ARE DISTRIBUTING THE MONEY. THANK YOU.

DR. PENHOET: SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY DR. LOVE.

DR. POMEROY: I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR ZACH. ZACH, CAN YOU JUST REMIND US WHETHER MEMBERS OF THE ICOC CAN BE PI'S OR KEY PERSONNEL ON THE TRAINING GRANTS BY OUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES?

DR. HALL: CERTAINLY NOT PI'S, NO. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EXACT WORDING OF IT. I THINK WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, BUT I THINK IT WAS PARTICIPATE IN A SUBSTANTIAL WAY, I THINK, WAS THE PHRASE.

MR. HARRISON: MEMBERS SHALL NOT APPLY FOR OR RECEIVE SALARY SUPPORT THROUGH GRANTS, LOANS, OR CONTRACTS FROM THE ICOC, NOR SHALL THEY ACT AS A PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR.

DR. POMEROY: SO THERE'S NO FACULTY SALARY SUPPORT IN THIS, I GUESS. OKAY.

DR. PENHOET: DO I HAVE A SECOND TO DR. LOVE'S MOTION?

DR. PRECIADO: SECOND.

DR. PENHOET: ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THIS WAS A GREAT HISTORIC MOMENT FOR STARTING OUR GRANT PROCESS.

DR. PRIETO: I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT IN SPITE OF ALL THE MEDIA ATTENTION TO SOMETHING ELSE, I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE'VE DONE.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IT WAS ALSO GREAT THAT THE MEDIA SAT THROUGH TO SEE THE WORLD CLASS SLATES THAT WERE PUT FORWARD BY THE GRANTS COMMITTEE AND THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT GAVE FOCUS TO SOME VERY HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND DEDICATED INDIVIDUALS AND SOME TREMENDOUS COMMITTEE WORK THAT GOT US THERE. WE WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WILL MAKE THAT THE FOCUS OF THEIR STORY.

WE NEED TO PROCEED TO THE BUDGET ITEM IF WE COULD AND WALTER COULD MAKE A PRESENTATION. TAB 15.

MR. BARNES: AGENDA ITEM 15. AT THE JANUARY MEETING THE ICOC DID APPROVE A REQUEST TO SEEK A $3 MILLION LOAN FROM THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS $3 MILLION LOAN WAS PROVIDED FOR IN PROPOSITION 71 AND WAS INTENDED TO FUND INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR THE CIRM AND THE ICOC.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE $3 MILLION WAS ESTIMATED TO LAST FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR, AND THE PROVISION IS THAT THE LOAN IS TO BE REPAID FROM BOND FUNDS WHEN THEY ARE ISSUED.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, BUT JUST TO TELL YOU THAT WE'VE BEEN VERY STRINGENT IN TRYING TO KEEP OUR COSTS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.

WITH ALL OF THESE COST REDUCTIONS IN PLACE, ATTACHMENT A INDICATES THAT WITH NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING COMING IN, WE WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO CONTINUE AT OR CURRENT LEVEL OF ACTIVITIES THROUGH NOVEMBER OF 2005, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE THE LOAN -- OR ACTUALLY YOU ACTUALLY STARTED OPERATION IN DECEMBER.

I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT THIS PROJECTION INCLUDES EXPENDITURES FOR THE HIRE OF DR. ARLENE CHIU AND ALSO THE HIRE OF A PERMANENT PRESIDENT, SHOULD YOU DECIDE YOU WISH TO TAKE CARE OF THAT WITHIN THIS TIME.

I'M NOT GOING INTO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT FUNDING BECAUSE BASICALLY IT REPEATS ALL THE STUFF THAT CHAIRMAN KLEIN MENTIONED IN HIS REPORT EXCEPT TO REFER YOU TO ATTACHMENT B. ATTACHMENT B IS A PROJECTION OF THE EXPENDITURES, WHICH INCLUDES GRANT EXPENDITURES, ASSOCIATED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A $200 MILLION BOND ISSUANCE. SO THAT GIVES YOU SOME SENSE OF HOW THAT WILL PLAY ITSELF OUT.

I'VE ALSO INCLUDED IN HERE AS ATTACHMENT C A COPY OF AN INFORMATION PRESENTATION I MADE TO A COMMITTEE AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE THIS WEEK REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE INSTITUTE. THE CHAIRPERSON WAS MERVYN DYMALLY, AND HE INDICATED HE WAS VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE EFFORT THAT WE MADE TO INFORM HIM AND HIS COMMITTEE ABOUT ALL THE EFFORTS THAT WE'RE MAKING.

I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT THERE ARE TWO MEMOS THAT ARE IN PLACE OR IN PROGRESS COMING TO YOU AS MEMBERS.

THESE ARE MEMOS TO IMPLEMENT DECISIONS THAT YOU MADE AT THE LAST MEETING WITH REGARD TO POLICIES FOR CLAIMING PER DIEM, THE $100 PER DIEM, AS WELL AS IMPLEMENTING THE NEW TRAVEL POLICIES RELATED TO THE UC SYSTEM. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT GETTING THOSE OUT SOONER, BUT THEY WILL TELL YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, HOPEFULLY, ABOUT HOW TO CLAIM, WHAT TO DO, AND WHAT FORMS TO FILL OUT.

