State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 6/4/07
This is an uncertified HTML copy of the transcript. 
Click here for a certified PDF transcript.
California State Stem Cell Agency
Meeting 06-04-07
|
||||||||||
| LOCATION: |
|
|||||||||
| DATE: |
|
|||||||||
| REPORTER: |
|
|||||||||
| BRS FILE NO.: |
|
|||||||||
| LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2007 | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: GIVEN THAT THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR HAVE OTHER COMMITMENTS, I'M GOING TO CHAIR TODAY UNDER THE ABLE DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE OF MY COLLEAGUE JEFF SHEEHY AND STUART LAFF AND JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||||
| THE FORMAT TODAY WILL BE TO BEGIN WITH TWO PRESENTATIONS, ONE FROM USC AND ONE FROM UCLA, AND THEN GO INTO A DISCUSSION OF POLICIES, RULES, AND DEFINITIONS TO SEE IF WE CAN PUSH THE STATE OF THE ART DOWNSTREAM TO WHERE THERE'S GREATER CLARITY ON WHAT THE POTENTIAL POLICIES, RULES, AND DEFINITIONS WILL BE. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS AN ADVISORY GROUP, AND WE ARE IN AN INFORMATIONAL STAGE. SO THIS IS A DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT OF THESE POLICIES, RULES, AND DEFINITIONS. AND WE HAVE PART OF THE COMMITTEE HERE TO MOVE THAT DISCUSSION DOWNSTREAM AND TO GET INPUT FROM THE AUDIENCE. WE WON'T BE MAKING ANY DECISIONS ON THOSE CRITERIA UNTIL WE GET DOWN TO THE END OF THIS PROCESS AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET INTO IT FROM ACROSS THE STATE. BUT YOUR INPUT IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT IN REFINING THESE IDEAS AS WELL AS THE REAL-TIME DISCUSSION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES GROUP THAT ARE HERE TODAY. | ||||||||||
| SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO START. IF DR. MARTIN PERA, IF YOU AND YOUR TEAM ARE READY, I REMIND YOU THAT IT'S BASICALLY A TEN-MINUTE PRESENTATION, AND THEN THE COMMITTEE IN LIGHT OF NEW INFORMATION MIGHT EXTEND THAT TIME AT ITS DISCRETION. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS AT THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION. | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: THANK YOU, MR. KLEIN, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME ALONG AND ADDRESS THIS GROUP TODAY. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW WHAT OUR PLANS ARE AT USC. AND TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE, WE'VE INCLUDED SOME INFORMATION AT THE BACK OF YOUR HANDOUT ON OUR SPECIFIC PROGRAM. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS SPEAK MORE TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE THINK THE RFA SHOULD REFLECT. AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A NUMBER OF POINTS. | ||||||||||
| THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THIS MAJOR FACILITIES PROGRAM REALLY PROVIDES A SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE AN INTERDISCIPLINARY WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR SCIENTISTS WHO WORK IN BASIC STEM CELL BIOLOGY, TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH, AND BIOENGINEERING. WE THINK THAT ALL THREE OF THESE AREAS ARE REALLY ESSENTIAL TO THE REALIZATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN, BUT WE'RE GOING TO FAIL IF EACH ARM OF THE PROGRAM DEVELOPS IN ISOLATION. SUCH INTERDISCIPLINARY WORKING ENVIRONMENTS REALLY DON'T EXIST AT THE PRESENT, AND CLOSE COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN THESE GROUPS OF RESEARCHERS IS ESSENTIAL TO REALIZE THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN. | ||||||||||
| AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WHEN I SAY CLOSE COMMUNICATION, I REALLY MEAN PHYSICAL PROXIMITY, WORKING CLOSELY TOGETHER UNDER THE SAME ROOF. IT'S AMAZING HOW MUCH OF A BARRIER A TEN- OR TWENTY-MINUTE DRIVE CAN BE. | ||||||||||
| SECONDLY, I THINK A KEY GOAL OF THE MAJOR FACILITIES PROGRAM SHOULD BE TO CREATE A WORKING ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL ATTRACT NEW FACULTY AND PARTICULARLY YOUNG SCIENTISTS AND PHYSICIANS FROM OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA. SO DEVELOPMENT OF CURES FROM STEM CELLS WILL ULTIMATELY RELY NOT ONLY ON SENIOR ESTABLISHED INVESTIGATORS, BUT ALSO ON OUTSTANDING YOUNG FACULTY WHO ARE GOING TO MAKE THE DISCOVERIES THAT SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE FIELD. | ||||||||||
| CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE YOUNG FACULTIES IS A KEY GOAL FOR THE CIRM STRATEGIC PLAN. AND WHILE WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT WHILE CIRM'S INITIATIVE WAS THE FIRST OF ITS KIND AND REMAINS UNIQUE IN SOME RESPECTS, THERE'S NOW PLENTY OF COMPETITION AROUND THE WORLD TO ATTRACT THE MOST PROMISING RESEARCHERS. OUTSTANDING LABORATORIES ARE A REAL DRAW. SO YOUNG SCIENTISTS ALSO NEED TO FEEL THAT THERE'S SPACE AND SUPPORT TO DEVELOP THE RESEARCH PROGRAMS INTO THE FUTURE. | ||||||||||
| NOW, FROM THIS POINT, IT FOLLOWS ON THAT THE MAJOR FACILITIES PROGRAM REALLY SHOULD SUPPORT DEVELOPMENTS NOT ONLY AT THOSE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTIONS WITH EXISTING STRENGTHS IN STEM CELL RESEARCH, BUT ALSO THOSE INSTITUTIONS WITH A DEMONSTRATED COMMITMENT TO BUILDING FUTURE STRENGTH IN REGENERATIVE MEDICINE. SO THE CIRM INITIATIVE AIMS NOT JUST TO MAINTAIN, BUT ALSO TO EXPAND CAPABILITIES IN REGENERATIVE MEDICINE ACROSS THE STATE AND PROVISION OF RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES IMPORTANT TO REALIZING THIS GOAL OF EXPANDED CAPABILITIES. | ||||||||||
| THE MAJOR FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING SHOULD SEEK TO LEVERAGE REGIONAL INITIATIVES AND CONSORTIA THAT EXTEND BEYOND SINGLE INSTITUTIONS. SO THIS IS VERY MUCH PART OF OUR CONCEPT. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE AVAILABLE FUNDS DO NOT PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR FACILITIES AT EVERY INSTITUTION IN THE STATE WITH CAPABILITIES IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. A MODEL THAT COULD WORK IS THAT THE MAJOR FACILITIES PROGRAM COULD SUPPORT A HUB FOR RESEARCH WITH REGIONAL PARTICIPANTS HAVING ACCESS TO THE HUB WHILST CONTRIBUTING THE FACILITIES AND EXPERTISE INTO A CONSORTIA. THERE ARE MANY MERITORIOUS PROGRAMS THAT WILL NOT COMPETE FOR MAJOR FACILITIES THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM ACCESS TO A FACILITY IN ANOTHER INSTITUTION THROUGH ACCESS TO TRAINING, CORE LABORATORIES, INTERACTION WITH TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH TEAMS, AND EVEN EMBEDDING OF THESE FACULTIES IN THE HUB FACILITY. | ||||||||||
| THE MAJOR FACILITIES PROGRAM SHOULD ALSO PROVIDE SPACE AND STRUCTURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. THE PROGRAM SHOULD PLACE A HIGH PRIORITY ON THE INTEGRATION OF BASIC AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH. IT'S IMPORTANT, THEREFORE, THAT THE FACILITIES BE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH CENTERS OF CLINICAL EXCELLENCE WITH ESTABLISHED TRACK RECORDS. THE FACILITIES SHOULD ENABLE RESEARCHERS WITH JOINT APPOINTMENTS IN CLINICAL AND BASIC SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TO WORK CLOSELY TOGETHER, AND CONVERTING BASIC DISCOVERIES IN THE PLATFORM TECHNOLOGIES THAT PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR DISEASE TREATMENTS IS, OF COURSE, A MAJOR FOCUS OF CIRM'S STRATEGIC PLAN. | ||||||||||
| THE MAJOR FACILITIES PROGRAM SHOULD ALSO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH LABORATORIES THAT WILL ACT AS A MAGNET FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT AND COLLABORATION. WITHOUT PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT, THE PATH TOWARDS APPLICATION WILL BE SLOWER AND, MOREOVER, ECONOMIC BENEFIT IS A KEY COMPONENT OF THE CIRM STRATEGIC PLAN. THE FACILITIES PROGRAM SHOULD HELP FOSTER BIOTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, NOT ONLY IN REGIONS OF CALIFORNIA THAT CURRENTLY HAVE EXTENSIVE BIOTECHNOLOGY ACTIVITY, BUT ALSO IN THOSE REGIONS WHERE THE POTENTIAL FOR EXPANSION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY EXISTS. WITH CELLULAR THERAPIES IN PARTICULAR I WOULD SAY THE PROXIMITY OF BIOTECHNOLOGY TO CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS WILL BE PARTICULARLY CRITICAL. | ||||||||||
| FINALLY, THE MAJOR FACILITIES SHOULD CONTAIN CORE LABORATORIES THAT PROVIDE THE ESSENTIAL SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCHERS REQUIRE FOR THEIR WORK. THESE CORE LABORATORIES WOULD INCLUDE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY BE LIMITED TO, STEM CELL CULTURE CORES, FLOW CYTOMETRY CORES, CELL AND ANIMAL IMAGING, HIGH THROUGHPUT CHEMICAL SCREENING, AND VIVARIA. | ||||||||||
| THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR DR. PERA? I'D LIKE TO ASK DR. PERA. IT SAYS THE MAJOR FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING SHOULD SEEK TO LEVERAGE REGIONAL INITIATIVES AND CONSORTIA THAT EXTEND BEYOND SINGLE INSTITUTIONS. AND IN YOUR WRITE-UP YOU REFERENCE FORMAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH USC, CHILDREN'S, AND CALTECH, AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT USC CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE. | ||||||||||
| WITH USC, CHILDREN'S, AND CALTECH, WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE FORMAL RELATIONSHIP? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: WELL, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL HAS LONG BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. MANY OF THEIR FACULTY HAVE APPOINTMENTS IN OUR SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, AND WE'VE WORKED WITH THEM BOTH IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING RESEARCH PROGRAMS, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF OUR CIRM-FUNDED TRAINING GRANT. THE SAME IS TRUE OF CALTECH. AT CALTECH WE ALSO HAVE ONE ARM OF OUR CIRM TRAINING GRANT, AND MOST PROBABLY CALTECH ITSELF WILL NOT DEVELOP ITS OWN STEM CELL CORE, BUT WILL PROBABLY RELY ON US. I THINK A GOOD AND IMPORTANT PART OF THE CALTECH RELATIONSHIP IS THAT IT ALLOWS BASIC RESEARCHERS FROM THAT INSTITUTION TO BE INTEGRATED MORE INTO THE TRANSLATIONAL SIDE OF RESEARCH THAT WOULD GO ON IN OUR CENTER. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND IT SAYS ON PAGE 4 OF 4 OF YOUR HANDOUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO PROVIDE LABORATORY SPACE FOR THREE TO FIVE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS OF PARTNERING CONSORTIA INSTITUTIONS. NOW, THREE TO FIVE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS, DOES THAT MEAN INCLUDING EIGHT TO TEN JUNIOR INVESTIGATORS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THE PRINCIPALS, OR IS IT JUST THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: NO. NO. IT WOULD BE A PLACE FOR ASSOCIATES AS WELL. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: FOR THE ASSOCIATES AS WELL. AND SO FOR A FIVE-YEAR TERM, THERE WILL BE A FORMAL SPACE SET ASIDE TO INTEGRATE THESE PARTNERS? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: YES. THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE'RE DEVELOPING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OF THESE VARIOUS GROUPS AT THE MOMENT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND WHAT IS THE CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTE AT USC GENERAL CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTER? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: SO THIS IS FOCUSED ON CLINICAL TRIALS ACROSS RANDOM SPECIALTIES THAT WILL BE APPLYING FOR NEW NIH FUNDING FOR THAT CENTER. WE THINK THAT ULTIMATELY REGENERATIVE MEDICINE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THEIR ACTIVITIES. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? EVIDENTLY NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. | ||||||||||
| DR. OWEN WITTE. | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: GOOD AFTERNOON. I HOPE I CAN COMPETE WITH THE WEDDING CEREMONY OR WHATEVER IS GOING ON NEXT DOOR. IN LISTENING TO MARTIN PERA'S DESCRIPTION AND KNOWING THAT YOU'VE ALREADY HAD SOME TESTIMONY FROM OTHER SCIENTISTS, LIKE MY GOOD FRIEND IRV WEISSMAN, I THOUGHT I'D DO US ALL A FAVOR AND NOT GO OVER EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN COVERED MULTIPLE TIMES ALREADY, BUT TRY TO HIT WHAT I THINK ARE THE REALLY CRUCIAL POINTS. I'LL KEEP SPEAKING LOUDER AND LOUDER TO MAKE SURE I GET OVER THIS. | ||||||||||
| I'VE BEEN A BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHER FOR SOMETHING OVER 30 YEARS; AND I THINK IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THIS MONEY WISELY TO BUILD NEW FACILITIES, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY COME TO GRIPS WITH THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE PARADIGMS THAT WE USE TO BUILD BUILDINGS UP UNTIL JUST ABOUT NOW SIMPLY AREN'T GOING TO WORK. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RETHINK HOW WE DO BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH BECAUSE WE HAVE TO INTEGRATE THINGS THAT PREVIOUSLY WERE REALLY QUITE DISPARATE AND SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER. | ||||||||||
| WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE. WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GROW EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS AND THEIR PROGENY, GROW THEM AT A SCALE COMMENSURATE WITH USING THEM IN CLINICAL THERAPY, AND LEARN FROM THOSE CLINICAL TERMS HOW TO DO THOSE EXPERIMENTS BETTER, SO THAT MEANS FACILITIES ALL THE WAY FROM THE VERY BASIC ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PINNACLE OF LIFE. | ||||||||||
| SECOND, WE WANT TO USE THESE CELLS TO MAKE MODELS OF DISEASE SO THAT WE CAN DO BETTER SCIENCE EARLIER IN THE COURSE OF THIS AND DEVISE BETTER THERAPIES. THOSE ARE THE GOALS. | ||||||||||
| WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING ASPECT OF IT IS THAT THE WAY WE ANSWER QUESTIONS NOW HAS TO INTEGRATE PEOPLE FROM SUCH A BROAD RANGE OF DISCIPLINES, AND SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT I'LL ACTUALLY BE TALKING TO ABOUT TOMORROW MORNING AT THE FULL ICOC MEETING IN WHICH I'LL PRESENT WITH JUDY GASSON ON CANCER AND CANCER STEM CELLS, WE NOW HAVE CHEMISTS, ENGINEERS, PHYSICISTS, FUNDAMENTAL MATHEMATICIANS, COMPUTATIONAL SCIENTISTS, ETC., ALL INTEGRATED TOGETHER INTO THESE PROJECTS. | ||||||||||
| HOW CAN YOU BUILD A FACILITY OR FACILITIES THAT CAN SPEAK TO THIS LEVEL OF ISSUE, THIS LEVEL OF PROBLEM? I THINK THE WAY TO DO IT IS TO THINK ABOUT THEM AS TECHNOLOGY CENTERS IN WHICH DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES MAY NEED TO BE REPLACING ONE OR ANOTHER OVER TIME. SO THE SPACE NEEDS TO FLEXIBLE, AND IT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT FROM PHYSICAL SCIENCES AS WELL AS BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES. DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CLOSE TOGETHER, BUT A CERTAIN CRITICAL MASS, NOT JUST TO PROVIDE TECHNOLOGY, BUT TO ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY. I CAN'T MAKE THIS POINT MORE STRONGLY. I WISH I COULD MAKE IT MORE STRONGLY, WHICH IS THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT NOT JUST PROVIDING A SERVICE OF SCIENCE, BUT CREATING NEW SCIENCE WITH THESE TECHNOLOGIES IN SITU, AND THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN SIMPLY A CONSUMER PURCHASE OF SERVICES. IT'S MAKING NEW SCIENCE, NOT JUST PROVIDING IT. | ||||||||||
| SO THERE'S LOTS OF QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE, SUCH AS CONTROLLING HOW THE GENOME IS REMODELED, HOW TO THINK ABOUT GRAFT REJECTION, QUESTIONS ABOUT USING IMAGING SCIENCES TO FOLLOW THESE THINGS, BUT ALL OF THEM HAVE TO COME FROM THE SAME KIND OF INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU USE WHETHER IT'S IN THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY OR IN ANY OTHER INDUSTRY IS THAT TECHNOLOGY CHANGES. | ||||||||||
| SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT UCLA IS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOME NEWLY OPENED SPACE THAT'S COMING AVAILABLE DUE TO THE MACRO CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING WITH THE OPENING OF A NEW HOSPITAL AND SEVERAL NEW RESEARCH BUILDINGS TO BUILD A CONCERTED CORE OF TECHNOLOGY CENTERS WHICH WILL GO FROM HUMAN ES WORK, COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCES, PHYSICAL SCIENCES SUCH AS MICROFLUIDICS AND PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY TO BUILD NEW MOLECULES WE NEED ALL WITHIN A CONCERTED SPACE. I THINK THIS WILL BE AN INTERESTING EXPERIMENT BECAUSE IT WILL DRAW PEOPLE FROM OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CAMPUS AND OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CITY. WE TOO HAVE VERY STRONG INTERACTIONS WITH CALTECH AND OTHER UNIVERSITIES IN THE AREA. WE'RE FORMING TRAINING PROGRAMS WITH CALTECH. ALTHOUGH IT IS A BIT OF A DRIVE TO GET ACROSS FROM PASADENA TO WEST LOS ANGELES, PEOPLE ARE DOING IT BECAUSE THE INTEREST IS SO HIGH. | ||||||||||
| FINALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT WE'VE GOT ABOUT A TEN-YEAR WINDOW TO ACCOMPLISH A LOT. AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT SPACES AND PLACES THAT CAN BE RENOVATED OR BUILT QUICKLY SO THAT WE'RE NOT FIVE YEARS INTO A BUILDING PROJECT AND FIVE YEARS OF THE MONEY IS SPENT. I THINK ONE SHOULD LOOK QUICKLY AT THOSE SPACES THAT CAN BE DONE EITHER QUICKLY OR IN STAGES TO ADD VALUE TO THE SCIENCE NOW RATHER THAN VERY, VERY ELABORATE THINGS THAT MAY TAKE MANY YEARS TO COMPLETE. | ||||||||||
| FINALLY, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS REALLY HARD TO EXPLAIN. THERE'S AN INTEGRAL FUNCTION FOR TEACHING THAT HAS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THESE TECHNOLOGY CENTERS AND JOINT INTERDISCIPLINARY LABORATORIES. IT WILL DO US NO GOOD AT ALL IF WE SIMPLY ESTABLISH A PLACE TO BUILD MACHINES AND PROVIDE TECHNOLOGY IF WE DON'T TRAIN THE NEXT GENERATION OF SCIENTISTS. I WAS ENCOURAGED THAT THE VERY FIRST GRANTS THAT CIRM GAVE OUT WERE FOR TRAINING, AND IT'S HAD A BIG IMPACT ON OUR CAMPUS, I CAN TELL YOU. | ||||||||||
| SO THOSE STUDENTS AND FELLOWS AND CLINICAL FELLOWS NEED TO BE A PART OF THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN JUST GOING THERE AGAIN AS IF IT'S A SUPERMARKET IN WHICH YOU BUY SERVICE. YOU DEVELOP NEW TECHNOLOGY. THAT'S WHAT ADVANCES SCIENCE. | ||||||||||
| SO I'LL STOP HERE AND JUST LET STEVE OLSON, VICE CHANCELLOR OF CAPITAL PROGRAMS, IF WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES, JUST TO ADD A COUPLE OF POINTS ON THE CAMPUS COMMITMENT TO STEM CELLS. I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS NOW OR TAKE QUESTIONS LATER, WHATEVER YOU LIKE. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WHY WE DON'T LET STEVE MAKE HIS PRESENTATION AND DO IT TOGETHER. | ||||||||||
| DR. OLSON: THANK YOU. I CAN BE VERY BRIEF, JUST A FEW ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN COVERED SO FAR. EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING SEPARATE GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO THE FACILITIES GRANT APPLICATION, I REALLY WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER ALSO BROADER MEASURES OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT FROM A PROGRAMMATIC SENSE. I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT WITH RESPECT TO WHAT INSTITUTIONS HAVE DONE IN TERMS OF FACULTY COMMITMENT, OPERATING SUPPORT, AND OTHER PROGRAMMATIC SUPPORT FROM AN INTERDISCIPLINARY STANDPOINT. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING YOU SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. | ||||||||||
| AS WELL, UCLA HAS AN ESTABLISHED PROGRAM THAT INVOLVES COMMITMENTS OF FACULTY AND OPERATING SUPPORT AS WELL AS CONNECTIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, ACADEMIC UNITS ON CAMPUS THAT CONTRIBUTE TOWARD A FOCUS ON STEM CELL RESEARCH. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. | ||||||||||
| ALSO WITH RESPECT TO -- I WHOLEHEARTEDLY ENDORSE THE VIEWS THAT THE PRIMARY FOCUS REALLY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT INTERDISCIPLINARY TECHNOLOGY CENTERS OR CORE LABORATORIES. I THINK THAT REALLY SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY FOCUS RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT'S SIMPLY BUILDING THE CAPACITY FOR INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATORS TO EXPAND INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH PORTFOLIOS. | ||||||||||
| A KEY PART OF THAT REALLY HAS TO BE GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY. OUR EXPERIENCE AT UCLA, AS VALUABLE AS THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS WILL BE, I BELIEVE THE NATURE OF THE ACADEMIC ENTERPRISE, AT LEAST IN MY NONACADEMIC EXPERIENCE, HAS BEEN THAT A FIVE- TO TEN-MINUTE WALK IS SOMETIMES A BOUNDARY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO ESTABLISH WELL-ROUNDED INTERDISCIPLINARY RELATIONSHIPS. FOR THIS REASON, AT UCLA WHEN WE HAVE MADE MAJOR INVESTMENTS IN THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES, WE HAVE ALWAYS LOOKED FOR THINGS THAT ARE LOCATED CLOSE TO THE GEOGRAPHIC CENTER OF THE SCIENCES TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN. | ||||||||||
| A RECENT EXAMPLE OF THAT IS OUR NEWLY OPENED CALIFORNIA NANOSYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON THE COURT OF THE SCIENCES, WHICH WAS LOCATED DIRECTLY AMIDST THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING, BIOENGINEERING, AND THE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND THE LIFE SCIENCES. AND THAT REALLY HAS PROVED TO BE AND I BELIEVE WILL PROVE TO BE AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF FOSTERING INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH. | ||||||||||
| SO I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK JUST AT THE LOCATION OF THE FACILITY AND SEE WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE INSTITUTION REQUESTING A MAJOR INVESTMENT OF STATE RESOURCES. | ||||||||||
| ANY QUESTIONS? | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR EITHER DR. WITTE OR DR. OLSON? | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THESE MEETINGS ARE KIND OF CRASHING TOGETHER. I DO THINK -- AND ACTUALLY THIS CAN PROBABLY GO TO BOTH SPEAKERS. THE FIRST TWO INSTITUTIONS WE HEARD FROM, YOU KNOW, REALLY SEEM TO SUGGEST VERY STRONGLY THAT WE PUT A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON TRACK RECORD. THEY HAD A VERY GOOD TRACK. THAT WAS UCSF AND STANFORD. | ||||||||||
| I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS AS WE START TO DRAFT THIS RFA. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT QUITE CLICKING YET. THESE MEETINGS START BACKING UP ONE AFTER ANOTHER. EVEN DR. PERA WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT. YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE STRIKE THAT BALANCE BETWEEN GETTING PEOPLE WHO HAVE VERY WELL-ESTABLISHED RECORDS OF EXCELLENCE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE DIVERSIFY, THAT WE, YOU KNOW, TRY TO SQUEEZE AS MUCH CAPABILITY -- CREATE AS MUCH CAPABILITY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS POSSIBLE. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT. THE MORE TECHNICAL AND PRAGMATIC WAYS THAT WE CAN GET TO THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE WE REALLY ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DRAW AN RFA FOR THIS. | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: I KNOW WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT YOU HAVE TO GO ON QUALITY AND TRACK RECORD AS A BIG PORTION OF THAT. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE IMPORTANT SCIENCE ARE LIKELY TO DO MORE IMPORTANT SCIENCE WHETHER THEY WERE IN THIS PARTICULAR FIELD OR COMING FROM ANOTHER. IT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR INDICATORS THAT SHOULD BE USED TO TAKE A BET ON WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO SPEND YOUR MONEY. | ||||||||||
| ON THE OTHER HAND, CALIFORNIA IS A BIG PLACE, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND A LOT OF PLACES OF REAL QUALITY. IF YOU LOOK AT ANY OF THE COMPETITIONS YOU'VE HAD SO FAR, IT'S NOT ALL EQUAL. IT'S NOT ALL IN THE BAY AREA. I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF GOOD SCIENCE SOUTH OF SAN FRANCISCO, INCLUDING HERE IN LOS ANGELES. WE'D BE HAPPY TO COMPETE ON ANY OF THE LEVELS WITH ANY OF THE INSTITUTIONS, AND SO FAR WE SEEM TO BE DOING OKAY. | ||||||||||
| THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT IF THAT METRIC ISN'T THE ONLY METRIC, THERE'S OTHER THINGS YOU SHOULD LOOK TO, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, SOME OF THE THINGS STEVE TALKED ABOUT. RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE BASE BECAUSE THIS MONEY IS AN INVESTMENT, AND WE USUALLY LIKE TO HAVE CO-INVESTMENT SUCH AS ANCILLARY FACILITIES, OTHER MONIES, OTHER SOURCES OF SUPPORT, WHETHER IT BE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, TO REDOUBLE THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE IN THESE FACILITIES. I THINK A PLACE LIKE UCLA, USC, AND OTHERS CAN STRONGLY COMPETE IN THAT ARENA AS WELL. | ||||||||||
| SO I DEFINITELY DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A FEW CITADELS ESTABLISHED. I THINK IT SHOULD BE SPREAD OUT A BIT MORE, AND EACH OF THE INSTITUTIONS SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE -- I FORGET WHAT THE FORMAL NUMBER IS -- 20 PERCENT, BUT I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT MOST OF THE STRONG INSTITUTIONS WILL BE CONTRIBUTING CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN THAT TO EACH OF THE ENDEAVORS FOR WHICH WE COMPETE. | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: I'D ENDORSE WHAT OWEN HAS JUST SAID. I'LL ALSO SAY THAT OUR EFFORT, FRANKLY, IS A NEW EFFORT AND A DEVELOPING ONE. AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE TRACK RECORD IN ATTRACTING NEW INVESTIGATORS, THE QUALITY OF NEW INVESTIGATORS, THE COMMITMENT OF THE INSTITUTION, ETC. TAKE THOSE THINGS INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL WHEN YOU CARRY OUT THESE ASSESSMENTS. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WE KIND OF BROACHED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING. WHAT'S THAT METRIC? AND WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S FAIR FOR BOTH THE BIG INSTITUTION AND SMALL INSTITUTION, BUT OBVIOUSLY HOW DO WE ASK FOR AND THEN HOW DO WE DETERMINE THAT THERE'S BEEN A REAL COMMITMENT TO BRING -- THIS CAME UP BEFORE FOR US. OUR RATE LIMITING FACTOR IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE AVAILABLE INVESTIGATORS IN INSTITUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA WHO ARE CAPABLE OF DOING SUPERB SCIENCE IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. AND SO THE MORE THAT THIS PROCESS CAN ADDRESS THAT LOOMING BARRIER THE BETTER. | ||||||||||
| BUT REALLY, HOW DO WE WRITE THAT? HOW DO WE ASK FOR THAT? HOW DO WE MEASURE THAT? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: SO I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO LOOK AT THE TRACK RECORD OF THE INSTITUTION IN ATTRACTING NEW INVESTIGATORS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND QUALITY OF NEW INVESTIGATORS, ASSESSING THEM IN THE SAME WAY YOU WOULD ASSESS ANYONE ELSE. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT IN SOME WAY WE COULD BE ASKING FOR FUTURE. OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR INSTANCE YOU GUYS HAVE DONE -- YOU'RE HERE, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT BY YOUR INSTITUTION. AND I SEE IN HERE YOU TALK ABOUT RECRUITING. SHOULD WE ASK SPECIFICALLY WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: ABSOLUTELY. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: HOW MANY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS? WHAT LEVEL? HOW MANY JUNIOR INVESTIGATORS? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: I'D ASK WHAT THE HARD COMMITMENTS ARE. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: JUST A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH. FOR SMALLER PLACES THAT MAY HAVE A NIDUS, SORT OF A SMALL BRAIN TRUST FOR SOME SPECIFIC AREA OF RESEARCH, WOULD THERE BE A BENEFIT IN CRAFTING AN RFA AROUND A MORE CONFINED TOPIC OR A SMALLER TOPIC? WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE LARGER CENTERS HAVING WELL-INTEGRATED PROGRAMS, BRINGING IN ALL OF THE RELEVANT SCIENTISTS, PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, ETC., BUT WOULD THERE BE SOME ADVANTAGE TO GIVING A LEG UP TO SMALLER PLACES THAT PERHAPS HAVE A FEW PEOPLE OR A SMALL GROUP? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: TO MY WAY OF THINKING, IF YOU HAVE A SMALL GROUP OF INVESTIGATORS THAT BRILLIANTLY FILL AN IMPORTANT NICHE, SURE. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: WE NEED ADVICE ON HOW TO GET THAT. | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: YOU CAN'T ARGUE AGAINST BRILLIANCE. I THINK ONCE YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS BUILDING SOMETHING, AND ONCE IT'S BUILT, IT'S GOING TO STAY THERE. SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BRICKS AND MORTAR, I THINK IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN MANY OF THE OTHER RFA'S THAT MIGHT BE COMING OUT ON DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC ISSUES, TRAINING ISSUES, IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES, ENGINEERING ISSUES, AND SO ON WHERE SOMEBODY HAS A SPECIFIC TASK TO DO. AN RFA CAN BE DEDICATED TO ONE OR ANOTHER. | ||||||||||
| I'M TALKING ABOUT LEAVING IN PLACE BRICKS AND MORTAR, EDIFICES, IF YOU WILL, OR RENOVATIONS, AND I THINK YOU WANT TO BET ON THE PLACES THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY CAN DO THIS KIND OF INTERDISCIPLINARY WORK AND CARRY IT FORWARD TO WHAT I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS CARRY IT FORWARD INTO THE CLINIC. I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE GREAT BARRIER IS HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF BASIC SCIENCE TO DO, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO GET OVER THIS HUMP AND TRY TO BRING SOME OF THIS TO FRUITION TO TREAT DISEASES. I THINK THAT'S NOT ABLE TO BE DONE AT LOTS OF PLACES; BUT IF YOU HAVE A GREAT SMALL PLACE WITH A VERY DEDICATED COMMITMENT, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE DONE IN PROPORTION TO THAT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THE BACKGROUND I STARTED WITH BEFORE GOING TO LAW SCHOOL WAS IN HISTORY. SO YOU LOOK BACK TO HISTORY OFTEN FOR SOME INDICATION OF HOW WE GO IN THE FUTURE. AND IF I LOOK BACK TO 1977-78 AT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIRST PRODUCT FROM RECOMBINANT DNA BEING ARTIFICIAL HUMAN INSULIN, IT'S UC SAN FRANCISCO AND CITY OF HOPE IN A COLLABORATION. | ||||||||||
| NOW, ON A HISTORICAL BASIS, DID THE CITY OF HOPE HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL TRACK RECORD, OR WERE THEY AN AGGREGATION OF SOME BRILLIANT YOUNG INVESTIGATORS PULLED TOGETHER IN A COLLABORATION WITH A MORE ESTABLISHED INSTITUTION? | ||||||||||
| IF I LOOK AT UCLA, I SEE A TRANSLATIONAL HISTORY WITH HERCEPTIN AND A DEVELOPMENT IN DR. SLAMON'S LAB REPORTED GENENTECH WOULD PICK IT UP. IT WAS A VERY EXTENDED DEVELOPMENT CYCLE BEFORE GENENTECH FELT THAT IT WAS A VIABLE PRODUCT. | ||||||||||
| SO THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THIS. ONE IS IS PART OF OUR RELEVANT TRACK RECORD THAT WE NEED NOT JUST PUBLISHED PAPERS, BUT A HISTORY OF WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE AND ACTUAL DELIVERY OF NEW MEDICAL THERAPIES, WHETHER AT THE CURRENT INSTITUTION OR IN PREVIOUS INSTITUTIONS THAT HAD THE LEADERSHIPS OF THESE GROUPS? AND MAYBE I SHOULD STOP THERE AND ASK THAT QUESTION. | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: YOU'RE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR IN THIS CASE BECAUSE I REALLY BELIEVE THAT'S ONE OF THE STRENGTHS THAT WE HAVE AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS AS WELL, BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE INDIVIDUALS. IT'S NOT JUST AN ASSIGNMENT OR OWEN WITTE OR ANYONE ELSE. IT'S THAT THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS IT BECAUSE THE INFRASTRUCTURE WHERE DENNIS DID HIS WORK AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS THERE FOR MYSELF AND CHARLES SAWYERS AND OTHERS TO DO OTHER CANCER THERAPEUTICS IN OUR TRIALS AND THROUGH THE CANCER CENTER WITH JUDY GASSON WAS A MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. IT'S NOT JUST THE STRENGTH OF AN INDIVIDUAL. IT TOOK MUCH MORE THAN THAT. | ||||||||||
| SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD METRIC TO USE. IT'S NOT THE ONLY METRIC. I THINK YOU COULD PICK OTHER STRATEGIES. BUT IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET IT INTO THE CLINIC, YOU HAVE TO GO SOMETIMES BY LOOKING IN PLACES THAT HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL. IT'S NOT AN EASY JOB, AND SOME PLACES DO IT AT A HIGHER LEVEL THAN OTHERS. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PERA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: ONLY JUST TO AGREE WITH HIM. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND THEN THE SECOND POINT OR PART OF THAT THAT REALLY GOES BACK TO DR. WRIGHT'S QUESTION. IN TERMS OF THE WEIGHTING OF OUR APPROACH, WHEN YOU LOOK AND IDENTIFY SPECIFIC NICHES OR CRITICAL LEAD-TIME AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION THAT MAY BE VALUABLE AND COMPLEMENTARY TO THESE MAJOR CENTERS, WOULD YOU EVALUATE THEIR SCIENTIFIC VALUE TO OUR MISSION RELATIVE TO A SMALLER GRANT INCREMENT? IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE CENTER. BUT ONE POSSIBILITY THAT'S BEEN RAISED BEFORE IS THAT IF YOU CREATE A MAXIMUM CAP FOR A COMPREHENSIVE CENTER AT A HIGHER LEVEL, AND YOU HAVE A SMALL NICHE OF EXPERT SCIENTISTS AT AN INSTITUTION THAT IS JUST STARTING IN THE FIELD OR IS A RESEARCH INSTITUTION WITH NO CLINICAL COMPONENT, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD YOU ASSIGN THEM A LOWER CAP IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM ALLOCATION AND THEN EVALUATE THEIR SCIENCE RELATIVE TO THAT SMALLER CAP? | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: WE BOTH MENTIONED CALTECH. SINCE THERE'S NO REPRESENTATIVE OF CALTECH STEPPING FORWARD, I'LL JUST SAY IT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF GREAT PEOPLE, GREAT SCIENCE. WE BOTH HAVE SIGNIFICANT COLLABORATIONS WITH THEM. I'LL TALK ABOUT TWO OF THEM TOMORROW MORNING. AND I THINK IF THEY COME UP WITH AN IDEA THEY WISH TO SUPPORT THROUGH CAPITAL PROGRAMS OR THROUGH ANOTHER RFA, IT SHOULD BE VIEWED ON THE BASIS OF THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENCE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT. AND A LOT OF GOOD THINGS GET DONE THERE. THEY DON'T HAVE A HOSPITAL, BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY COMPONENT OF MEDICAL RESEARCH THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT. | ||||||||||