AND ONE OF THE INNOVATIONS THAT CIRM STAFF, PARTICULARLY MELISSA AND HER STAFF, HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IS THAT WE'RE PUTTING BOTH THE TRAVEL EXPENSE CLAIM FORM AND THE FORM TO CLAIM YOUR PER DIEM EMBEDDED INTO THE CIRM WEBSITE. THEY ARE A FILL-AND-PRINT FORM, SO YOU CAN GO IN THERE AND ACTUALLY PUT YOUR HOURS AND YOUR TRAVEL CLAIMS RIGHT ON OUR WEBSITE. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU CAN'T SUBMIT THEM THROUGH THE INTERNET, BUT YOU CAN FILL THEM OUT, DOWNLOAD THEM, ATTACH YOUR RECEIPTS, AND SEND THEM IN, AND WE'LL MOVE THEM THROUGH AND GET YOUR REIMBURSEMENT.

THERE'S NO ACTION ON THIS ITEM, BUT I'M CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

DR. POMEROY: SO HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE PREVIOUS ITEM; I.E., WHEN WOULD THE LETTERS OF INTENT ON THE TRAINING GRANT APPLICATIONS BE DUE VIS-A-VIS THE AVAILABILITY OF MONEY?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. HALL.

DR. HALL: YES. WE WILL MOVE AS SOON AS WE ARE -- WE ARE CLOSELY COORDINATED WITH THE FINANCIAL SIDE. SO AS SOON AS WE HAVE SOME ASSURANCE THAT WE'LL GET AT LEAST SOME MONEY, WE WILL MOVE RIGHT AHEAD. MY OWN VIEW IS ACTUALLY THAT WE SHOULD, UNLESS IT SEEMS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WAITING FOR TWO YEARS, I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE AHEAD. I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MONEY. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, AND I THINK IT CREATES -- I THINK THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE LITIGATION BECOME VERY CLEAR IF WE HAVE GRANTS THAT ARE APPROVED AND WE'RE WAITING TO SEND OUT MONEY. WE JUST DON'T HAVE MONEY BECAUSE OF THE LITIGATION.

I THINK THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED EARLIER BY MS. LANSING, I THINK THIS MAKES A VERY POWERFUL STATEMENT ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF THIS. AND MY OWN PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT WE SHOULD PROCEED FULL SPEED AHEAD UNLESS IT ABSOLUTELY LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT THINGS ON HOLD FOR TWO YEARS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE EXPECT THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON MONDAY, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE, WE EXPECT THAT THOSE REQUESTS FOR THE INITIAL 200 MILLION IN BOND PARTICIPATION NOTES, BUT THAT 200 MILLION WILL MOVE FORWARD OUT OF THAT COMMITTEE ON MONDAY.

AND THERE IS SUPPORT FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND THE STATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, TREASURER'S OFFICE, CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR THE BRIDGE FINANCING CONCEPT TO BRING SUPPORT AND MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE MANDATE OF THE PUBLIC IS OBSERVED AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH PROGRAMS, ALTHOUGH I WOULD SAY IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT BUT FOR THE LITIGATION, WE WOULD BE DOING A $200 MILLION PROGRAM TIME FRAME INSTEAD OF A HUNDRED MILLION. SO IT'S STILL CRITICAL THAT WE GET THIS LITIGATION RESOLVED.

DR. MURPHY: WALTER, I KNOW WE'RE JUST GETTING INTO THIS, BUT HOW ARE WE AUDITING OURSELVES? OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO BE HOLIER THAN THE POPE WHEN WE PRESENT OUR FINANCIALS. HOW DO YOU PLAN ON DOING THAT? AND HOW WILL WE BE ASSURED WORKING WITH YOU THAT WE'RE NOT STUBBING OUR TOE?

MR. BARNES: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AUDITING THE --

DR. MURPHY: OUR OWN EXPENDITURES SO THAT WE AS RESPONSIBLE BOARD MEMBERS CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING IT.

MR. BARNES: THE BIGGEST EXPENDITURES FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS, OF COURSE, IS TRAVEL EXPENSES.

DR. MURPHY: NO. NO. I'M TALKING FOR THE INSTITUTE ITSELF. SINCE WE ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUDGET, HOW DO WE ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT IT'S BEING DONE WELL? AND WHAT'S THE PROCEDURES YOU'RE USING TO AUDIT YOURSELF, AUDIT THE INSTITUTE, AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT?

MR. BARNES: ESSENTIALLY EVERY BILL THAT COMES INTO THE OFFICE, WHETHER IT'S A TRAVEL EXPENSE CLAIM, WHETHER IT'S TELEPHONE, WHETHER IT'S FOR EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH AN ICOC MEETING, ALL OF THOSE HAVE TO COME IN AND ARE APPROVED BY EITHER STAFF THAT ARE WORKING UNDER ME OR BY MYSELF PERSONALLY. IN ADDITION, ALL BILLS GO TO THE STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE FOR PAYMENT. AND THEY ALSO CONDUCT A SUPPLEMENTAL AUDIT. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF THAT ARE UNDER CONTRACT TO US THROUGH THE STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE WHICH ARE ALSO REVIEWING AND PREPARING ALL THE CLAIMS THAT GO IN. SO WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A PROCESS SET UP TO ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING IS BEING DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EITHER CURRENT STATE REQUIREMENTS OR REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE ADOPTED.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND LET ME GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL HERE. EVERY SINGLE BILL, AS FAR AS I KNOW, IS APPROVED BY WALTER AND -- MR. BARNES: ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THERE'S 40 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BEHIND THAT. WE WORK WITH CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, NOT ONLY TO HAVE THEM HELP US IN SETTING UP OUR SYSTEM, BUT THEY'LL COME THROUGH AND DO A TEST AUDIT OF OUR SYSTEM TO VALIDATE THE SYSTEM AS SET UP. AND THE LEVEL OF DETAIL, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, IS THAT I MADE A REQUEST THAT THERE BE AN ICEBOX, REFRIGERATOR, FOR THE STAFF BECAUSE THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH LUNCH AND WORKING THROUGH DINNER, SO THEY COULD BRING FOOD IN. AND IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT WAS NOT APPROVED UNDER NORMAL STATE PROCESSES FOR THE STATE TO BUY REFRIGERATORS FOR THE WORKERS.

I POINTED OUT THAT THIS ENHANCED THE PRODUCTIVITY AND THE ABILITY TO BE HEALTHY WORKERS. THEY INDICATED TO ME VERY CLEAR THAT THIS WAS NOT PROTOCOL FOR THE STATE, AT WHICH TIME I BOUGHT THE STAFF A REFRIGERATOR. SO WE ARE DEFAULTING TO THE MOST CONSERVATIVE STANDARD AS WE KNOW IT TO BE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THERE'S A COUPLE OF EYES THAT LOOK AT EVERYTHING AS WE GO FORWARD.

MR. BARNES: AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WITH THE REFRIGERATOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S WHAT OTHER STATE AGENCIES DO AS WELL. THE BOSS BUYS IT OR THE STAFF GET TOGETHER AND BUY IT THEMSELVES. SO IN THAT REGARD, WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE AGENCY OPERATIONS.

MS. SAMUELSON: I'M GOING TO EXPRESS A BIAS HERE. I GUESS MY HOPE IS THAT IT MAY WELL BE THAT OUR STAFF WILL WORK SUCH LONG HOURS BECAUSE THEY'RE SO DRIVEN, FAR BEYOND WHAT IS REALLY REQUIRED OF A STATE EMPLOYEE, THAT THOSE KIND OF PERKS WOULD BE TINY INVESTMENTS IN COMPARISON WITH THE RETURN.

IS THERE A WAY THAT, IF THAT WERE THE CASE, AND IT WERE A MATTER OF MORALE, BOOSTING THIS WONDERFUL, NOVEL, NEW VENTURE, THAT WE COULD HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF REGULATIONS FOR THAT KIND OF THING? JUST A THOUGHT FOR FUTURE REFLECTION, I GUESS.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO WORK LATE AND BE HEALTHY, IT IS TO OUR GREAT BENEFIT THAT ALL THREE PROPOSALS HAD MICROWAVES, OVENS, AND REFRIGERATORS IN THEM. AND I THINK THE STAFF RELAXED WHEN THEY KNEW THAT AT LEAST THEY COULD EAT THEIR FOOD AND WORK TILL MIDNIGHT, BUT IT IS A VERY DEDICATED STAFF. I'D LIKE TO JUST TAKE A MOMENT AND SEE IF WE COULD GIVE THEM A HAND OF APPLAUSE.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?

DR. MURPHY: ARE WE AT THE END OF THE AGENDA?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM. I'D LIKE EVERYONE TO TURN TO ITEM 8. THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT ITEM. IT'S ITEM 14. I HAVE A VERBAL SUMMARY. I WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER DR. FRIEDMAN HAD A WRITTEN SUMMARY AS WELL.

DR. FRIEDMAN WISHED ME TO REPORT THAT HE HAS TREMENDOUS CANDIDATES FOR THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE, AND THEY HAVE PROCEEDED WITH IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS OF THOSE CANDIDATES.

THEY EXPECT TO BE THROUGH IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH THOSE, AND WOULD HOPE TO COME TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH THEIR FULL STAFFING RECOMMENDATION.

THE ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT I DISCUSSED WITH DR. FRIEDMAN IS THAT AS WE WENT THROUGH AND LEARNED IN THIS PROCESS, THIS RFP, WHERE WE ACTUALLY KNEW A GREAT NUMBER OF DETAILS ABOUT WHAT WE EXPECTED AND WANTED FROM THE PROPOSALS, WE LEARNED THAT IF WE EDUCATE OURSELVES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, WE WILL ELIMINATE DISAPPOINTMENT AND CONFUSION, MISCOMMUNICATION SO THAT WE REALLY GET PROPOSALS THAT REFLECT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AND WHAT OUR BUDGET WOULD SUGGEST.