| I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT. I DON'T LIKE THE WORD "CAPS." I DON'T KNOW WHY IT BOTHERS ME TODAY, BUT MAYBE SOME GENERAL GUIDELINES OR RANGES BECAUSE I THINK YOUR REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHETHER IT'S A CAPITAL PROGRAM REVIEW OR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW THAT GOES WITH IT, HOPEFULLY YOU'D BE EXCITED ABOUT THE COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO THINGS, AND MAYBE YOU WANT TO HAVE SOME RANGES RATHER THAN AN ABSOLUTE JUST IN RESPONSE TO THAT WORD. | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: I'LL JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT. IF YOU HAVE THESE EXCELLENT SMALL GROUPS WORKING IN A PARTICULAR NICHE, YOU DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS NICHE TO INTEGRATE THEM INTO LARGER CONSORTIA. THAT'S SORT OF THE APPROACH WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE. WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY COLLABORATORS WHO MAY NOT HAVE THE SCOPE OF ACTIVITY THAT WOULD REALLY MAKE THEM COMPETITIVE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THEIR SCIENCE MIGHT BE EXCELLENT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THEM IN AND MAYBE EVEN SEE THAT THEY GET SOME OF THE FUNDING IF THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP SOMETHING IN A SORT OF SATELLITE WAY AS PART OF THE CONSORTIUM. THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PERA, CERTAINLY THERE'S SOME GREAT ARGUMENTS ABOUT EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT IN A CORE THAT IS SHARED BY MORE THAN ONE INSTITUTION WITH DEDICATED, SPECIALIZED STAFF THAT CAN OPERATE IT PERHAPS WITH A HIGHER DEGREE OF PRODUCTIVITY AND RELIABILITY THAN IF THE EQUIPMENT IS LOCATED AT A CENTER WITHOUT THAT DEDICATED STAFF. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A COLLABORATION, IS THERE A MINIMUM CORE THAT YOU ALSO HAVE TO FUND FOR THAT SATELLITE COLLABORATOR TO BE EFFECTIVE? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: I THINK THAT VERY MUCH DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE WORK. THERE MAY BE, BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PARTICULAR INSTANCE AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO. WE ENVISION THAT SOME OF OUR COLLABORATORS WILL COME TO US TO USE CORE EQUIPMENT, BUT THERE MAY BE INSTANCES IN WHICH THERE'S A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR PUTTING IT IN ONE OF THE SATELLITES. | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: TO ADD ONE COMMENT. THAT EXACT SITUATION HAS COME UP IN A VERY FORMAL SET OF COLLABORATIONS THAT WE'VE ARRANGED WITH CALTECH IN WHICH WE HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE IMAGING RESEARCH AT UCLA AT ALL LEVELS AND ALL TYPES OF MODALITIES, INCLUDING INTO THE CLINIC, PARTICULARLY POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY. IT DOESN'T GET MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THAT. I THINK NMR YOU END UP WITH THE DOLLAR COST FOR ENTRANCE, BUT THERE'S SECONDARY IMAGING FACILITIES THAT ARE LIGHT BASED AND MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE. THERE YOU CAN HAVE SATELLITES. SO THERE'S ONE AT CALTECH THAT THEY ESTABLISHED. THERE'S ONE AT CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL WHICH WE'RE DOING A COLLABORATION WITH AND A VERY ADVANCED ONE AT UCLA, BUT ALL OF THEM CAN INTERACT AND TRAIN AND UTILIZE COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO IMPROVE THE FUNCTION. | ||||||||||
| I DON'T THINK YOU'D WANT TO SET UP MULTIPLE SUPER HIGH TECH FACILITIES EVERYWHERE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME OF THESE SATELLITES, PARTICULARLY AT THE LOWER LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGIES IN SOME CASES, CAN BE APPLIED. I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT ON TARGET. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YOU KNOW, DR. WITTE, YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY LABS BEING THESE TECHNOLOGY CENTERS. AND IT KIND OF BRINGS TO MIND SOMETHING THAT ONE OF THE SPEAKERS LAST WEEK MENTIONED, THAT SOME OF THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT NEED TO BE NEARBY AND INTEGRATABLE ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE TYPICAL HEALTH SCIENCE. IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, THERE'S CERTAIN TYPES OF ENGINEERING CAPABILITY. HOW IMPORTANT IS THAT, AND HOW SHOULD WE VALUE THAT? | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: I THINK, AGAIN, IT'S THE PREVIOUS WAY OF DOING SCIENCE IN MAJOR ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS AND UNIVERSITIES WAS TO SEGREGATE BY AN ARTIFICIAL TITLE OF A DISCIPLINE. THIS IS A BIOLOGIST OR AN IMMUNOLOGIST OR A CHEMIST. WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT THE WAY TO SUCCESS IS TO INTEGRATE PEOPLE WITH THOSE DIFFERENT TRAINING BACKGROUNDS EVEN IF THEY'RE FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OR EVEN FROM DIFFERENT SCHOOLS. OUR SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, OUR SCHOOL OF PHYSICAL SCIENCES, OUR SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES ALL HAVE PEOPLE THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR PROJECT, SOME OF WHICH NOW CO-HABITATE IN SPACE THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED FOR THESE INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECTS. THIS IS THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE. | ||||||||||
| QUITE FRANKLY, ALL THE ACADEMIC CENTERS ARE GOING TO HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH IT BECAUSE THE TEACHING AND APPOINTMENT SIDE OF LIFE IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE ACTUAL RESEARCH CONDUCT SIDE OF LIFE. AND WE HAVE TO CONFRONT THAT, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT THE NEW FACILITIES WILL DO. | ||||||||||
| FOR TECHNOLOGY CENTERS, THE CONCEPT IS THAT YOU GO THERE TO GET SOMETHING. THAT'S NOT RIGHT. YOU GO THERE TO MAKE SOMETHING NEW, TO LEARN NEW SCIENCE, NOT JUST TO HAVE A PROVISION OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. YOU CAN, IN A SENSE, GO TO THE COSTCO OF SCIENCE TO GET TECHNOLOGY SENT TO YOU BY MAIL IN MANY CASES. BUT IF YOU WANT TO DEVELOP NEW SCIENCE, YOU NEED SMART PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES CLOSE AT HAND. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, AND I THINK MARTIN HAS SPOKEN TO THE SAME THING. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT ONE. MY MIND IS STRUGGLING TO TRY TO CREATE SOME SIMPLICITY BECAUSE THIS SEEMS VERY COMPLEX. I'M WONDERING AS WE MOVE INTO THAT NEW WORLD THAT YOU TALK ABOUT WHERE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A SCIENTIST IN THE SAME ROOM OR A STEP AWAY OR A ROOM AWAY, IS THERE A GRADIENT OF PROXIMITY THAT WE COULD THINK ABOUT IN THAT THE MORE BASIC THE SCIENCE, THE MORE IMPORTANT IT IS TO HAVE THE VARIOUS DISCIPLINES REPRESENTED IN NEAREST PROXIMITY? BUT AS WE GET DOWN TO THE DERIVATIVES, TO THE PRODUCTS OF THE SCIENCE, WE CAN CONNECT THOSE THROUGH INFORMATION SYSTEMS. I'M A PRACTICING -- NO. NO. | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: I WISH IT WAS LIKE THAT. AS WE MOVE TOWARDS THINGS, PUTTING THINGS INTO CLINICAL TRIALS, IT TURNS OUT YOU NEED MORE CONTACT AND MORE CONVERSATION BECAUSE THE PROBLEMS DON'T HAVE OBVIOUS SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS ONLY. THEY HAVE SOMETIMES REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS. THEY HAVE PHYSICAL AND MONETARY CONSTRAINTS. THEY HAVE HUMAN CONSTRAINTS OF WHERE ARE THE PATIENTS. SO I DON'T THINK THE PROBLEM IS GOING TO LESSEN AS WE GO DOWNSTREAM. I THINK, IF ANYTHING, THEY BECOME MORE COMPLEX WITH THINGS THAT SCIENTISTS CAN'T CONTROL. I THINK YOU SHOULDN'T JUST THINK ABOUT PUT ALL THE BASIC SCIENTISTS OVER HERE AND THEY'LL TALK AND SOMETHING WILL POP OUT WONDERFULLY. IT NEEDS THIS CONTINUITY AND CONNECTIVITY. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: DR. PERA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH. I'LL GIVE -- WE HAD EXPERIENCE ALONG THESE LINES ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE IN THE AUSTRALIAN STEM CELL CENTER, AND WE REALLY FAILED TO INTEGRATE THE ENGINEERING CAPACITY WITH THE BASIC RESEARCH. DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGISTS ARE NOW GETTING PRETTY GOOD AT TURNING HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS INTO SPECIFIC CELL TYPES. THEY HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE HOW TO SCALE THESE SYSTEMS UP OR HOW TO GET THEM TO RIGOROUS MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. WE'VE GOT A LONG WAY TO GO IN THAT RESPECT. | ||||||||||
| BELIEVE ME, WE'VE HAD WORKSHOP AFTER WORKSHOP WHERE WE SIT DOWN AND TALK TO THE ENGINEERS, AND WE BOTH GO OFF AND NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN. THERE'S NO SUBSTITUTE FOR VERY CLOSELY WORKING TOGETHER UNDER THE SAME ROOF. SAME APPLIES TO THE TRANSLATIONAL SIDE. AGAIN, THE DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGIST MAY HAVE A BRIGHT IDEA ABOUT TURNING THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL INTO A DOPAMINURGIC NEURON. HE MAY BE CLUELESS ABOUT THE PATHOGENESIS OF PARKINSON'S DISEASE AND WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THE SAFETY ISSUES, ETC. AND THE ONLY WAY TO GET THOSE THINGS TO CONNECT IS PUT THESE PEOPLE UNDER THE SAME ROOF. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: THE ROOF IS GETTING BIGGER. | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: THESE ARE COMPLEX PROBLEMS. CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE SECOND PART OF TODAY, WHICH IS WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SOME POLICIES, RULES, AND DEFINITIONS. REMEMBER, AGAIN, THIS IS FOR DISCUSSION TO BUILD INFORMATION ON POSSIBLE MODELS. | ||||||||||
| BASED UPON THE PRIOR DISCUSSIONS, I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE ISSUE FROM PROPOSITION 71, SECTION 125290.65. IT'S THE PRIORITY FOR FACILITIES THAT CAN BE BUILT WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE GRANT AWARD. | ||||||||||
| NOW, ONE OF THE KEY ISSUES SO THAT WE CAN COMPARE EVERYONE ON A LIKE KIND BASIS IS WHAT DO WE MEAN IF WE SAY COMPLETED WITHIN TWO YEARS? WHAT IS COMPLETE? AND CERTAINLY WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE DISCOURAGE SOMEONE FROM PROPOSING A FACILITY THAT WILL HAVE SOME TENANT IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLICATED AND SOPHISTICATED SO THAT THEIR TIME PERIOD IS HANDICAPPED BY TRYING TO REACH FOR THE LEADING EDGE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE SPACE. | ||||||||||
| AND JUST TO PUT OUT A PROPOSED BENCHMARK THAT WE MIGHT DISCUSS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD CREATE A LIKE KIND BASIS FOR THE CRITICAL PATHS SUBMITTED BY ALL THE APPLICANTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT IT WOULD BE COMPLETED TO A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; THAT IS, IT'S NOT FINALLED OUT. SO THERE CAN BE A LOT OF INCONSISTENCY IN THAT LAST STAGE OF GETTING THE FINAL SIGN-OFF FROM BUILDING OFFICIALS AND OTHERS. AND SECONDLY, THAT WE WOULD HAVE A BUILDING SHELL AND OPERATING SYSTEMS IN PLACE BUILT TO A BASIC SCIENTIFIC LAB STANDARD; BUT, IN FACT, IF THERE'S COMPLICATED FIXTURIZATION THAT GOES ON AFTER THAT POINT, IT'S NOT PART OF THIS TEST OF WHETHER WE DELIVERED WITHIN TWO YEARS. | ||||||||||
| WHAT'S THE COMMITTEE'S THOUGHTS ON THIS IN ORDER TO GIVE SOME CERTAINTY OR SOME BENCHMARK TO THE COMMUNITY OF WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE IT BE COMPLETED? ANYONE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? | ||||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I GUESS I'M THE ONLY FACILITIES PERSON HERE. I HAD A QUESTION BEFORE THAT QUESTION ACTUALLY, WHICH IS, WHEN YOU PLAN THESE BUILDINGS, THE PLANNING OF THEM PROBABLY TAKES THE LONGEST TIME AND IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITICAL NATURE OF THAT BUILDING BECAUSE EVERYTHING FOLLOWS ONTO IT. AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE LAW HAS TWO YEARS, AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ACHIEVE THAT. AND MY QUESTION ISN'T AS MUCH OF A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY AS HOW MUCH TIME IS REALLY NEEDED TO PLAN, LET'S SAY, THE TWO KINDS OF FACILITIES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, EITHER NEW OR RENOVATED? AND THEN HOW MUCH TIME ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THOSE PLANS AND MAKE THEM REALITIES, AND DOES THAT REALLY WORK? | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: STUART, I THINK THAT WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT EVEN BEFORE PROPOSITION 71 WAS PASSED, AS IT GOT CLOSE TO THE ELECTION, SOME OF THE INSTITUTIONS STARTED DOWN THE PLANNING PROCESS, AND MOST OF THE INSTITUTIONS, IF NOT ALL THE INSTITUTIONS THAT PUT IN SERIOUS PROPOSALS, ARE AT WORKING DRAWINGS OR AT LEAST IN CONCEPT DRAWINGS AT THIS POINT. AND JUST SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS TIMEFRAME, THE DEFINITION IS TWO YEARS AFTER GRANT AWARD. AND GRANT AWARD, AS TAMAR PACHTER POINTED OUT IN HER PRESENTATION, IS EFFECTIVELY THE DATE AT WHICH THE PRESIDENT SIGNS THE CERTIFICATION OF GRANT AWARD. AT LEAST THAT'S THE BRIGHT LINE THAT WE CAN USE IN THAT PROCESS. | ||||||||||
| THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE IN THIS TIMELINE THAT WE NEED TO DEFINE SO EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PLANE BECAUSE WE PROBABLY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A DEEMED PERIOD BETWEEN SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION AND GRANT AWARD. BECAUSE OTHERWISE HOW WILL PEOPLE KNOW TO SET UP THEIR CRITICAL PATH HOW MANY MONTHS TO FIGURE IN THAT PROCESS? BUT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE WERE TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, HYPOTHETICALLY, AND THE GRANT AWARDS OCCUR ABOUT TWO MONTHS AFTER THE APPROVAL AND THEY OCCURRED, FOR EXAMPLE, ON MARCH 15TH, YOU WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE SEVEN MONTHS EFFECTIVELY IN THAT PERIOD SO THAT THE CRITICAL PATHS PEOPLE PRESENTED, IF WE WERE TO ADOPT A RULE THAT EVERYONE HAD A STANDARD BASIS TO WORK WITH, WOULD SAY IN YOUR CRITICAL PATH ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE SEVEN MONTHS TO THE DATE OF THE GRANT AWARD. | ||||||||||
| AND SO IN ADDITION TO THE TIME THEY'VE ALREADY HAD IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, THERE IS ADDITIONAL TIME TO GET TO CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY TO BE BUILT IN TWO YEARS, THEY'LL NEED TO GO INTO CONSTRUCTION AT OR BEFORE OR AT OR ABOUT THE DATE THAT THE GRANT AWARD IS ISSUED, AND THE GRANT AWARD BEING ABOUT TWO MONTHS AFTER THE DATE WHEN THE BOARD APPROVES THE PROJECT. | ||||||||||
| MR. LAFF: MY CONCERN ISN'T SO MUCH FOR THE LARGER INSTITUTIONS WHO HAVE TAKEN IT UPON THEMSELVES TO GO AHEAD WITH SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS, BUT THE SMALLER INSTITUTIONS WHO MAYBE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE. THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS. | ||||||||||
| THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I'VE HEARD BOTH TODAY AND LAST THURSDAY IS THAT OVER THE LIFE CYCLE OF THESE BUILDINGS, SCIENCE IS GOING TO CHANGE. AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO ADAPT THESE BUILDINGS TO THE CHANGING SCIENCES THAT ARE GOING TO OCCUR OVER THE LIFE OF THIS BUILDING? I'M SORT OF WRESTLING WITH THAT TOO. THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU START EARLY, HAVE YOU REALLY THOUGHT THAT THROUGH? | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, TWO THOUGHTS. ONE IS THAT IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE SMALLER INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO EARLY PLANNING WILL JUST HAVE TO COMPETE IN A SMALLER CATEGORY AS A RESOURCE CENTER OR SOME OTHER SMALL GRANT CATEGORY WHERE ALMOST NO ONE IN THE CATEGORY HAS THE PRIORITY OF TWO YEARS BEING MET. BUT IT'S APT TO BE, AS YOU IMPLY, A SELF-CATEGORIZING SYSTEM BECAUSE THE LARGER INSTITUTIONS HAVE ALL KIND OF TAKEN THE EFFORT OF TRYING TO MOVE THEIR PLANS DOWNSTREAM. | ||||||||||