AND UNDER FACILITIES IT'S COME TO MY ATTENTION, AS A MEMBER OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP THAT IS BEING CREATED, THAT THERE ARE VERY DIFFERENT FACILITIES IN DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE STATE THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED AND WORKED ON. AND THERE'S MONEY BEING PUT IN PLANS BY DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONS. AND THAT MY CULTURE IS ONE FROM LAW SCHOOL OF CASE STUDIES WHERE YOU LEARN FROM THE PROCESS BY CULTURE. IN BUSINESS YOU HAVE CASE STUDIES WHERE YOU HAVE A COMPLICATED PROJECT, YOU DO A CASE STUDY, THAT USE THAT CASE STUDY AS A MODEL.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE ALLOW STAFF TO PUT OUT A REQUEST FOR LETTERS OF INTENT THAT WOULD IDENTIFY FACILITIES AROUND THE STATE, THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES THAT COULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE GRANT BEING MADE. THIS IS TO CREATE CASE STUDIES WITH A VERY EXPLICIT RECOGNITION THAT THIS DOES NOT ENSURE ANYONE OF ANY APPROVAL. BUT IT DOES MEAN SOMEONE WON'T GO DESIGNING A $100 MILLION FACILITY THINKING WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR GRANT AND INVEST A HUGE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES WHEN THAT DOESN'T FIT WHAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD CONSIDER.

WE WOULD BRING BACK THE INFORMATION FROM THE LETTERS OF INTENT TO THE JUNE MEETING AND CONSIDER WHETHER WE COULD PROCEED WITH DIFFERENT CASE STUDY MODELS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STATE. ONCE THE CASE STUDY MODELS WERE COMPLETED WITH THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE AND THE STAFF OVER THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS OR SO, THAT WE WOULD THEN COME, AND EVERYONE WOULD COMPETE, INCLUDING THE ENTITY IN WHICH THE CASE STUDY WOULD BE DONE, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST THAT INSTITUTION AND THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS WOULD BE SUBMITTING SOMETHING THAT REALLY REFLECTS WHAT WE WANT.

AND IF WE ARE TO SUBMIT -- CREATE ANYTHING WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THESE GRANTS, WE NEED TO GIVE PEOPLE EARLY INFORMATION, NOT LET THEM WANDER IN THE WILDERNESS WITHOUT GOOD INFORMATION.

AND IT'S BECAUSE SOME ARE REHABS, SOME ARE NEW CONSTRUCTION, SOME ARE LEASES OF LOW-COST EMPTY SPACE THAT MIGHT HAVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THEM, WE NEED TO WORK OUT SOME CASE STUDIES TO GIVE PEOPLE DIRECTION IN THESE DIFFERENT AREAS.

I WOULD MAKE A VERY EXPLICIT STATEMENT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE $1 OF THE BRIDGE FINANCING CAN GO TO CASE STUDIES. IT'S GOT TO GET OUT THERE TO RESEARCH, BUT IT'S VERY CLEAR FROM THIS SURPRISE AUDIT OF THE HARVARD LABS BY THE NIH, THAT WE NEED TO GET FACILITIES IN PLACE. THE NEXT CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION MAY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT, NOT EASIER TO CARRY OUT RESEARCH. WE HOPE IT GOES THE OTHER WAY. THINGS HAVE FLIPPED BACK AND FORTH VERY QUICKLY OVER TWO-YEAR CYCLES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL; AND WE, THEREFORE, CREATED A PRIORITY IN THE INITIATIVE TO SEE WHAT WE COULD GET BUILT WITHIN TWO YEARS. THAT'S AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION.

MS. SAMUELSON: COULD WE HAVE STAFF OR MAYBE IT'S LEGAL COUNSEL PROVIDE US WITH A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRING IN THE FACILITIES?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES. I THINK IF STAFF AND THE LEGAL COUNSEL WORK TOGETHER, AND WE'VE GOT THE BENEFIT OF LEGAL COUNSEL, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S BEEN OFFERED FROM HARVARD UNIVERSITY AS WELL AS FROM THE UC SYSTEM, WE COULD REALLY GET REAL INSIGHT INTO THE KINDS OF LIMITATIONS ON EQUIPMENT THAT'S PAID FOR AND NOT USED, EMPTY SPACE, ON ACCOUNTING FOR SOFT COSTS, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

MS. SAMUELSON: MAYBE OUR PRO BONO SAN FRANCISCO COUNSEL.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THE QUESTION IS CAN STAFF WORK OUT A LETTER OF INTENT THAT WOULD GO OUT WORKING UP SOME GUIDANCE, BUT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT FOUR- OR FIVE-PAGE CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSIONS THAT WOULD COME BACK TO THIS BOARD IN JUNE SO WE CAN GET AN IDEA AS WELL ON THE SCOPE OF WHAT'S OUT THERE AND WHAT IS POSSIBLE.

DR. POMEROY: I WOULD LIKE TO ENDORSE THE CONCEPT OF CASE STUDIES TO DETERMINE SORT OF THE IMPACT AND THE FEASIBILITY OF THE DIFFERENT MODELS. I THINK IT WILL SEND A VERY POWERFUL MESSAGE THAT WE'RE REALLY THINKING ABOUT THIS, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, AND WE'RE EXPLORING OPTIONS; AND AS SOON AS WE GET THE MONEY, WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THESE THINGS, SO I WOULD ENDORSE THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?

DR. BRYANT: I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. AND I ALSO HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THE -- THERE WAS ANOTHER ITEM. THE REGULATIONS. SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL ITEMS OTHER THAN THE DIRECTLY OBVIOUS ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, LIKE SCANNERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT HAVE MULTIPLE SOURCES OF FUNDING ALREADY.

THEY COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. SOME ARRANGEMENT TO REIMBURSE ANY PART OF NIH FUNDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAS TO BE WORKED OUT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR EACH OF THE INSTITUTIONS ON THE BOARD TO HELP US BY EVEN A SHORT MEMO SUBMITTED FROM THEIR COUNSEL OR FROM THE DEAN'S OFFICE FROM INFORMATIONALLY THEIR VIEW OF HOW THE NIH REGULATIONS COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT US.

DR. STEWARD: I SUSPECT THAT BECAUSE MANY INSTITUTIONS EVEN NOW ARE THINKING ABOUT HOW TO GATHER PRELIMINARY DATA, THAT, IN FACT, MOST ARE PUTTING TOGETHER, IF YOU WANT, GUIDELINES FOR THEIR OWN STAFF AND FACULTY. AND I WONDER IF WE SHOULD REALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE RATHER THAN THINKING ABOUT THAT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE AND POINT OF VIEW OF LEGAL STAFF HERE, AND I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE ANYTHING THAT WE DO IS GOING TO BE SEEN AS MUCH MORE, I THINK, AUTHORITATIVE. I'M NOT SURE WE WANT TO TAKE THAT POSITION. IT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR THE DIFFERENT UNIVERSITIES TO DEVELOP THEIR VIEWPOINTS ON THIS, LET US SEE WHERE IT GOES. THOSE CAN INFORM US AS WE THINK ABOUT THESE BUILDING PROPOSALS, BUT FOR US TO MAKE ANY KIND OF A LEGAL DETERMINATION OR EVEN OPINION --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ON THE NIH ISSUE?

DR. STEWARD: NIH, EXACTLY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: LET ME DO THIS. LET ME SEPARATE THE TWO ITEMS FOR A MOMENT, IF WE COULD.

CLAIRE, WOULD YOU LIKE --

DR. POMEROY: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REQUEST THAT STAFF PREPARE A REQUEST FOR LETTERS OF INTENT FOR CASE STUDIES TO LOOK AT THE VARIOUS MODELS FOR BUILDING FACILITIES AND BRING THAT BACK TO THE JUNE MEETING.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SO THEY WOULD SEND OUT THESE REQUESTS, GET BACK PRELIMINARY INFORMATION, AND BRING BACK INFORMATION. IS THERE A SECOND?

DR. BRYANT: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: A SECOND FROM DR. BRYANT.

DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? ANY PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION?

MS. HALME: CAN I MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT. I HAVE A POINT OF CONFUSION. SO ARE LETTERS OF INTENT THE SAME -- LETTERS OF INTENT, ARE THEY THE SAME THING AS CASE STUDIES OR CASE --

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THESE ARE LETTERS OF INTENT THAT WOULD BE SUBMITTED, JUST CONCEPTUAL FOUR- OR FIVE-PAGE SUMMARIES OF WHAT THEY'RE CONTEMPLATING, THE SCALE, THE DOLLARS.

MS. HALME: SO HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO CASE STUDIES?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THEY WOULD MAKE A LETTER OF INTENT THAT THEY'D LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN A CASE STUDY AND THIS IS WHAT THEY WOULD PROPOSE.

MS. HALME: AND THEN FROM ALL THOSE LETTERS OF INTENT, THE BOARD WOULD SELECT A SUBSET.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SUBSET OF EACH TYPE.

MS. HALME: AND THEN THE FUNDING FOR THOSE CASE STUDIES, YOU SAID, CAN'T COME, YOU DON'T BELIEVE, FROM THE BRIDGE FUNDING?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: NO.

MS. HALME: SO IT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM PHILANTHROPIC SOURCES.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OR BONDS.

MS. HALME: OR BONDS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

DR. POMEROY: SO THE LETTER OF INTENT --

MS. HALME: IS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CASE STUDY.

DR. POMEROY: -- IS BASICALLY A SUMMARY, A CONCEPTUAL SUMMARY OF WHAT YOUR CASE STUDY WOULD BE IN FOUR OR FIVE PAGES.