| IF I COULD GET THE COMMITTEE'S AND, STUART, YOUR FEEDBACK, HOW DO YOU FEEL -- THERE'S REALLY TWO KIND OF POLICY QUESTIONS THAT REQUIRE SOME CLARITY IN TERMS OF DEFINITIONS. THE INITIATIVE DOES SAY TWO YEARS AFTER GRANT AWARD. AND THE BRIGHT LINE FOR GRANT AWARD DOES APPEAR TO BE THE CERTIFICATE OF AWARD ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT. | ||||||||||
| HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT GIVING THE INSTITUTIONS SOME CERTAINTY OF WHAT TO PUT IN THEIR CRITICAL PATHS WHEN THEY SUBMIT TO US THEIR APPLICATIONS SO THAT THEY CAN SHOW US A TIMELINE THAT THEY ARE MEETING THE TWO-YEAR HORIZON BY HAVING AN ASSUMED OR A DEEMED PERIOD THAT WILL EXPIRE BETWEEN THE APPLICATION BEING SUBMITTED AND THE GRANT AWARD? | ||||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YOU WANT ME TO TAKE THAT? I ACTUALLY LIKE THAT BECAUSE THEN THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE STARTED THEIR BUILDINGS AND EVERYTHING WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE A CONSISTENT STARTING POINT AND NOT BE ALL OVER THE BOARD. THEY WILL HAVE THAT SEVEN-MONTH PERIOD OR WHATEVER IT IS TO DO THAT AND ALSO PROGRAMMED IN THEIR SCHEDULES. SO I REALLY LIKE THAT. I SEE A LOT OF CONSISTENCY. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SO THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE PERIOD OF TIME? YOU PULLED SEVEN MONTHS OUT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK WE COULD ASK THE STAFF MAYBE TO PROVIDE SOME COMMENT AND COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH A SUGGESTION WHEN THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO KIND OF LAY OUT THEIR TIMELINE. | ||||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: SO CERTAINLY WE WOULD DO THAT AND THEN PRESENT IT TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP FOR FINAL APPROVAL AT YOUR JULY 12TH MEETING. | ||||||||||
| SO I UNDERSTAND THE CLARIFICATION IS IS THAT IN THE RFA WE WOULD NOTICE A MONTH, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WOULD BE THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD PROJECTED DATE -- | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: RIGHT. | ||||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: -- AND ASK THE INSTITUTIONS TO PROJECT FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS TO A TEMPORARY NOTICE OF COMPLETION. | ||||||||||
| WHAT I'D LIKE TO ALSO SUGGEST THAT WE THINK ABOUT HERE, MAYBE NOT TODAY, BUT CERTAINLY IN THE COMING MEETINGS IS THAT THE PROVISION THAT YOU CITED IN PROPOSITION 71 IS TO GIVE PRIORITY FOR APPLICATIONS THAT PROVIDE FOR FACILITIES THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH NO MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE GRANT AWARD. SO WHAT WE CAN ASK FOR, AND I THINK WE ALSO LEARNED THIS DURING THE REVIEW OF THE SHARED RESEARCH LABS, IS A TIMELINE AND WHAT WOULD BE DONE WITHIN THOSE 24 MONTHS BECAUSE IN MANY CASES, OF COURSE, YOU WOULDN'T WANT AN INSTITUTION TO SAY THEY WILL TAKE TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY, PERHAPS THEY WON'T, AND IT COULD JUST BE PART OF THE SCORING UNDER URGENCY RATHER THAN A MANDATORY CRITERIA. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK IT'S -- PART OF THE SCORING IS NOT A MANDATORY -- IT'S NOT WRITTEN AND INTENDED TO BE A MANDATORY CRITERIA. IN TERMS OF A CRITICAL PATH, THOUGH, I THINK IT WOULD HELP US A LOT IN UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IF THE TIMELINE DIDN'T BEGIN AT THE GRANT AWARD EXPECTED DATE, BUT THE TIMELINE GAVE US THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THEIR APPLICATION BEING FILED, WHAT HAVE THEY COMMITTED, AND FROM THE DATE THEY FILE THE APPLICATION THROUGH THE EXPECTED DATE, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO GET DONE? BECAUSE THEN IT TELLS HOW DEEPLY COMMITTED THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE. HOW MANY THINGS HAVE THEY ACCOMPLISHED? AND ALSO LET'S US KNOW WHETHER THEY'VE SET THE RIGHT LEAD-TIME IN THERE FOR ACCOMPLISHING SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT ITEMS. | ||||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I THINK THAT THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION. AND IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME KIND OF GRANTS MANAGEMENT FOR STAFF BETWEEN THE TIME OF APPROVAL AND THEN AWARD SO THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MONITOR INSTITUTIONS, THAT THEY WERE MEETING WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO MEET IN TERMS OF THEIR TIMEFRAME. SO, IN FACT, THE NGA WOULDN'T BE SIGNED UNTIL THEY MET THOSE CRITICAL PIECES ON THE PATH. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. IT MIGHT GIVE A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE IT IS A PLANNING TOOL, BUT BY SEEING HOW MANY STEPS THEY'VE ALREADY MET. | ||||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: RIGHT. ALTHOUGH THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU PUT IT AS PART OF THE SCORING FOR URGENCY AND THEN THEY DON'T MEET IT, I THINK THAT CERTAINLY, AT LEAST FOR THAT TIMEFRAME, WE WOULD WANT SOMETHING VERY REALISTIC. OF COURSE, THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WOULD WANT TO HAVE SOME ASSURANCE THAT THEY HAVE MET THOSE TIMELINES, AND THEN WE COULD, OF COURSE, MONITOR AS WE WOULD BE OVER THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION WHETHER OR NOT THE INSTITUTIONS HAD MET THOSE PARTICULAR CRITICAL PATHS OR MILESTONES. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONE THING THAT CAME UP WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF MULTI-INSTITUTION COLLABORATIONS ABOUT PERHAPS RELAXING THAT TIMELINE OR SOMEHOW MITIGATING THE URGENCY FACTOR IN SOME WAY WITH THE OBVIOUS BENEFIT THAT WE GET FROM INSTITUTIONS SHARING AND COLLABORATING AS OPPOSED TO EACH ASKING FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL FACILITY. AND THE POINT WAS MADE THAT FOR THOSE WHO ARE COLLABORATING TO BUILD A SINGLE FACILITY AMONG MANY DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS, IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE THEM LONGER. | ||||||||||
| IS THAT SOMETHING WE WANT TO FACTOR INTO THIS? AND IS THERE A WAY -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER, AGAIN, THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD MAY BLEED OUT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER INTO THE FUTURE FOR MULTI-INSTITUTION COLLABORATION BECAUSE WE WOULD INDEED BE MUCH MORE COMPLEX. SO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THAT ALL THESE DIFFERENT PIECES WERE WORKING, THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO -- THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT SEVERAL TIMES WITHIN THE ICOC AS AN IMPORTANT VALUE FOR TRYING TO DO GOING FORWARD. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ONE WAY WE WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT, JEFF, IS TO PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF SCORING FOR COLLABORATION WHERE THEY GET POINTS FOR COLLABORATION THAT WOULD OFFSET POINTS THAT THEY MIGHT LOSE ON THE TIMELINE SIDE. BECAUSE WE CAN'T GIVE THEM -- ON THE OTHER HAND, WE COULD TRY AND BUILD IN THE SYSTEM THAT YOU DISCUSSED, KNOWING THERE'S A MORE COMPLEX EVALUATION PROCESS TO ASSUME IT TAKES A COUPLE MORE MONTHS OR SOMETHING TO GET THROUGH THAT DUE DILIGENCE TO ISSUE OF GRANT AWARD. | ||||||||||
| BUT I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'VE SURFACED HERE IS A VERY FUNDAMENTAL PRIORITY THAT'S BEEN BUILT INTO OUR STRATEGIC VALUES IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN FOR COLLABORATION. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS PUTTING ON THE TABLE AN EXPLICIT POLICY TO HAVE COLLABORATION BE GRADED WITH A POINT SYSTEM. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT, YEAH. AGAIN, WE ALWAYS COME UP WITH THESE APPLES AND ORANGES. SO COLLABORATION SOUNDS GREAT, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, FOR A BIG CORE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, BUT DOES THAT REALLY GET TO WHAT DR. WRIGHT WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHICH WAS A REALLY SMALLER, MAYBE LESS SOMEWHAT GEOGRAPHICALLY OFF-THE-BEATEN-PATH PLACE THAT HAS REAL EXCELLENCE AND A REAL NICHE? HOW DO WE RATE ALL THESE DIFFERENT PIECES BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY WOULD BE SLOWER, AND THEY PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE COLLABORATION, BUT CERTAINLY WE WOULD WANT -- THEY WOULD PROBABLY -- ONE CAN IMAGINE THAT THEY COULD BE -- AND THOSE TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS ACTUALLY MIGHT NEED OUR SUPPORT MORE THAN OTHERS. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SET UP A POLICY THAT MAKES THEM AT A DISADVANTAGE FROM THE GET-GO. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, POTENTIALLY WE REALLY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, I THINK, POSSIBLY FOUR DIFFERENT LEVELS HERE: MAJOR CENTERS FOR SCIENTIFIC CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; MAJOR CENTERS FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH THAT MAY NOT HAVE A CLINICAL COMPONENT, BUT INTERFACE WITH BIOTECH; SPECIAL RESEARCH RESOURCE FACILITIES THAT MAY HAVE THIS NICHE OF EXPERTISE OF GREAT VALUE THAT'S A RESOURCE TO THE WHOLE STATE OR TO THE INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THEIR REGION; AND RESEARCH PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT CENTERS WHERE THEY'RE SMALL START-UPS ESSENTIALLY THAT ARE DEVELOPING EXPERTISE AND, FOR CAPACITY PURPOSES, MAYBE THEY NEED A VERY SMALL GRANT. | ||||||||||
| BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD OCCUR IS WHEN THESE APPLICATIONS COME IN IS ASK THAT THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP EVALUATE THEM FOR SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE AND GIVE THEM A CATEGORY THAT THEY'RE REALLY EFFECTIVELY COMPETING IN. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: GETS RID OF THE APPLES AND ORANGES PROBLEM. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: RIGHT. IT GETS RID OF THAT PROBLEM. AND THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP OR THIS GROUP MIGHT ALSO SAY THAT BASED UPON WHICH AREA YOU'RE COMPETING IN AND YOUR SCIENTIFIC SCORE ASSIGN A DIFFERENT MAXIMUM CAP OR RANGE. IT'S NOT A CAP BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A RECOMMENDATION IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT AN ALLOCATION GUIDELINE FOR WHAT MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION FOR SOMETHING THAT QUALIFIES IN THE TOP CATEGORY OR IN THE SMALLEST CATEGORY. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: TO FOLLOW THAT, YOUR TIMELINE THAT YOU SUGGESTED WOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES OR CLUSTERS OF THOSE CATEGORIES. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, THE -- | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YOU MIGHT WEIGHT URGENCY DIFFERENTLY FOR EACH OF THOSE. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK THAT THE EASIEST WAY JUST TO KEEP THE TIMELINES ISSUES CLEAN IS TO PROVIDE COLLABORATION VALUE AS A SEPARATE RATE OF THE POINT SYSTEM. BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LEVEL OF COLLABORATION THAT WOULD REALLY SLOW SOMETHING DOWN, BUT PROVIDE SOME TREMENDOUS SCIENTIFIC SYNERGY -- WITH A CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR. YOU'RE TRYING TO MERGE FOUR DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS IN SAN DIEGO. THEY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, THERE IS A COLLABORATIVE VALUE THERE. THERE'S ALSO SOME OF THOSE THAT WOULD FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF MAJOR CENTERS FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH THAT ARE COLLABORATING WITH TWO OR THREE INSTITUTIONS. WE JUST HEARD TWO PRESENTATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS THAT COULD BE, BASED ON THEIR APPLICATION, EITHER IN LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO EASILY. IN FACT, SINCE THEY BOTH HAVE CLINICAL, THEY'RE PROBABLY BOTH IN LEVEL ONE. | ||||||||||
| BUT THE KEY HERE IS COLLABORATIONS AT THOSE LEVELS TO THE EXTENT IT PUSHES THEM OUT OF THE TWO-YEAR WINDOW. AS JEFF SAYS, I THINK WE WANT TO REWARD COLLABORATION, BUT I THINK THE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO HAVE A REWARD SYSTEM OF POINTS FOR COLLABORATION SEPARATELY. THEN IT KEEPS THE TIMELINES CLEAN. WHAT DO YOU THINK? | ||||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK THROUGH YOUR INITIAL SUGGESTION ABOUT THE TIMELINE AND WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO A SMALLER INSTITUTION WITH THE NICHE PROGRAM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, IF IT'S A SMALL INSTITUTION WITH A NICHE PROGRAM, IT CAN PROBABLY OPERATE IN THIS WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY TWO YEARS AND SEVEN MONTHS. THE REAL TIMELINE ISSUES ARE WITH THE BIG TWO TOP TIERS. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: RIGHT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, FOR DISCUSSION, AT LEAST, WE'VE PUT THOSE ISSUES ON THE TABLE. | ||||||||||
| ANOTHER ISSUE THAT AROSE IN THE LAST SESSION IS THE QUESTION OF LEVERAGE. AND IT MAY BE RELATED TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE BECAUSE THERE'S A PRIORITY UNDER PROPOSITION 71, AGAIN, IT'S SECTION 125290.65, FOR HIGHER MATCHING FUND AMOUNTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS EQUIVALENT MERIT. | ||||||||||
| AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS HERE IS EQUIVALENT MERIT. AND, AGAIN, I THINK EQUIVALENT MERIT SHOULD BE SCIENTIFICALLY JUDGED IN THE CATEGORY SO YOU'RE BEING JUDGED AGAINST LIKE COMPETITORS. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO COMPARE A NICHE CATEGORY ON BREADTH AGAINST AN INSTITUTION THAT HAS BASIC SCIENCE, APPLIED SCIENCE, CLINICAL, TRANSLATIONAL ALL JUDGED FOR EXCELLENCE. AND I THINK DR. CHIU WANTS TO COMMENT. | ||||||||||
| DR. CHIU: I JUST WANTED A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ABOUT WHAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED. IS IT ON THE TABLE THE SUGGESTION THAT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WOULD DECIDE AMONGST MANY APPLICATIONS WHICH ONES QUALIFIED TO BE TYPE 1, TYPE 2, TYPE 3, OR TYPE 4, OR DOES THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES SELF-SELECT AND DECIDE WHAT THEY THINK THEY ARE, OR DOES THE ICOC THEN MAKE A FINAL DECISION OF WHAT EACH APPLICATION SHOULD BE? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, I WELCOME OBVIOUSLY ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, BUT THEORETICALLY THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO SELF-SELECT AND GOING TO SUBMIT IF WE LAY OUT THESE CATEGORIES. | ||||||||||
| BUT SECONDLY, THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP MAY LOOK AT THE APPLICATION AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO ADJUST THEM. THEY'RE REALLY COMPETITIVE IN THE TOP CATEGORY OR THEY NEED TO MOVE DOWN A CATEGORY. SO THEY'RE GOING TO A MAKE RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE ICOC WILL FINALLY DECIDE WHETHER THAT ADJUSTMENT IS CORRECT OR WHETHER THE ICOC HAS A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT. | ||||||||||
| JEFF, DO YOU SEE IT THAT WAY? | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I JUST WAS GOING TO ASK DR. CHIU. WHAT DO YOU THINK? DO YOU THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE WITHIN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP? | ||||||||||
| DR. CHIU: I THINK WE HAVE TO GIVE VERY CLEAR DIRECTIONS TO THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP BECAUSE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY BY THE ICOC. AND THEY NEED TO HAVE -- THE APPLICATION HAS TO BE CRAFTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY HAVE THE INFORMATION WITH WHICH THEY CAN MAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. BECAUSE IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY COULD BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY, THEN THEY DID NOT PROVIDE INFORMATION WITHIN THE APPLICATION THAT IS SUITABLE, THEN IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO MAKE THESE LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK THAT A HYBRID WOULD WORK, SELF-SELECT. BECAUSE THE SELF-SELECT AT LEAST WOULD GIVE US A FRAMEWORK FROM WHICH TO OPERATE. SO YOU WOULD HAVE SOME FAIRLY DEFINITE CRITERIA, AND THEN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, THE SCIENTISTS WILL LOOK AT IT AND SAY, "WELL, THEY'RE NOT GOOD -- THE TRANSLATIONAL BIT HERE IS REALLY THIN, IT'S A VERY AMBITIOUS PROPOSAL." THEY WOULD BE IN THE TOP FIVE OR THE TOP TWO IF THEY WERE IN THE SECOND TIER AND THEN BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||||
| DR. CHIU: I THINK THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING MODEL. I DEFINITELY THINK THE APPLICANTS NEED TO SELF-DETERMINE WHERE THEY BEST FIT IN. AGAIN, THEY DON'T KNOW THE COMPETITION OR WHAT THE OTHERS ARE PROPOSING. SO I THINK WITH THE RIGHT CRITERIA OR THE RIGHT GUIDANCE, THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WOULD BE IN A GOOD POSITION TO MAKE SUCH A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. THE ICOC WILL EVENTUALLY SEE EVERYTHING, AND THEY MAY NOT ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH FLUIDITY SO THAT ALL ISSUES ARE CAPTURED WHERE POSSIBLE. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: DO YOU THINK THAT THIS RFA SHOULD HAVE A SECOND ROUND BUILT INTO IT BECAUSE ONE CAN IMAGINE A SCENARIO WHERE SOMEONE MOVES, SAYS I THINK THIS WOULD BE -- DIDN'T MAKE TIER 1. I THINK THIS COULD BE A GREAT TIER 2 APPLICATION; BUT AS YOU NOTED, THEY MAY HAVE SHOT FOR THE MOON AND FALLEN A LITTLE BIT SHORT, AND THE APPLICATION MAY NOT PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE SCIENTISTS, AND THEY MAY WANT TO SEND THAT COMMENT BACK AND RE-REVIEW IN LIGHT OF THE SUGGESTION THAT THEY APPLY FOR A LOWER TIER. | ||||||||||
| DR. CHIU: I THINK THAT'S A GREAT SUGGESTION. I ALSO THINK THE WORD "COLLABORATION" MEANS VERY DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. SINCE WE'VE HELD IT AS A HIGH GOAL, EVERYBODY WILL BE THINKING OF COLLABORATION, BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY MUCH MORE MATURE OR HAVE A DEMONSTRATED TRACK RECORD OF FEASIBILITY THAN OTHERS THAT ARE BEGINNING OR STILL OTHERS THAT ARE FOR DECORATIVE PURPOSES, AND I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE EXPLORED. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: AND A COUPLE THAT HAVE SHOWN TO USE TWO OVERUSED WORDS IN ONE SENTENCE, INNOVATION IN COLLABORATION. SOME REALLY UNUSUAL TYPES OF PARTNERSHIPS WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SO IT MIGHT BE VALUABLE BOTH FOR THE NEXT MEETING IF, DR. CHIU, YOU COULD SUGGEST SOME STANDARDS FOR LOOKING AT COLLABORATION IN TERMS OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF IT. YOU MENTIONED A TRACK RECORD OF COLLABORATION. WHAT WOULD THE INDEXES BE THAT YOU WOULD VIEW TO BE A SERIOUS AND FORMAL COMMITMENT TO COLLABORATION? | ||||||||||
| DR. CHIU: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE WHAT A TRULY PRODUCTIVE COLLABORATION SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND WOULD BE, AND THERE ARE MANY IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY. AND IF THEY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS, I'D CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO SUGGEST TO US WHAT WOULD BE BENCHMARKS FOR STRONG COLLABORATION. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WOULD ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: THERE ARE SOME VERY PRAGMATIC BENCHMARKS FOR COLLABORATION. SOME OF THEM DEPEND ON SOME PRIOR TRACK RECORD OF HAVING ALREADY BEEN INVOLVED IN THE COLLABORATION, RATHER THAN THE FUTURE PROMISE TO DO IT. ONE IS JOINT FUNDING MECHANISMS. | ||||||||||
| SECOND VERY SIMPLE ONE ARE JOINT TRAINEES. BY JOINT TRAINEES, I DON'T MEAN YOU JUST ASSIGN A SECOND HUMAN BEING TO TACK YOUR NAME ONTO THE PH.D. OR POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING, BUT YOU SEE AN ELEMENT OF CLEAR TRAINING IN MORE THAN ONE ENVIRONMENT. I THINK THAT'S HOW YOU GET INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENTISTS TO BE TRAINED. | ||||||||||
| AND THE THIRD AND MAYBE THE ONE THAT TAKES THE LONGEST, THE SCIENCE DOESN'T PROCEED AT A DEFINED PACE ALL THE TIME, IS JOINT PUBLICATIONS. WHEN YOU SEE EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE PUBLISHING TOGETHER, GETTING MONEY TOGETHER, AND TRAINING TOGETHER, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH LEFT BESIDES THAT. IN SCIENCE THAT'S WHAT WE DO. | ||||||||||
| I THINK NOW -- BUT YOU RAISE A REALLY GOOD POINT. WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COLLABORATE? THAT'S A TOUGH ONE. THEN YOU HAVE TO TELL FROM THE EARNESTNESS AND LOGIC FOR WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED. I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL. | ||||||||||
| DR. KEIRSTEAD: I WOULD SUGGEST SIMILAR GUIDELINES, PUBLICATIONS, JOINT GRANT APPLICATIONS, OR AWARDED GRANTS. THERE'S ANOTHER CATEGORY OF SHARED USE OF EQUIPMENT. OFTEN COLLABORATORS WILL BE WORKING CLOSE TOGETHER, AND YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE SHARED USE OF EQUIPMENT WITHIN ONE FACILITY OR ANOTHER. | ||||||||||
| THERE'S A MORE DIFFICULT ZONE. EXCELLENT COLLABORATION CAN HAPPEN, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH INDUSTRY WHERE WE'RE NOT CO-PUBLISHING. THERE MAY BE OTHER SERIES OF PRODUCTIVITY. SO I WOULD SUGGEST SOME EVIDENCE OF REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS BETWEEN COLLABORATORS. FOR INSTANCE, WITH MYSELF AND GERON, WE MEET EVERY TWO WEEKS FOR TWO HOURS, LIKE IT OR NOT. THE WHOLE TEAM COMES TOGETHER, AND IT'S A HUGE COMMITMENT OF TIME. THERE'S NOTHING I CAN POINT TO, THERE'S NO DOCUMENTS I CAN POINT TO TO EVIDENCE THAT, BUT IT'S A REAL EVIDENCE OF COLLABORATION. PERHAPS A LETTER FROM THE COLLABORATORS INDICATING THE FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATIONS. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IN THAT REGARD, DR. KEIRSTEAD, IF YOU WOULD WAIT FOR ONE MOMENT, I'D LIKE TO RAISE WITH JEFF THE POINT THAT HE RAISED IN THE LAST MEETING, WHICH IS IT MAY BE A SEPARATE SUBCATEGORY OF COLLABORATION. COLLABORATION WITH INDUSTRY, KIND OF A TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH EFFORT IN COLLABORATION THAT'S GOT SOME DOCUMENTATION WITH INDUSTRY COLLABORATION, WOULD BE VALUABLE? AND BESIDES THE MEETING EVIDENCE, WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE OF TRANSLATIONAL COLLABORATION? JEFF, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU OR TO DR. KEIRSTEAD? | ||||||||||
| DR. KEIRSTEAD: I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS. IN EVERY INSTANCE WHERE THERE IS A TRUE COLLABORATION WITH REGARDS TO TRANSLATION, THERE'S GOING TO BE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS, WHICH IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING BOTH TO POINT TO, BUT ALSO TO GET OVER. AND THEN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, MATERIAL TRANSFER AGREEMENTS, AND COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AGREEMENTS. THOSE ARE VERY HARD DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PRODUCE AS EVIDENCE OF INDUSTRY COLLABORATION. | ||||||||||
| DR. CHIU: MAY I JUST ASK A QUESTION? COLLABORATION, AGAIN, IS REALLY DEEMED IMPORTANT. HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN A COLLABORATION HAS BEEN PRODUCTIVE OR A REALLY SYNERGISTIC COLLABORATION RATHER THAN ONE ON PAPER? EVEN WHEN PEOPLE GET GRANTS TOGETHER, LIKE PROGRAM PROJECT GRANTS, THEY TAKE THEIR PIECE AND THEY RUN OFF AND THERE IS NO SYNERGY. | ||||||||||
| DR. KEIRSTEAD: VERY GOOD QUESTION. I THINK THAT IT BEHOOVES THE COLLABORATORS TO INDICATE WHAT PRODUCTIVITY HAS COME AS A RESULT OF THE COLLABORATION. SO A PAPER, A DISCOVERY PERHAPS IF IT'S PREPUBLICATION. THEN FROM THE POINT THAT THE COLLABORATION WAS DRAWN AND PENNED, WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE? I THINK THAT SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES CAN BE -- TO OUTLINE THE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, AND THAT ALSO FALLS INTO THE INDUSTRY QUESTION. IN EVERY CASE WITH INDUSTRY, IT'S NOT A RESEARCH ON ONE SIDE AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER. THEY'RE SO INTERTWINED, THAT ONE CAN POINT TO PRODUCTIVE RESULTS FROM NEW EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED, THE COST BURDEN AND THE RESOURCE BURDEN, PERSONNEL, AND GEAR ON BOTH SIDES THAT'S RESULTED IN SOME MANIFESTATION. IF THERE'S A SAFETY STUDY THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED, AN EFFICACY STUDY THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED, AN FDA DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN DONE THAT BOTH PARTIES HAVE WORKED ON, THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN POINT TO THAT'S MANIFESTED SINCE THE INITIATION OF THE COLLABORATION. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SO YOU'RE ENCOURAGING US TO THINK LIKE SHAREHOLDERS? | ||||||||||
| DR. KEIRSTEAD: ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I WONDER IF WE COULD MAYBE ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT DR. WITTE IDENTIFIED. THIS IS ALL RETROSPECTIVE, BUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE CAPTURE THE PROSPECTIVE, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF INDUSTRY? HOW DO WE CAPTURE, AND I KNOW THAT IT MAY BE AN IMPOSSIBLE QUESTION TO ANSWER. | ||||||||||
| DR. KEIRSTEAD: I THINK THAT TWO ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS OFFERING A LETTER SAYING WE COLLABORATE IS QUITE MEANINGLESS UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING TO POINT TO. IT MAY BE MEANINGLESS. IT MAY BE MEANINGFUL AND IT MAY NOT BE MEANINGFUL, AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOUR COMMITTEES ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO REALLY DISCERN THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOME PAPER THAT THEY CAN WEIGH IN. | ||||||||||
| WITH INDUSTRY IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. IF YOU HAVE A LETTER FROM AN INDUSTRIAL PARTNER SAYING, YES, WE ARE COLLABORATING, I THINK THAT CAN BE TAKEN AS DOGMA BECAUSE THAT LETTER CAN'T BE PRODUCED WITHOUT BOARD APPROVALS, AT LEAST SENIOR MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, ETC. THERE'S A COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES. | ||||||||||
| EVERY TIME A COMPANY STARTS WORKING WITH AN INDIVIDUAL, THE COLLABORATION IS DISCUSSED, AND THEN IT GETS TAKEN TO SOME SENIOR MANAGEMENT GROUP, IF NOT THE BOARD, AND AN ALLOCATION OF FUNDS GETS PUT TOWARDS THAT. ONLY THEN, AFTER THOSE FUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED OR PERSONNEL ALLOCATED, CAN THAT OFFER OF COLLABORATION BE PUT OUT. YOU CAN'T PUT OUT AN EMPTY LETTER IN INDUSTRY. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT GREATER WEIGHT CAN BE PUT ON JUST A SIMPLE LETTER OF COLLABORATION FROM AN INDUSTRY PARTNER. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: AND WE PROBABLY REALLY ARE LOOKING AT TRACK RECORD. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY. PEOPLE MAY SAY OUR INTENT IS TO WORK WITH INDUSTRY TO BRING THESE. | ||||||||||
| DR. KEIRSTEAD: RIGHT. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THIS MAY BE ONE WHERE THE TRACK RECORD MAY NEED TO BE AT LEAST IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. | ||||||||||
| DR. KEIRSTEAD: I WOULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE. I THINK PARTICULARLY WITH REGARDS TO THE TRANSLATIONAL WORK, THE ROAD IS A LOT LONGER THAN ANYONE WOULD HAVE IMAGINED AND MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. AND IF THERE'S NOT A TRACK RECORD ALREADY, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG TIME COMING. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. VERY HELPFUL. | ||||||||||
| THE NEXT AREA I'D LIKE TO REVISIT AND GET SOME CLARITY ON HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. PARTICULARLY IN THE SHARED LAB GRANTS, THE POINT WAS TO AWARD FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FUNDING WHEN THE COST PROVIDES A HIGH FUNCTIONAL VALUE TO THE RESEARCH MISSION. THERE'S TREMENDOUS DISPARITY BETWEEN THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT TO PRODUCE FACILITIES. SINCE THIS IS SUCH A WEIGHTY QUESTION, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERYONE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE GO INTO IT. WE'LL ADJOURN FOR FIVE MINUTES. | ||||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IF WE CAN RECONVENE. SO ONE OF THE -- WHY DON'T WE BEGIN THE DISCUSSION. I'M SURE THIS WON'T BE A 60-SECOND ADVENTURE. | ||||||||||
| AN HISTORICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN THAT THERE'S VERY HIGH COST AREAS IN THE STATE. AS SHOWN IN THE SHARED LABS, THERE'S A TREMENDOUS DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PRODUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT ACROSS THE STATE AND ACROSS INSTITUTIONS. EVEN AFTER HIGH COST AREA ADJUSTMENTS, BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING SITE, WHERE IN SOME LOCATIONS THEY CAN BUILD TWO-STORY TILT-UP, IN SOME LOCATIONS IT'S FOUR STORIES WITH A VIVARIUM IN THE BASEMENT, THERE ARE MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN THE DELIVERABLE COST PER SQUARE FOOT AND DELIVERABLE COST PER PI. | ||||||||||
| SO ONE OF THE POINTS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE SHARED LAB DISCUSSION IS THAT PERHAPS INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST COST RANGE NEED TO SERIOUSLY LOOK AT HIGHER MATCHING GRANTS, GREATER LEVERAGE. | ||||||||||
| WE'RE STILL IN THE INTRODUCTION, JEFF, JUST 60 SECONDS. SO, JEFF, WHAT I WAS JUST PUTTING ON THE TABLE IS THAT IN THE SHARED LAB COMPETITION, ONE OF THE CONCEPTS THAT WAS PUT ON THE TABLE WAS THAT PERHAPS INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE IN THE HIGHEST COST RANGE IN THE STATE NEED TO HAVE GREATER MATCHING FUNDS TO PUT UP SO THAT THE STATE GETS A VALUE, A GREATER VALUE IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE SPACE THAT CAN BE DELIVERED FOR RESEARCH, ASSUMING, OF COURSE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EQUIVALENT SCIENTIFIC MERIT ON A COMPARABLE BASIS BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS. | ||||||||||
| BUT THE QUESTION HAS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT LEVELS, BUT THE FIRST LEVEL FOR DISCUSSION IS WHAT DOES THE COMMITTEE THINK ABOUT THIS ISSUE OF LEVERAGED FUNDS OFFSETTING EXTREMELY HIGH COST? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT 20 PERCENT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK MEMBER KASHIAN HAD A POINT ABOUT UCSF BEING A VERY HIGH COST IN THE SHARED LABS. AND I MADE THE POINT IN THAT DISCUSSION THAT THEY HAD OVER A HUNDRED PERCENT MATCHING FUNDS. AND IF YOU LOOKED AT THEIR MATCHING FUNDS, IT BROUGHT THEIR COST DOWN TO A LEVEL, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COMPARED IT, THAT WAS VERY COMPARABLE TO SOME OTHER AREAS IN THE STATE WHERE THEY HAD MUCH LOWER LEVERAGE. | ||||||||||
| BUT HOW DOES THIS COMMITTEE INTEND TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN COST AROUND THE STATE, ASSUMING EQUIVALENT SCIENTIFIC MERIT? | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YOU HAVE DIFFERENT COSTS, AND THEN YOU HAVE -- I MEAN YOU ALSO HAVE DIFFERENT LEVERAGE. SO WILL THESE THINGS COME UP? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT THERE'S ONE THAT YOU CAN VISUALIZE AS KIND OF COMING OUT IN THE WASH. I THINK YOU KIND OF ALMOST ALLUDED TO THAT AT THE LAST MEETING. UCSF WILL HAVE HIGHER COST THAN PERHAPS SOME OTHER FOLKS, AND THE BAY AREA MAY HAVE HIGH COSTS AND MAYBE HERE, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE A BIGGER DONOR BASE. SO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A REALLY PRETTY DIRECT MATCH. | ||||||||||
| SO IN THAT INSTANCE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SHARED LABS IS THAT THE WAY IN WHICH WE WROTE THE RFA, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT WAS EQUAL TO A SUPER -- AS LONG AS YOU MADE THE 20 PERCENT, IT DIDN'T MATTER IF YOU MADE 40 OR 60 OR 80 OR A HUNDRED PERCENT. WE WEREN'T ABLE TO TAKE THE RELATIVE DEGREE OF LEVERAGING, WHICH WAS ONE CONCEPT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THIS PARTICULAR ROUND, SAYING IF YOU HAD HIGHER -- IF YOU WERE PROVIDING MORE AS AN INSTITUTION, WE SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. I THINK THAT'S EVEN IN PROP 71. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IT IS. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT THIS IS ANOTHER LAYER WHICH WOULD BOTH MAYBE TAKE SOME OF THE STEAM OUT OF THAT BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE HIGHER COST, WE COULDN'T REALLY TAKE YOUR HIGHER LEVERAGING BECAUSE YOUR HIGHER LEVERAGING IS GOING TOWARDS THOSE HIGHER COSTS. WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS REALLY ALMOST A FORMULA THAT WOULD BE LEVERAGE MINUS COSTS GREATER THAN 20 PERCENT. I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT A MATHEMATICIAN. THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE YOU ARE GOING WITH THIS. I THINK WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO THIS IN A TRANSPARENT WAY THAT MAKES SENSE. THE LOGIC IS THERE. I THINK THERE'S A RELATIONSHIP THERE. THERE'S ALSO THE QUALITY OF LEVERAGE WHICH IS ANOTHER ISSUE, WHETHER CERTAIN TYPES OF LEVERAGE IS MORE DESIRABLE THAN OTHER TYPES OF LEVERAGE. | ||||||||||