MS. HALME: OKAY.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IT WOULD GO TO THE STAFF, AND AS SOON AS THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE IS CONSTRUCTED, IT WILL END UP BEING PROCESSED THROUGH THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE. BUT JUST TO GET A PRELIMINARY SIZING ON THE ISSUE, THE INITIAL RESULTS WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD SO WE CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND THE STATE AND GET SOME SCOPE ON THIS OF WHAT WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DELIVER. AND DR. FRIEDMAN PROVIDED SOME COMMENTS ABOUT SOME POTENTIAL IDEAS TO PUT INTO THIS LETTER ABOUT CASE STUDY, ASKING QUESTIONS. AND IF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAVE IDEAS ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE USEFUL INFORMATION, PLEASE GIVE IT TO STAFF AND WE'LL TRY AND TAKE THEM INTO CONSIDERATION.

MR. SCHUPPENHAUER: CAN YOU HELP ME CLARIFY MY CONFUSION AS TO AT WHAT POINT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY NEED MONEY? YOU'RE TALKING ON ONE SIDE ABOUT LETTERS -- REQUESTS FOR LETTERS OF INTENT, SO YOU'RE GETTING A FOUR- OR FIVE-PAGE SUMMARY. WHERE IS THE MONEY INVOLVED HERE?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS AT THE JUNE MEETING, WE WILL PICK OUT DIFFERENT APPROACHES, DIFFERENT MODELS, REHAB, NEW CONSTRUCTION, CAPITALIZED LEASE SPACE. WE WILL ADDRESS WHICH ONES WE'RE GOING TO PURSUE CASE STUDIES AND HOPEFULLY HAVE GOOD REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION. AND THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THOSE CASE STUDIES WOULD GO ON TO THE FALL, AND THROUGH THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE, THEY WOULD COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE WOULD BE AN RFP THAT THEN WOULD GO OUT TO HAVE A COMPETITION BASED ON THE MODELS THAT WOULD BE CREATED IN EACH TYPE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE WE WOULD GAIN. AND THEN BASED ON THAT COMPETITION, WE WOULD SELECT FACILITIES TO FUND WHICH WE COULDN'T FUND WITHOUT EITHER A BOND ISSUE BEING EFFECTIVE, SO WE'RE TALKING PROBABLY SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS OUT, AT THE VERY BEST, OR ADDITIONAL CHARITABLE SOURCES IDENTIFIED, BUT SPECIFICALLY THE INITIAL CHARITABLE DONATIONS HAVE TO ALL GO INTO RESEARCH.

MR. SCHUPPENHAUER: BOND MEASURE IS REFERRING TO THE CIRM BOND?

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YES. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE PREPARED TO CALL THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED.

THANK YOU.

I THINK WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE AGENDA. THERE WAS A DESIRE FROM DR. MURPHY.

DR. MURPHY: MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS HAS BEEN A VERY LONG DAY, AND WE WENT THROUGH WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A VERY EXCITING, BUT VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS. AND I THINK THE INSTITUTE CAME OUT WELL AHEAD, AND I JUST WANTED TO SUGGEST TO THE BOARD THAT A MOTION OF THANKS TO OUR CHAIRMAN, WHO HANDLED THIS WHOLE DAY BEAUTIFULLY, AND I THINK HANDLED THE WHOLE SITE MEASURE WITH GREAT GRACE AND SKILL. AND WE'RE ALL STILL VERY GOOD FRIENDS, AND WE'RE ALL STILL VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS HAPPENING.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. MURPHY. AND I THANK EVERYONE FOR THE GRACIOUSNESS AND UNDERSTANDING. I WOULD LIKE US AS A BOARD TO REALIZE THAT WHEN WE STARTED THIS, I THINK I REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SAID TO ME, "YOU ARE GOING TO ASK PEOPLE TO GIVE YOU FREE RENT?" AND I SAID YES. AND THEY SAID, "AND SO SIX MONTHS?" I SAID NO, TEN YEARS.

WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT THIS INSTITUTE AND THE PRESTIGE OF THE MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD AND THE BELIEF IN PROPOSITION 71 HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LED TO CHARITABLE DONORS AND CITIES FUNDING TEN YEARS OF FREE RENT, FREE OPERATING COST, FREE FURNITURE, FREE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FREE CONFERENCE FACILITIES, HOTEL ROOMS. IT IS A GREAT COMPLIMENT TO THIS BOARD AND TO THE RESPECT WITH WHICH THIS INSTITUTION IS MOVING FORWARD, THAT THE CITIES OF THE STATE AND THE CHARITABLE DONORS HAVE RALLIED AND UNITED BEHIND WHAT WE ALL BELIEVE IN IS A GREAT FUTURE FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH. BUT IT IS A GREAT AND HISTORIC DAY FOR THE STATE. THANK YOU.

PUBLIC COMMENT.