| JUST ON THIS FIRST POINT, GREATER LEVERAGE MITIGATING FOR HIGHER COST IS FINE IF THAT GREATER LEVERAGE DOESN'T THEN HAPPEN TO BENEFIT THE INSTITUTION ON THE OTHER END. RIGHT? IF IT'S NOT FORMULIZED SO THAT, YES, I GAVE GREATER LEVERAGE BECAUSE I HAD THE HIGHEST COST IN THE STATE, BUT I ALSO GET THE BENEFIT OF HAVING GIVEN THE GREATEST LEVERAGE EVEN THOUGH OTHER INSTITUTIONS WITH LOWER COST HAVE LESS LEVERAGE. DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: YEAH. THERE'S A SIMPLER APPROACH RATHER THAN THIS ALGEBRAIC FORMULA, WHICH IS JUST TO POSSIBLY TAKE YOUR COST, DEDUCT YOUR MATCHING FUNDS, AND THEN LOOK AT YOUR COST, YOUR NET COST, ON A COST-PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS. THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU A VERY CLEAN KIND OF SIMPLE -- | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: HOW DO YOU EVALUATE THE LEVERAGING? BECAUSE WE REALLY SHOULD PROBABLY CONSIDER GIVING -- WE SHOULDN'T SAY JUST THE RICHEST ARE GOING TO GET, BUT WE SHOULD REWARD INSTITUTIONS IN SOME WAY THAT HAVE REALLY GONE -- SOME INSTITUTIONS ARE DOING A LOT OF SERIOUS WORK IN TERMS OF GETTING RESOURCES TOGETHER TO SUPPORT THIS. WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THOSE WHO HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THAT AREA ABOVE AND BEYOND THE 20 PERCENT. DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ON A PRAGMATIC BASIS, UNLESS WE HAVE VERY EFFECTIVE LEVERAGE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE STATE THAT ARE VERY HIGH QUALITY. SO WE NEED TO REALLY AWARD MATCHING FUNDS PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY. AND I EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS THAT WILL ACTUALLY EXCEED A HUNDRED PERCENT LEVERAGE. | ||||||||||
| YOU COULD, A, AWARD LEVERAGE AND, B, ALSO SUBTRACT OUT THE LEVERAGE AND LOOK AT THE NET COSTS AND THEN NOT PENALIZE PEOPLE ON COST IF THE NET COST THAT WE HAVE TO BEAR AS THE STATE IS WITHIN THE NORMAL RANGE. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SO MAYBE NET COST AND NET LEVERAGE. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THAT'S A GOOD CONCEPT. LOOK AT NET COST AND NET LEVERAGE TO SEE WHAT THE BENEFIT IS TO THE STATE. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IF YOU APPLY SOME OF YOUR LEVERAGE TO BRINGING DOWN YOUR COST PER SQUARE FOOT, THAT COMES OFF YOUR LEVERAGE SIDE. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: RIGHT. SO YOU MAY HAVE ENOUGH LEVERAGE TO BOTH GET POINTS FOR LEVERAGE AND FOR REDUCING YOUR COSTS TO A REASONABLE RANGE. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: COST REDUCTION. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: TO MAKE YOUR COSTS COMPETITIVE. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. THAT'S A -- | ||||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD ONE THING. WHEN THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CONTINUES TO DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, YOU ALSO WOULDN'T WANT TO EXCLUDE OR PENALIZE THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, ARE BRINGING IN THEIR BUILDINGS AT A LOWER COST AND, THEREFORE, DON'T NEED ANY MORE LEVERAGE. SO I THINK THAT MEMBER SHEEHY ACTUALLY GETS TO A WORKABLE SOLUTION. WE'LL TEST IT OUT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK JEFF'S APPROACH IS GOOD BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A LOW COST, YOU'RE GOING TO GET BONUS POINTS ANYWAY. IF YOU LOOK AT NET COST AND NET LEVERAGE, THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD APPROACH. | ||||||||||
| MR. LAFF: ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IN MY MIND IS ARE ALL OF THESE FACILITIES BEING BUILT TO THE SAME STANDARDS? DO THEY HAVE LOWER COSTS BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILT TO DIFFERENT STANDARDS, OR DO THEY HAVE LOWER COSTS CONSISTENT WITH THE SAME STANDARD? | ||||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WELL, CERTAINLY THEY ALL HAVE TO MEET A CERTAIN LEVEL AND STANDARD IN REGARDS TO FIRE MARSHAL AND ETC., BUT, NO, THERE WILL BE SOME INSTITUTIONS THAT I IMAGINE WILL HIRE WORLD FAMOUS ARCHITECTS, AND THE STANDARD WOULD BE QUITE DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER INSTITUTION THAT WAS REALLY TRYING TO MAXIMIZE FUNCTIONALITY. | ||||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I WASN'T PART OF THE SHARED, SO THAT'S WHERE THAT CAME FROM. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: NO, I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THERE MIGHT BE SOME ADJUSTMENTS IN LINE WITH WHAT STUART IS RAISING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE COSTS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO STATE BUILDING CODES THAT ONLY AFFECT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SHOULD WE TRY AND IDENTIFY THOSE COSTS AND SAY, LOOK, ON A COMPARABLE BASIS, THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE BURDENED WITH THESE COSTS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL? AND SHOULD WE -- COULD WE DEDUCT THOSE OUT AND LOOK AT TOTAL COST? | ||||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I DO THINK THOSE ARE BASELINE COSTS. I THINK THAT ALSO WHAT'S GOING TO DRIVE THE COST IS THE PROGRAM. WHAT'S IN THE BUILDING? IS THERE A CLEAN ROOM IN THE BUILDING? HOW MANY BENCHES AND FUME HOODS ARE THERE? AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO NORMALIZE THAT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: LET'S GO DOWN THAT ROAD, IF WE CAN, LORI, FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE DEFINITIONALLY I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S BEEN EXPLORED, AND I'D LIKE THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE A CONSENSUS ON THIS, IS THAT WE'RE REALLY FUNDING OUT OF THE FACILITIES SET-ASIDE MONEY. AND DEFINITIONALLY WE'RE NOT FUNDING MOVABLE EQUIPMENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A FIXTURE. SOMETHING THAT IS AIR HANDLING EQUIPMENT FOR A GLP LAB IS A FIXTURE OR IT'S A PART OF A BUILDING SYSTEM, IT'S FIXTURIZED. THAT'S EQUIPMENT WE CAN FUND. | ||||||||||
| HOWEVER, IT SEEMS THAT WHEN LOOKING AT TOTAL COSTS IN TERMS OF LEVERAGE, WE SHOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO SUBMIT AND SHOW THEIR TOTAL COSTS, INCLUDING THEIR MOVABLE EQUIPMENT. THEY STILL HAVE TO DOCUMENT IN AUDITS AT THE END BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT TO MAKE THIS REALLY OPERATIONAL. | ||||||||||
| BUT WHEN THEY'RE REPORTING THEIR COST ON A COMPARABLE BASIS, IT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T INCLUDE THEIR MOVABLE EQUIPMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YOU MEAN PER SQUARE FOOT, PER SQUARE FOOT. THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT DOES NOT INCLUDE GROUP TWO AND THREE EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARITY. | ||||||||||
| MR. KELLER: BUT LEVERAGE WOULD LIKELY, VERY LIKELY, INCLUDE GROUP TWO BECAUSE ALL OF THESE LABORATORIES ARE GOING TO REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT BY THE APPLICANTS TO BRING THEM UP TO FUNCTIONALITY BY INVESTING IN THE GROUP TWO MOVABLE EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: RIGHT. SO WE NEED A VERY EXPLICIT DIRECTION THAT FOR PURPOSES OF LEVERAGE, YOU'RE USING YOUR TOTAL COST, INCLUDING GROUP TWO AND THREE EQUIPMENT; BUT FOR PURPOSES OF COST PER SQUARE FOOT, YOU'RE JUST USING GROUP ONE EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR FORMULA WHERE WE SUBTRACT LEVERAGE, WHAT LEVERAGE ARE WE SUBTRACTING OUT? ARE WE GOING TO SUBTRACT OUT LEVERAGE FOR EQUIPMENT, OR ARE WE GOING TO SUBTRACT OUT LEVERAGE THAT WENT SPECIFICALLY TO REDUCE, OR IS IT ALL THE SAME? | ||||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THERE'S A ONE-TO-ONE -- IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR ALGORITHM CORRECTLY WITH THE NET COST AND NET LEVERAGE, I THINK A DOLLAR EXPENDED FOR GROUP TWO EQUIPMENT BY THE APPLICANT IS A DOLLAR OF LEVERAGE. | ||||||||||
| IF YOU'RE FOCUSING ON BUILDING COSTS, YOU WOULD NOT ADD COST FOR THAT DOLLAR BEING INVESTED FOR GROUP TWO. YOU TRY TO KEEP APPLES TO APPLES FOR THE BUILDING COSTS, AND THEN APPLES PLUS EQUIPMENT, IF YOU WILL. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: JUST TO RAISE ANOTHER QUESTION SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP THAT I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS, SOME OF THESE THINGS AT THE UC SYSTEM IS BURDENED WITH MIGHT OUGHT TO BE PART OF WHAT WE ASK FOR FOR APPLICANTS, PREVAILING WAGE, CERTAIN GREEN BUILDING CODES. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: PREVAILING WAGE IS PART OF THE INITIATIVE. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT ARE THERE NOT OTHER THINGS THAT UC IS BURDENED WITH BY THE STATE THAT I THINK ARE SPECIFIC TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT WE MAY WANT TO -- | ||||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK IN JUST ABOUT EVERY CASE THERE'S GENERALLY A COROLLARY THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AS WELL-KNOWN. BUT, FOR INSTANCE, ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIREMENTS THAT FALL ON UC, THERE IS A PARALLEL PROCESS ON THE PRIVATE SIDE IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES REQUIRING THOSE. | ||||||||||
| IT'S JUST THAT THE UNIVERSITY, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE THEIR OWN LEAD AGENCY, AND WE HAVE MORE -- WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS IN SOME CASES IN TERMS OF WHAT KIND OF MITIGATIONS ARE ADOPTED. BUT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE IF THEY THINK THAT THERE'S A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIND OF THE BASELINE REQUIREMENTS RELATIVE TO AN ACADEMIC BUILDING, SCIENCE INTENSIVE ACADEMIC BUILDING BUILT UNDER THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND TITLE 24, ALL OF THE THINGS IN CALIFORNIA THAT APPLY TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VERSUS ONE THAT WOULD BE BUILT AT USC OR STANFORD UNDER A COMMUNITY STANDARD, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OTHER VARIABLE THERE IS, AS WAS MENTIONED, IT'S ABOUT THE FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE BUILDING IN TERMS IF THERE'S VIVARIA, THAT IS GOING TO DRIVE COST SIGNIFICANTLY. IF YOU ARE INVESTING IN DURABILITY BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT YOU SEE THE LONGEVITY OF THE PROGRAM RATHER THAN BUYING THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BREAK IN 10 OR 20 YEARS, YOU FIND THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO INVEST. | ||||||||||
| SO I THINK WE LOOK AT IT AS A BASELINE STANDARD, AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THERE WAS ONE APPLICANT WHOSE APPLICATION WAS SCORED HIGHER BY THE REVIEWER BECAUSE THEY HAD ELABORATED ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT THINGS. AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT ALL OF THIS THAT THEY HAD ELABORATED, GREEN BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY DESIGN, WERE REALLY PART OF WHAT MOST OF THE UC SYSTEMS WERE ADOPTING PER THE KINDS OF REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TO LIVE UNDER, AND THAT DID NOT NECESSARILY SEEM TO BE TRUE FOR OTHER APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||||
| MS. HEINECKE: TRUDI HEINECKE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. THE REGENTS HAVE ADOPTED A GREEN BUILDING POLICY, IT'S NOT A STATE REQUIREMENT, AND A CLEAN ENERGY POLICY AND OTHER THINGS THAT CAN SOMETIMES AFFECT THE COST OF THE BUILDING. IT REALLY DEPENDS. IT'S NOT ALWAYS MORE COSTLY. | ||||||||||
| IF YOU ARE -- FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE OPERABLE WINDOWS, WHICH MAY NOT BE THE CASE IN THESE KINDS OF FACILITIES, YOU CAN DOWNSIZE THE MECHANICAL SYSTEM. SO IT'S A TRADE-OFF BACK AND FORTH. | ||||||||||
| THE REGENTS ALSO HAVE SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT AFFECT PLANNING COSTS RELATED TO INDEPENDENT SEISMIC REVIEW, SOME DESIGN REVIEW, AND SO ON. OTHERWISE, I THINK RICK IS CORRECT. WE FOLLOW THE SAME BUILDING CODES AND HAVE THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT GREEN BUILDING POLICY. AND I THINK YOU COULD JUST ASK THE APPLICANT IF THERE ARE INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN STATE BUILDING CODES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT TO PUT THOSE SAME REQUIREMENTS INTO OUR RFA, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THEY'RE NOT COST NEUTRAL? CLEARLY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, WHY WOULD WE NOT? IF THE REGENTS SAW FIT, I DON'T SEE THAT AS THE BOARD OF GREENPEACE. IF THEY CAN SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS FOR THE MOST PART, IF THEY CAN SUPPORT GREEN BUILDING AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY, SHOULD WE NOT, JUST AS A MATTER OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP, AND ALL THE CURES IN THE WORLD WON'T HELP US IF WE'RE UNDERWATER WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. | ||||||||||
| MS. HEINECKE: I WOULD JUST SAY THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REQUIREMENT AND SOME KIND OF EXTRA POINTS BECAUSE IF INSTITUTIONS ARE FAIRLY WELL ALONG IN THEIR DESIGN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT TOO LATE TO REQUIRE CERTAIN KINDS OF GREEN BUILDING POLICIES. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK ON THE FACILITIES SIDE OF IT, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD AT LEAST DEBATE WITHIN THIS GROUP AND STRONGLY CONSIDER AWARDING SOME SORT OF BONUS FOR BEING MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY IN OUR BUILDING DESIGNS. | ||||||||||
| MR.WILLIAMS: CURT WILLIAMS FROM USC. AND JUST TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS FACE EQUAL CHALLENGES RELATIVE TO GETTING BUILDINGS BUILT, THAT'S TO SAY ABSOLUTELY. WE HAVE TO DO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS ON BUILDINGS, AND SO WE HAVE ALREADY DONE ONE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO BUILD OUR FACILITY. AND WE ARE WITHIN THE CITY OF L.A., AND THE CITY REQUIREMENTS, I WOULD GUESS, ARE EQUALLY STRINGENT TO THE STATE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS BUILDING A BUILDING. SO THERE'S EXTREME CHALLENGES ALL THE INSTITUTIONS ARE GOING TO FACE. | ||||||||||
| I THINK MOST OF THE MAJOR INSTITUTIONS ARE ALSO VERY CHALLENGED AS FAR AS SPACE GOES. AND SO THE OPTIONS TO BUILD A TWO-STORY TILT-UP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR MOST OF US IS ALMOST A NONISSUE, THAT WE CANNOT -- WE'RE BUILDING BUILDINGS, AND I WOULD HOPE THE CIRM WOULD LOOK AT THESE BUILDINGS AS LONG-TERM INSTITUTIONAL INVESTMENTS. AND SO THESE ARE 50-YEAR BUILDINGS FOR THE MOST PART, AND THEY NEED TO BE FLEXIBLE SO THEY CAN CHANGE FOR THE RESEARCH THAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE OVER THE NEXT 50 YEARS, BUT THEY NEED TO BE BUILT AS GOOD BUILDINGS, AND THEY'RE ENERGY EFFICIENT AND SUSTAINABLE. AND ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS NEED TO BE FACTORED IN BECAUSE THE OPERATING COST OF THESE BUILDINGS IS ALSO SUBSTANTIAL. SO WE WANT THEM TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS WE CAN. | ||||||||||
| BUT CERTAINLY FROM THE PRIVATE STANDPOINT, WE FACE DIFFERENT BUT EQUAL CHALLENGES AS THE STATE SYSTEM DOES IN BUILDING BUILDINGS. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WHILE YOU'RE THERE, WHAT KIND OF PREMIUM IS THERE FOR PUTTING A VIVARIUM IN A BUILDING? REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY IS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A COST DISINCENTIVE, LEAVE OUT A CRITICAL ELEMENT OF A COMPLETE PROGRAM. | ||||||||||
| MR.WILLIAMS: VIVARIA ARE VERY EXPENSIVE, PROBABLY IF NOT THE MOST, ONE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE COMPONENTS THAT WILL BE IN ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS. AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO ADD SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE COST IF YOU HAVE A VIVARIA AS PART OF YOUR BUILDING. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: IN TERMS OF THAT SPECIFIC FEATURE, AND GIVEN ITS IMPORTANCE, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OF TRYING TO EQUALIZE BY, IF THERE'S A VIVARIUM, ADJUSTING THAT FOOTAGE DEDICATED TO A VIVARIUM BASED UPON A BENCHMARK NORMALIZED LAB COST FOR THAT SPACE? | ||||||||||
| MR.WILLIAMS: I'M NOT SURE -- | ||||||||||
| THE COURT: SO IF IT COST $550 A SQUARE FOOT OR $650 FOR A LAB COST AND 850 FOR VIVARIUM, WE DO A COST ADJUSTMENT. | ||||||||||
| MR.WILLIAMS: WE LOOK AT AN AVERAGE. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE LOOK AT COST ADJUSTMENT TO BRING DOWN THE COST OF THE BUILDING BY THE VIVARIUM FOOTAGE BY THE DIFFERENTIAL PREMIUM YOU'RE PAYING FOR THAT SO THAT WE DON'T DISINCENTIVIZE PEOPLE FROM HAVING VIVARIA IN BUILDINGS. | ||||||||||