MR. O'RORKE: MR. KLEIN, HONORED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS JOHN O'RORKE. I LIVE IN KINGSBERG, WHICH IS A LITTLE SWEDISH TOWN SOUTH OF FRESNO, AND I'M THE ONLY IRISHMAN THERE.

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO THAT MASKED MAN WAS WHO'S BEEN SENDING YOU LITERATURE IN THE MAIL AND A PERSONAL LETTER BACK IN JANUARY. THAT WAS ME. I JUST WANT TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR YOU, AND I'VE REALLY BEEN IMPRESSED WITH THE TALENT THAT I'VE BEEN VISITING WITH IN THE LAST FEW HOURS.

I ON BEHALF OF THE PSP ORGANIZATION IN BALTIMORE, PSP MEANING PROGRESSIVE SUPRANUCLEAR PALSY.

MOST OF US HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT. IN FACT, HALF THE WORLD HASN'T HEARD OF IT. IT'S ONE OF THE MOST RAREST DISEASES, I GUESS, IN THIS CENTURY. SO I KNOW I'M GOING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PSP SOCIETY, BUT FOR MY WIFE WHO'S BEEN STRICKEN WITH THIS.

PROGRESSIVE SUPRANUCLEAR PALSY IS THE DIEASE THAT MANY OF YOU REMEMBER DUDLEY MOORE, THE BRITISH ACTOR AND TALENTED MUSICIAN, SUFFERED WITH FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND PASSED AWAY BACK IN 2002. I HAD JUST TAKEN MY WIFE TO THE BALTIMORE SYMPOSIUM JUST BEFORE HE PASSED AWAY, HOPING THAT WE WOULD MEET HIM. I WAS HONORED, IN SPEAKING WITH THE CARETAKERS THAT TOOK CARE OF HIM UP UNTIL HIS PASSING, AND IT WAS JUST AWESOME TO KNOW THAT A MAN OF THIS TREMENDOUS TALENT HAD BE IMPRISONED LITERALLY IN HIS BODY BY THIS DISEASE CALLED PSP.

SO I JUST WANT TO TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO NOTE THAT WHEN WE LOST DUDLEY, WE LOST THE NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON, SHALL WE SAY, SIMILAR TO WHAT MICHAEL J. FOX IS DOING FOR PARKINSON'S. AND I THINK HE'S DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB IN HIS APPEALS TO THIS BOARD, NIH, CONGRESS, WHEREVER HE'S BEEN. I THINK DUDLEY HAD THAT IN MIND, BUT HE WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT.

SO THE REASON I'M ASKING TO SPEAK TO YOU FOR A FEW MINUTES, AND I'M GOING TO REFER TO MY NOTES SO I CAN MAKE IT BRIEF BECAUSE I CAN SPEAK ABOUT THIS FOR AN HOUR.

THIS DISEASE IS MULTIFACETED. IT'S GOT SO MANY ANGLES TO IT, THAT, I SAY THIS RESPECTFULLY, MOST DOCTORS MISS IT. THEY'RE THROWING IT INTO THE PARKINSON'S DISEASE BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT WHEN THEY SEE IT. MY WIFE ENCOUNTERED THIS IN THE YEAR 2000 SIMPLY BY HAVING STUMBLING AND FALLING BACKWARDS THAT I THOUGHT SHE HAD STUMBLED OR TRIPPED, BUT SHE DIDN'T. SHE LITERALLY LOSES HER BALANCE AND FALLS BACKWARDS.

LATER ON SHE STARTED HAVING SIGHT PROBLEMS WHERE SHE SAID I'M SEEING DOUBLE VISION DRIVING THE CAR. SO WE WITHDREW WITH THAT AND WENT FOR A NEW PAIR OF GLASSES AND AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST STUDY. SHE SAID LATER I DON'T SEE ANY BETTER THAN I DID BEFORE, SO WE HAD HER REEXAMINED. HER GLASSES ARE FINE. HER EYES WERE 20/20. THEY ASKED, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG. NEVER DID WE REALIZE THAT IT WAS THE MOTOR NERVES FROM THE NEUROLOGICAL END OF IT CONTROLLING HER EYEBALL MOVEMENTS. SHE CAN'T SEE FORWARD. NOW SHE CAN'T EVEN SEE HER PLATE TO EAT HER DINNER BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST LIKE LOCKED. THAT'S ONE OF THE MANY FACETS.

FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD NOW SHE'S UNABLE TO SPEAK. SHE DOESN'T COMMUNICATE AT ALL OTHER THAN A GROAN HERE OR SOMETHING THAT SHE TRIES TO SAY. SHE HAS DIFFICULTY EATING BECAUSE SHE CAN'T SEE HER PLATE. HER HAND COORDINATION IS SHOT. SHE CAN'T FIND HOW TO PUT FOOD IN HER MOUTH. THE MOTOR MOVEMENTS OF HER MOUTH ARE ALMOST LOCKING DOWN. SHE CAN'T SWALLOW WITHOUT CHOKING.

SO WE'RE JUST ON THE EDGE OF THE FIFTH YEAR.