| MR. LAFF: ALSO, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO FLOORS FOR THE VIVARIUM. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE ACTUAL FLOOR, AND THEN ALL THE MECHANICAL GOES ON ANOTHER FLOOR RIGHT ABOVE IT. SO YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE A WHOLE EXTRA FLOOR. | ||||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SOMETIMES THERE'S AN INTERSTITIAL SPACE. | ||||||||||
| MR.WILLIAMS: THEY CAN BE DESIGNED IN DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT THEY'RE VERY MECHANICAL INTENSIVE. AND HOW YOU SOLVE THAT MECHANICAL PROBLEM IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES. BUT BECAUSE SOME OF THE INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONS PUT IN, LIKE WE'VE INVESTED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE EIR ALREADY, THERE IS MITIGATIONS. WE HAVE TO UPGRADE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING, AS A PART OF THIS, HOW DO THOSE FACTORS GET FACTORED IN AS FAR AS AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO A PROJECT AND AN OVERALL INITIATIVE. SO -- | ||||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WELL, MR. WILLIAMS, HERE THE ONE AREA OF VARIANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE THAT LORI REMINDS ME OF IS THAT THE STATE, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE UNDER A COMPETITIVE BIDDING CIRCUMSTANCE, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEN OFTENTIMES OUR PROJECTS GO OUT INTO A MARKET AT A PARTICULAR TIME, MAYBE AT A DISADVANTAGEOUS PERIOD OF TIME; WHEREAS, PRIVATE SECTOR HAS MORE OPPORTUNITY TO DO NEGOTIATED BIDS WHERE CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS MAY, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE CLIENT IS MORE FLEXIBLE, MAY BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A BETTER PRICE. | ||||||||||
| I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING VERSUS NEGOTIATED CONTRACTING AT UC IN YOUR EXPERIENCE? HAS IT MADE A DIFFERENCE? | ||||||||||
| MR.WILLIAMS: WELL, IN ANSWER TO YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION, YOU'RE STILL GOING OUT TO A MARKET FOR THE SUBCONTRACTORS WHO ARE DOING THE BULK OF THE BID AT THE SAME TIME. IF WE'RE ALL BUILDING THESE BUILDINGS EARLY NEXT YEAR, STARTING CONSTRUCTION, WE'RE ALL HITTING THE SUBCONTRACTING COMMUNITY AT THE SAME TIME. SO THE MARKET CONDITIONS ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME, I THINK, FROM THAT. | ||||||||||
| THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMPETITIVE BID AND NEGOTIATED, BUT STILL I THINK THAT YOU ARE HITTING THAT MARKET ABOUT THE SAME TIME, SO WE'RE ALL GOING TO SUFFER OR BENEFIT. AND THE STATE SUFFERED, I THINK BOTH NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, WE'RE MORE FAMILIAR WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, EXTREME COST RISES OVER THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS. SO THERE'S NO SIGNS, AT LEAST FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR, THAT THAT'S SOFTENING ANY TIME SOON. WE ALL HOPE IT WILL. | ||||||||||
| MR. TANGORIAN: GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS NEILICH TANGORIAN (PHONETIC). I'M WITH THE STANFORD SCHOOL OF MEDICINE. WHEREAS I'M FAIRLY NEW AT STANFORD, I HAVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE IN THE CAL STATE SYSTEM WHERE I WAS EMPLOYED UNTIL COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. SO I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS FROM BOTH SIDES, AND I THINK THERE ARE NO BLACK AND WHITES. THERE ARE CHALLENGES ON EITHER SIDE. | ||||||||||
| WHEN YOU ARE IN A PRIVATE INSTITUTION, YOU'RE DEALING WITH LOCAL ZONING, WHICH WHEN YOU'RE ON THE STATE SIDE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH. THE ENTITLEMENT ISSUE IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN ON THE STATE SIDE. BY THE SAME TOKEN, YOU HAVE SOME POSITIVES THERE. WHERE CONTRACTING IS CONCERNED, YOU HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ON THE STATE SIDE. | ||||||||||
| I THINK THERE WHAT YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR IS DIFFICULT TO DISCERN BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BLACK-AND-WHITE ANSWERS. IN TERMS OF COST, THE COST PER SQUARE FEET IS VERY MUCH DRIVEN BY PROGRAM. AS WAS JUST STATED, WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME MARKETPLACE. WE ARE GETTING THE MATERIALS FROM THE SAME PLACES. YES, THE PRIVATES HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN CONTRACTING, BUT NOT TO THE POINT WHERE IT HAS HUGE COST BENEFITS. | ||||||||||
| I WOULD URGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT LIFE CYCLE COSTS RATHER THAN JUST THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS MAYBE 30 PERCENT OR 35 PERCENT OF WHAT YOU WILL SPEND ON THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE BUILDING. AND WHEN LOOKED AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THE COST PER SQUARE FEET, THE IMMEDIATE COST PER SQUARE FEET MAYBE HAS A DIFFERENT METRIC THAN WHEN LOOKED AT FROM THE 50-YEAR LIFE CYCLE COST OF THE BUILDING. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELL, I THINK WE GOT THOSE ISSUES OUT ON THE TABLE. I'D LIKE TO, IN THE REMAINING SHORT TIME, GO TO A COUPLE OF ITEMS RELATED TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY RAISED. ONE OF THE ITEMS WE'VE ALREADY RAISED IS THIS ISSUE THAT APPLICANTS WILL SELF-SELECT AND SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATIONS. AND THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WILL NEED TO LOOK AT POTENTIALLY WHAT CLASSIFICATION THEY FALL INTO AND POSSIBLY HAVE A GUIDELINE OF WHAT DOLLAR ALLOCATION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR VARIOUS RANGES. IT COULD BE THAT THERE'S INPUT FROM THIS GROUP AS TO DOLLAR ALLOCATIONS TO THE RANGES THAT ARE SET BY THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP IN THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. | ||||||||||
| BUT A RELATED QUESTION IS IF AN ENTITY APPLIES FOR A MAJOR FACILITY AND IT IS COLLABORATING WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS, CAN THOSE INSTITUTIONS USE PART OF THEIR ALLOCATION TO GO INTO THIS MAJOR FACILITY AND PART OF THEIR ALLOCATION TO EXPAND THEIR CAPACITY AS A NICHE SPECIAL EXPERTISE PROVIDER TO ENHANCE THEIR PRIMARY SITE; IN OTHER WORDS, KIND OF A HYBRID APPROACH? | ||||||||||
| SO WHAT'S THE SENSE OF THE COMMITTEE THAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AN ENTITY HAD A $10 MILLION ALLOCATION BASED ON ITS SCIENTIFIC CAPACITY, AND IT WANTED TO ALLOCATE FIVE MILLION OF THAT TO A SHARED FACILITY AND RETAIN FIVE MILLION TO EXPAND ITS PRIMARY SITE BECAUSE IT THOUGHT IT COULD OPTIMIZE ITS COST-EFFECTIVE PRODUCTIVITY AT ITS PRIMARY SITE GIVEN THE PRESENCE OF SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, IMAGING EQUIPMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT MAY ALREADY BE ON THAT SITE, AND MAYBE THEIR NICHE IS IN IMAGING, FOR EXAMPLE. SO THEY WANT TO EXPAND THEIR PRIMARY SITE WHERE THEY HAVE A FULL COMPLEMENT OF SPECIALISTS IN THE IMAGING AREA. | ||||||||||
| SHOULD APPLICANTS BE ABLE TO ALLOCATE PART OF THEIR APPLICATION TO A SHARED FACILITY AND PART TO THEIR PRIMARY SITE? ANYONE WANT TO TAKE THAT ON? | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE HOW THAT WORKS AS A GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY WITH GRANTEES DECIDING HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY TO THAT DEGREE. I TRY TO VISUALIZE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN A REVIEW PROCESS AND HOW YOU WOULD REVIEW THAT. IT JUST SEEMS VERY MESSY TO ME. I DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT THAT MYSELF. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: IT ALMOST SEEMS AS THOUGH THAT'S TWO SEPARATE -- | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: TWO SEPARATE THINGS. BUT IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU GET ONE APPLICATION FROM, LET'S SAY, THE CONSORTIA AND A SEPARATE APPLICATION FROM THE INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTION, BUT IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT ON BOTH THE CONSORTIA AND THE INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTION TO CLEARLY DELINEATE THE SEPARATIONS SO THAT THE REVIEWERS, ESPECIALLY THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEWERS, CAN SEE HOW THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE IS BEING ALLOCATED SO THEY CAN EVALUATE IT AND NOT KIND OF GET STUCK IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THE TWO. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK YOU VERY MUCH HAVE TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS AND THEY'RE EACH JUDGED SEPARATELY. BUT THEN THE QUESTION IS, THOUGH, THIS PARTICULAR INSTITUTION, IF THEY'RE TRYING TO AGGREGATE THEIR ALLOCATION, THEY'RE TRYING TO AGGREGATE IT WITH THIS OTHER INSTITUTION THEY'RE COLLABORATING WITH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE WE SAY IF THE SCIENTIFIC MERIT ATTACHED TO THIS GROUP WOULD PUT THEM IN THE POSITION WHERE THEY COULD GET A MAXIMUM GRANT OF 10 MILLION, THEY THEORETICALLY COULD SAY HALF OF THAT WOULD GO TOWARDS THE OTHER APPLICATION, AND THEY WANT TO RETAIN HALF OF THEIR MAXIMUM ALLOCATION. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, I GUESS ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT TOO IS IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A NICHE SPECIALTY, AND I THINK THIS CAME UP IN THE SHARED LABS, IF SOMEONE REALLY DID HAVE A PARTICULAR AREA IN WHICH THEY HAVE DEVELOPED EXCELLENCE, I WOULD NOT BE AVERSE TO FUNDING A CENTER OF EXCELLENCE PROVIDED IT WAS AVAILABLE TO ALL RESEARCHERS IN CALIFORNIA. I WOULDN'T MIND AN IMAGING CENTER THAT WAS A SHARED LAB IMAGING CENTER AND FUNDING THAT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. AND THEY MAY WANT TO FOR OTHER PROGRAMMATIC PURPOSES BE A COLLABORATOR WITH ANOTHER INSTITUTION WITHIN A LARGER STRUCTURE. | ||||||||||
| BUT THEY WOULD BE BUILDING SOMETHING SEPARATE, BUT THAT'S HOW -- THAT WOULD BE A -- FROM SOMEBODY THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AS AN ENTITY, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE IF IT WAS A RESOURCE THAT ACTUALLY HAD A GREATER DEGREE OF SHARING THAN WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH THE CONSORTIA. THEY'RE BUILDING SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY AND THAT WAS THE REASON. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT POINT? OKAY. I THINK THAT PROBABLY WILL GET SOME DISCUSSION AS WE GO FORWARD. MAYBE AT ONE OF THE FUTURE MEETINGS WE CAN ASK DR. CHIU TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE WORK WITH THIS AS WELL AS LORI HOFFMAN AND RICK KELLER. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL ON THIS POINT IS IF THERE WAS AN APPLICANT THAT WAS CONSIDERING SOMETHING ALONG THESE LINES, IF THEY WOULD ACTUALLY PRESENT, LIKE OTHER FOLKS HAVE DONE. BECAUSE THIS IS AN ABSTRACTION, IT SOUNDS LIKE. THERE'S NOTHING LIKE REALITY. SINCE FOLKS FROM USC AND UCLA AND INSTITUTIONS THAT CAME TO SAN FRANCISCO PRESENTED THEIR -- GAVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO AND ACTUALLY HAVE SOME NICE BACKDROP OF INFORMATION. IF THERE WAS A SPECIFIC INSTITUTION OR ONE OR TWO INSTITUTIONS OR THREE OR FOUR THAT WERE THINKING ALONG THESE LINES, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO REALLY HAVE THIS LAID OUT RATHER THAN HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT THEORETICALLY. | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: JUST TO TRY AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCRETE FOR YOU, WITHIN OUR CONSORTIUM WE ENVISION A CENTRAL FACILITY WHICH WILL BE THE MAIN FACILITY, BUT THERE'S A SATELLITE GROUP -- I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO WHO THEY ARE BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE NEGOTIATIONS -- WHO WOULD HAVE A PARTICULAR SET OF TECHNOLOGIES ON THEIR SITE THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ENTIRE CONSORTIUM BUT WOULD REQUIRE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BUILD AND TO OPERATE. AND THAT'S THE SORT OF THING. HOW DO WE PACKAGE SUCH AN APPLICATION BECAUSE WE SEE THERE'S VALUE AND SYNERGY, AND HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT IN OUR APPLICATION? | ||||||||||
| IT'S REALLY IN A SENSE HAVING IT AS A JOINT APPLICATION HAS SOME MERIT BECAUSE OF THE SCIENTIFIC SENSE TO IT AND WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT WE NEED SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW WE WOULD FORMAT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: I THINK THIS IS SIMILAR TO IN THE SAN DIEGO AREA, THEY'VE GOT THIS CONSORTIUM, BUT SOME OF THEM CLAIM SOME SPECIFIC EXPERTISE WHERE THEY THINK THEY CAN ENHANCE THAT EXPERTISE ON THEIR PRIMARY SITE AND ON A COST-EFFECTIVE BASIS DELIVER MORE VALUE. SO IT'S A SIMILAR SITUATION TO WHAT DR. PERA IS DESCRIBING. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NEW FACILITIES, NEW BUILDINGS? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SHARED LAB, EXISTING COUPLE OF FLOORS HERE OR A FLOOR? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: WE'RE PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO, NOT ENTIRELY A NEW BUILDING, BUT SIGNIFICANT UPGRADES. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AT THE SATELLITE SPACE? | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MAYBE PART OF THIS IS A SEPARATE -- AS WE LOOK AT OUR TIERS, MAYBE THIS WOULD BE BUILT IN AS A SHARED LAB SPACE MAYBE ON A STAIRWELL BIGGER THAN WHAT WE'VE DONE. AND, AGAIN, WE CAN HEAR FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. SHARED LAB SPACE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE A BIT MORE COST EFFICIENT. BUT AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT OUR DIFFERENT LEVELS, MAYBE WE CAN DESIGNATE THAT IF YOU WERE TO SEPARATELY APPLY FOR A SHARED LAB FROM THE SHARED LAB CATEGORY, THAT WOULD NOT PREJUDICE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN A CONSORTIA. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WE NEED TO CALL ON DR. CHIU BECAUSE SHE RAISED HER HAND AND SOMEONE THREW SOMETHING OFF THE BUILDING. | ||||||||||
| DR. CHIU: MAYBE THAT'S A SIGN THAT I SHOULDN'T RAISE THIS QUESTION. BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON THE ONE HAND A LARGE FACILITY, WHATEVER, AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND THE SATELLITE BEING LIKE ONE CORE FACILITY THAT IS ANOTHER LOCATION BECAUSE IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN WE DO TALK ABOUT CORES? AND SO THIS OTHER PART OF CONCENTRATION IN ONE PARTICULAR AREA OF EXPERTISE, AS JEFF SAID, MADE AVAILABLE TO A BROAD AUDIENCE MIGHT BE A CORE RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, PART OF THIS BIG COLLABORATION. AM I READING IT RIGHT? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: I THINK WE SEE IT SCIENTIFICALLY AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE EMBEDDED IN THE COLLABORATION, AND WE'D PROBABLY WANT TO HAVE IT REVIEWED AS SUCH. BUT YOU CAN CALL IT A CORE IF YOU LIKE. | ||||||||||
| DR. CHIU: BUT IT'S ON A DIFFERENT LOCATION. | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: IT'S ON A DIFFERENT SITE, YES. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: OKAY. THE FINAL QUESTION I'D LIKE TO PUT ON THE TABLE IS A MAJOR QUESTION HERE JUST AS TO POLICY. THE INITIAL IMPETUS, PRIMARY IMPETUS TO THIS FACILITIES PROGRAM WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS FEDERAL FUNDS FREE SPACE FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. NOW, HOWEVER, WE KNOW AS WE DISCUSSED AND I PARTICULARLY OFFERED IN THE LAST MEETING THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF SYNERGY BETWEEN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, ADULT, FETAL, AMNIOTIC, AND YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE BEST SCIENCE, BUT A LOT OF THE SCIENTISTS INVOLVED ARE NOT GOING TO BE SOLELY IN ONE AREA OR THE OTHER. | ||||||||||
| AND SO WHAT ARE WE ASKING IN TERMS OF THESE APPLICATIONS? ARE WE ASKING THAT THESE FACILITIES PRIMARILY SERVE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, BUT THEY CAN HAVE A SECONDARY PURPOSE OF SERVING ADULT AND FETAL AND OTHER TYPES OF STEM CELL RESEARCH? WHAT IS OUR POSITION ON THE PRIMARY CHARACTER OF THIS SPACE AND WHAT IT SERVES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSITION? | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU'RE TALKING -- IT DOES SEEM THAT WE DO HAVE THIS CONCEPT ON THE TABLE OF A MAJOR TRANSLATIONAL CENTER OF EXCELLENCE. AND I THINK CLEARLY THERE YOU WANT SOUP TO NUTS. I THINK WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT SMALLER, MORE TARGETED THINGS, THEN I THINK THAT THOSE, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, WOULD HAVE TO BE PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, IT SEEMS TO ME. | ||||||||||