SHE CAN'T DRESS OR BATHE HERSELF WITHOUT ASSISTANCE. AND SHE'S WHEELCHAIR BOUND FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. HER MIND IS CLEAR AS A BELL. IN THE VARIOUS WAYS THAT SHE AND I COMMUNICATE BY HAND SIGNALS LIKE ONE IS YES, TWO IS NO. I KNOW THAT SHE THINKS BETTER THAN I DO AT TIMES. I WAS WORKING A CROSSWORD PUZZLE THE OTHER NIGHT AND I CAME UP WITH A WORD LIKE I HAVE A NAME SMASHING SOMETHING. SMASHING WHAT? AND SHE SAID PUMPKIN. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SMASHING PUMPKINS ARE.

MAYBE YOU DO, BUT I NEVER HEARD IT. IT'S A BROADBAND.

HER MIND IS CLEAR AS A BELL. AND IN LOOKING BACK AT THIS, I WAS THINKING THE OTHER DAY, A FEW MONTHS AGO WHEN I HAD A PHYSICAL, GETTING AN MRI FOR MY BACK, IF YOU CAN ENVISION YOURSELF LAYING IN AN MRI TUNNEL, YOU KNOW YOU CAN TALK TO THE PERSON OUTSIDE, YOU DON'T SEE ANYBODY, BUT YOU'RE TRAPPED IN A TUBE. IT'S LIKE BEING IN A PADDED CELL AND YOU'RE DYING. YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OF WHATEVER.

THIS IS PSP. IT'S HORRIBLE. AND THE POINT IS, THE REASON I'M HERE, I REALIZE THIS IS WAY DOWN THE ROAD, BUT OUR HOPES AND PRAYERS ARE WITH YOU FOR THE STEM CELL RESEARCH TO BE ABLE TO OPEN A DOOR THAT IN TURN WILL CURE DIABETES AND DR. PHYLLIS AND OTHERS AND THESE HORRIBLE DISEASES THAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO. EVERY DAY I HEAR OF SOMEBODY'S DISEASE I NEVER KNEW EXISTED. I'M SURE THERE ARE HUNDREDS OUT THERE.

SO MY GOAL TODAY IS JUST TO DRAW AWARENESS TO PSP AND WHAT IT REPRESENTS. AND THE NUMBERS ARE ONE IN A HUNDRED THOUSAND, THEY SAY. THEY DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE MISS IT. IT'S JUST COMPLETELY SHOTGUN APPROACH TO WONDERING WHAT DOES PSP DO, EXCEPT WE KNOW IT'S SHORT.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME WE'VE GOT LEFT. WE'RE PLUGGED INTO THE BEST NEUROLOGIST AVAILABLE AT THE MOMENT, BUT THERE'S NO TREATMENT. THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE IT COMES FROM. SO WE'RE AT THE MERCY OF HOPING THAT STEM CELL OPENS THOSE DOORS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU FOR A MOMENT, SPEAKING TO PEOPLE THAT DID RESPOND TO MY LETTER WONDERING WHO WAS THIS MASKED MAN FROM THE VALLEY. PARTICULARLY DR. PHYLLIS I SPOKE TO SEVERAL TIMES ON THE PHONE. BUT THE GENTLEMEN LIKE DAVID SEWELL AND MICHAEL GOLDBERG, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ANSWERING MY LETTERS. I LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING AMY DALY. I MET HER EARLIER. I APPRECIATE HER EFFORT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, MELISSA, GREAT.

THANK YOU. SO I'M VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE FEW HOURS I'VE SPENT WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON AND THE ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR YOU, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PRECIADO, AFTER THE ELOQUENT STATEMENT, WHICH WE THANK YOU FOR, IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW, BUT, DR. PRECIADO, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

DR. PRECIADO: I WON'T BE ABLE TO FOLLOW. IT ACTUALLY FOLLOWS IN A WAY. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF PATIENT EDUCATION IN GETTING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND EDUCATING THE COMMUNITY ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH, AND ABOUT DISEASES LIKE MR. O'RORKE SPOKE OF.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A LOT ON OUR PLATE IN THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD TO GET THE SITE AND THE PRESIDENT AND THE GRANTS, ETC.

I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AGENDIZING THIS ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR JUNE AND THAT WE REALLY SPEND SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT PATIENT EDUCATION AND FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT WE CAN REALLY GIVE TO THE PEOPLE IN A MANNER THAT THEY DESERVE. I DO NOT WANT TO CONTINUE IN THE MANNER THAT WE'RE CONTINUING WITHOUT ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE. I JUST NEEDED TO SAY THAT.

CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE JUNE AGENDA AND SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT. ANY OTHER BOARD COMMENTS BEFORE WE ADJOURN?

I THANK THE BOARD. IT IS WITH DEEPEST RESPECT FOR THE TIME AND COMMITMENT TO BE HERE FOR THIS MEETING AND FOR YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMMITMENTS, WE CLOSE THIS SESSION.

(APPLAUSE.)

(THE MEETING WAS THEN ADJOURNED AT 05:41 P.M.)