| MR. LAFF: OKAY. I'LL TAKE A WHACK AT IT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN THE LARGER CONTEXT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE PRIMARY USE OF THIS FACILITY FOUR YEARS OR FIVE YEARS OUT. WE DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE EMBRYONIC OR WHATEVER ELSE. SO I THINK TO TRY AND PREJUDGE THAT WOULD BE PRETTY DIFFICULT. | ||||||||||
| I THINK WITH THESE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE, I THINK IT'S A LOT EASIER. BUT AS I HAVE NOW HAD ALL OF TWO MEETINGS ON THIS, I HEAR COLLABORATION, FLEXIBILITY, CHANGE. I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO JUST JUDGE IT ON EMBRYONIC. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: WELL, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE. ONE IS HOW WE EVALUATE THE SCIENCE, BUT THE SEPARATE ISSUE IS MAYBE ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE ASKING IS A COMMITMENT TO HOUSE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH ON A PRIORITY BASIS. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT AT LEAST THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH HAS A PLACE IN THIS FEDERAL FUNDS FREE SPACE. OTHERWISE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE FREELY UNENCUMBERED BY A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ACCOUNTING REGULATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ON USE. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY COMPROMISED BY THE TRANSACTIONAL COST OF JUST CONDUCTING THE SCIENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS, IF NOT ABSOLUTELY SUPPRESSIVE. | ||||||||||
| SO THE OTHER QUESTION IS SINCE THERE IS SUPPOSEDLY A PRIORITY FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, IF WE HAVE A MAJOR CENTER AND IT IS SAYING THAT 70 PERCENT OF ITS RESEARCH IS GOING TO BE EMBRYONIC, AND THERE'S EQUIVALENT SCIENTIFIC VALUE WITH ANOTHER MAJOR CENTER, AND 30 PERCENT IS GOING TO BE EMBRYONIC, DO WE HAVE A POLICY TO GIVE A PRIORITY TO THAT ONE THAT WILL PROVIDE MORE SPACE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FEDERAL FUNDS FREE AND CREATES IN CALIFORNIA A UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT TO CONDUCT THAT RESEARCH? | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I GUESS I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I AGREE WITH WHAT STUART SAID. TO SAY THAT A PRIORI THAT THAT'S WHAT ALL THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE USED FOR, AND IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH, THE MORE SUCCESSFUL TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCHERS ARE GOING TO BE WORKING FAIRLY QUICKLY ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS INTO HANDLING ADULT STEM CELLS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING INTO PEOPLE. SO A PLACE THAT MAY BE 70 PERCENT EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, IT SEEMS TO ME MAY NOT BE DOING AS MUCH TRANSLATIONAL WORK AS THE PLACES THAT MAY BE DOING 30 PERCENT. | ||||||||||
| I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD AT THIS STAGE IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT -- IT REALLY TO ME IS MORE OF A QUESTION OF SIZE. I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO GO DOWN THE ROAD WHERE WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT SOME MAJOR CENTERS, THEN I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT A LOT OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE THERE. THAT'S THE WHOLE BUSINESS OF WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. AND TRYING TO ASK THEM WHAT PERCENTAGE IS EMBRYONIC STEM CELL, WHAT PERCENTAGE IS THAT GOING IN, I'D BE MORE INTERESTED IN THE FACULTY THAT THEY WANT TO BRING ON SPECIFIC TO STEM CELL RESEARCH. AND LIKE USC HAS DONE, THESE HARD COMMITMENTS TO NEW FACULTY SPECIFICALLY TO WORK IN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL OR TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR NEW FACULTY TO WORK IN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. IT SEEMS TO ME THE SPACE WILL FOLLOW THE FACULTY, I WOULD SUSPECT, MORE THAN -- IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE FACULTY, THE SPACE ISN'T GOING TO BE USED. | ||||||||||
| AND THEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE SMALLER ONES, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE MAY BE ASKING THAT THEY DO SET ASIDE SOME PORTION. I THINK THAT'S THEIR COMMITMENT TO US, WHY THEY'RE COMING TO US. THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO THIS ON THEIR OWN. THEY HAVE THE FEDERAL BURDEN ON TOP TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH IN ORDER TO DO THIS RESEARCH. DEFINITELY THE MOTIVATION FOR THE SHARED LABS WAS TO CREATE SOME SPACE THAT WAS FREE AND CLEAR FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS RESEARCH THAT WE'RE FUNDING. | ||||||||||
| BECAUSE THAT'S THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS. A LOT OF THIS RESEARCH WE'RE GOING TO BE FUNDING. SO IF WE'RE FUNDING -- IT MAY BE THAT WE GIVE FUNDS TO AN INSTITUTION THAT IS NOT VERY COMPETITIVE END OF THE DAY FOR OUR FUNDING AND, THEREFORE, NOT ABLE TO DO VERY MUCH EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. HOWEVER, IF WE FUND SOMEONE WHO'S VERY COMPETITIVE IN COMPETING FOR GRANTS FROM US, I CAN SEE THEM DOING A LOT OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. THERE'S THAT FACTOR TOO BECAUSE I DO THINK WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE MAJOR FUNDER FOR AT LEAST THE NEAR TERM FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. | ||||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I COMPLETELY AGREE. I THINK OUR JOB IS TO KICK-START THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN THE STATE BECAUSE THAT IS A DEFICIT IN THE COUNTRY. BUT THEN AFTER THAT STEP AWAY BECAUSE THE SCIENCE SHOULD LEAD AND THE BUILDINGS SHOULD FOLLOW THE SCIENCE. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I WONDER IF INSTITUTIONAL PEOPLE, IF ANY OF THE SCIENTISTS HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: LET'S SEE IF THE SCIENTISTS HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ON THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO WHAT JANET JUST SAID. I CERTAINLY BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE AN ORGANIC AND DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT. EVEN IF YOU START OFF WITH A PREFERENCE FOR MAKING SURE YOU HOUSE THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, IF THE SCIENCE EVOLVED WHERE AMNIOTIC CELLS OR FETAL CELLS ARE BREAKING THROUGH IN A NUMBER OF AREAS, YOU ARE GOING TO CONSTANTLY BE REAPPORTIONING IT. SO YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A STARTING POINT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT AS A SNAPSHOT. IN FACT, WE ARE DEDICATED TO THE PATIENT OUTCOME. AND SO WE DO WANT THIS SCIENCE IN THE BUILDING TO FOLLOW THE BEST SOLUTION WHERE THE GREATEST PROBABILITIES ARE. | ||||||||||
| SO WHAT I'M ADDRESSING HERE IS THE INITIAL SNAPSHOT. ANY OF THE SCIENTISTS HERE WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: ACTUALLY I THINK IT WOULD BE A REAL MISTAKE TO HAVE A SET FORMULA FOR THE AMOUNT OF STEM CELL RESEARCH EMBRYONIC THAT GOES ON WITHIN THESE STRUCTURES. WE REALLY ARE NOT AT A STAGE OF THE SCIENCE WHERE WE CAN PREDICT WHERE THE PATIENT OUTCOMES WILL COME FROM. WHAT IS MORE, THESE BUILDINGS WON'T BE AVAILABLE FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE YEARS. HOPEFULLY BY THAT TIME THE FEDERAL PICTURE WILL HAVE CHANGED SOME. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AND IN TERMS OF THAT CONTEXT, ONE OF THE GOALS OF PROPOSITION 71 IS TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM STABILITY. AS WE KNOW FROM LOOKING BACK HISTORICALLY, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CAN CHANGE ITS POLITICAL DIMENSIONS PRETTY QUICKLY, AND IT COULD ROLL OVER TWO YEARS FROM NOW TO BE FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH AND TWO YEARS AFTER THAT TO BE AGAINST IT. | ||||||||||
| SO HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT HAVING A PREFERENCE TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT YOU HOUSED EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH AT YOUR INSTITUTION IN THIS BUILDING IN FEDERALLY FREE SPACE TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT RESEARCH WAS ONGOING AND CERTAIN BIASES WERE REDEVELOPED IN THE ADMINISTRATION? | ||||||||||
| DR. PERA: YOUR POINT ABOUT POLITICAL INSTABILITY IS A GOOD ONE, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY VALUABLE FOR US TO HAVE SOME GUARANTEE OVER THE LONG TERM THAT THERE WOULD BE A SAFE HAVEN FOR THIS RESEARCH. | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PREDICT PERCENTAGE. IT GETS VERY DIFFICULT TO DECIDE ON X PERCENT FOR EMBRYONIC WORK BECAUSE IT'S CONTINUITY AND ONE THING SHOULD LEAD TO THE NEXT. | ||||||||||
| BUT THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE, I THINK, IS IMPORTANT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN APPLICATION FOR SOMETHING. IN EACH DIFFERENT PLACE AROUND THE STATE, IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING WHERE THEY ARE IN THEIR OTHER BUILDING PROGRAMS, THEIR OTHER INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE DIFFERENT PROGRAM AREAS. | ||||||||||
| SO TO USE MY OWN INSTITUTION AS AN EXAMPLE, WE'VE ALREADY COMMITTED VERY LARGE AMOUNTS OF SPACE IN TWO BRAND-NEW RESEARCH BUILDINGS TO MANY OF OUR NEW RECRUITS. WE WON'T BE ASKING FOR THAT IN OUR NEXT APPLICATION. WE'LL BE ASKING FOR THINGS THAT WOULD COMPLEMENT AND EXTEND THE VALUE WE'VE ALREADY PLACED IN OTHER FACILITIES; WHEREAS, ANOTHER INSTITUTION MIGHT SAY THEY REALLY NEED PRIMARY WET BEDS, LABORATORY SPACE IN A MORE TRADITIONAL BIOLOGICAL LAB STYLE. | ||||||||||
| SO I THINK YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT SETTING THESE FORMULAS AND LET THE INSTITUTIONS TELL YOU WHAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR PLACES OF WORK AND THEN JUDGE THAT BASED ON THE OVERALL SCIENCE AND THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT OF THE INSTITUTION IN THE PAST AS WELL AS WHAT SAY THEY'RE GOING TO DO IN PARALLEL. | ||||||||||
| WE HAVE PLANS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR SOME THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPLY FOR, WE HOPE TO HAVE PRIVATE MONEY, THAT WOULD BE, AGAIN, BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY OF STEM CELL RESEARCHERS, BUT NOT DEPENDENT ON THIS GRANT MECHANISM. SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE A FORMULA THAT YOU HAVE ABC. PEOPLE MENTIONED VIVARIA. BELIEVE ME IT WOULD LEAD UP TO $295 MILLION VERY QUICKLY IF EVERYBODY ASKS FOR NEW VIVARIA SPACE. I HOPE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. | ||||||||||
| ONE ISSUE THAT WASN'T BROUGHT UP IS IF YOU'RE RENOVATING ANYTHING IN A HOSPITAL, THERE'S A CERTAIN SET OF REGULATORY AGGREGATIONS BEYOND COMPREHENSION ALMOST THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH. I HOPE FEW PEOPLE ASK FOR THAT. AND OTHER THINGS SUCH AS THE TYPES OF CHEMISTRY, MICROFLUIDICS FACILITIES THAT WE'LL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO RECEIVING FUNDS FOR, ARE ALSO VERY EXPENSIVE IN TERMS OF AIR HANDLING, SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, ETC. EACH ONE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT AND SHOULD BE JUDGED ON THE SCIENCE OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE PARALLEL SOURCES OF SUPPORT. I WOULD WATCH OUT FOR THE 70 PERCENT KIND OF FORMULA. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK OUT. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: MAKING IT CLEAR, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT ANY FORMULAS ON PERCENTAGE. THE QUESTION IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION, WHICH IS IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND SAYS THE MAJORITY OF OUR SPACE IS COMMITTED TO EMBRYONIC BECAUSE THERE ARE FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THESE OTHER OPTIONS, AND SOMEBODY ELSE COMES IN AND SAYS OUR SPACE IS COMMITTED TO VARIOUS TYPES OF ADULT OR FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH, AND WE JUST HAVE A VERY BEGINNING EMBRYONIC STEM CELL EFFORT, WHICH IS GOING TO TAKE A SMALL PORTION OF IT, I WAS ASKING THE STRUCTURAL QUESTION OF WHETHER WE HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO HAVE A PREFERENCE WITH SCIENTIFIC MERIT OTHERWISE BEING EQUAL, TO MAKE SURE WE HOUSE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN THE STATE? | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: I THINK IT'S THAT LAST QUALIFIER, WITH EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL. TO MY MIND IT'S A CONTINUITY, AND I THINK THE PLACE THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT FORWARD THE STRONG SCIENCE IS THE ONE THAT HAS THAT BALANCE BECAUSE EACH OF THESE DISCIPLINES EDUCATES EACH OF THE OTHERS. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE TOUGH PART. I JUST CAN'T IN MY OWN MIND IMAGINE THAT IF YOU WERE SUPER HEAVILY WEIGHTED IN ONE AREA, IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO TURN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL INTO SOMATIC OR ADULT-TYPE CELLS FOR THE REGENERATIVE MEDICINE TRANSPLANTATION ISSUES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EITHER IN VITRO OR SOMEHOW IN VIVO. IT'S A CONTINUITY. | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: SO WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO SEE THAT EXTREME PARADIGM. | ||||||||||
| DR. WITTE: I CAN'T PREDICT WHAT YOU'LL SEE, BUT WE NECESSARILY THINK IT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO GO. | ||||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THE OTHER POINT IS IS THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE ESTABLISHED EXPERTISE IN WORKING, ESPECIALLY IN A CLINICAL SENSE, WITH ADULT STEM CELLS, EVEN IF THEY WERE ONLY GOING TO USE 20 PERCENT OF THEIR SPACE FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, YOU CAN IMAGINE THE SPEED WITH WHICH THEY WOULD TRANSLATE THAT RESEARCH IF THEY HAD A DISCOVERY. YOU COULD HAVE SOMEPLACE THAT'S DOING A HUNDRED PERCENT EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, BUT THEY HAVE NO EXPERIENCE EITHER USING BONE MARROW, HEMATOPOETIC STEM CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF CANCER SURVIVORS OR USING UMBILICAL CORD STEM CELLS FOR CHILDREN WITH SICKLE CELL ANEMIA. | ||||||||||
| IF THERE'S NOT THAT EXPERTISE IN ACTUALLY DOING THOSE KINDS OF PROCEDURES, TRANSPLANTING CELLS INTO INDIVIDUALS AND THEN CLINICAL EXPERTISE, WHY WOULD WE PENALIZE THAT EXPERTISE, I GUESS, AND THAT THEY WANT TO ACTUALLY BUILD OUT THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL PIECE THAT WOULD ENABLE THEM TO BE ABLE TO EXPLOIT THEIR EXISTING EXPERTISE WITH A MUCH LARGER GROUP OF PATIENTS? | ||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: AS YOU KNOW, I SPOKE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS IS THAT WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT ALL TYPES OF THIS RESEARCH ARE BEING CONDUCTED IN THE SAME FACILITY BECAUSE IT'S ORGANIC FLOW. BUT GIVEN THE PREFERENCES I WROTE INTO THE INITIATIVE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A GOOD PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF WHY WE'RE DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING, AND SO THAT THE PUBLIC IN A TRANSPARENT WAY CAN SEE THAT THERE IS PROPER JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE, AND THAT IT REALLY DOES FOCUS ON THE PATIENT. | ||||||||||
| I THINK WE'VE HAD A VERY HELPFUL DISCUSSION. IF ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WANT TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL POINTS? SEEING NONE, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE AUDIENCE AND THE PRESENTERS. THIS IS HOPEFULLY A HELPFUL EXERCISE FOR US AND FOR YOU IN DEVELOPING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE'RE GOING, WHY WE'RE GOING THERE, AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL TRADE-OFFS ARE IN POLICIES, IN RULES, AND IN DEFINITIONS. SO THANK YOU AND WE STAND ADJOURNED. | ||||||||||
| (THE MEETING WAS THEN ADJOURNED AT 03:25 P.M.) | ||||||||||
| REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE | ||||||||||
| I, BETH C. DRAIN, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO THE INDEPENDENT CITIZEN'S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IN THE MATTER OF ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD AT THE LOCATION INDICATED BELOW | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| WAS HELD AS HEREIN APPEARS AND THAT THIS IS THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT THEREOF AND THAT THE STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THIS TRANSCRIPT WERE REPORTED STENOGRAPHICALLY BY ME AND TRANSCRIBED BY ME. I ALSO CERTIFY THAT THIS TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Facebook Updates 
YouTube Videos 
Twitter 
Flickr Images
LinkedIn
Research Blog
RSS Feeds
