Wife’s Science Grant Role Helps Bane Raise Funds

The fund-raising operation of Assemblyman Tom Bane (D-Tarzana) has repeatedly pressed for contributions from scientists who had applied for research grants from the state Lupus Appropriations Board, of which Bane’s wife is an influential member.

Most of the more than a dozen scientists interviewed by The Times this week said they had no contact with Bane’s fund-raisers before applying for the grants. Several said they were troubled by the practices.

“It’s disturbing because it raises questions whether our grant would be approved or rejected for reasons other than the quality of our research,” said Dr. Christy I. Sandborg of UC Irvine, who received $70,000 in 1986 and 1987 research funds.

At least two university researchers said they were urged to buy tickets to Bane’s annual $500-a-person fund-raiser when their grant application was pending.

Dr. Kevin Sullivan, a scientist at the Research Institute of Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, said he later was solicited to contribute to the campaign committee of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) for three successive years.

Dr. Michael R. Liebling, a rheumatologist at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center who received $120,000 in grants over three years, said he was asked to give to both Bane and Brown after applying to the lupus board.

Bane’s wife, Marlene, is a longtime member of the three-person board, which has dispensed nearly $7 million in state funds for lupus research grants since 1978. She was appointed to the post by Brown. She also directs a high-powered campaign operation that has raised millions of dollars for both her husband and Brown, who are close allies.

Rheumatic Disease

Lupus is a rheumatic disease related to arthritis that generally afflicts women and can be fatal. Marlene Bane, 55, who has suffered from lupus since childhood, has been in the forefront of publicizing the ailment.

Speaking for his wife, Bane said Friday that her solicitors probably made the calls on behalf of his campaign, though he did not know who was called. He said she was unsure that any such calls were made for Brown’s fund-raisers. He said nothing improper was done.

“If I called them, that would be one thing,” said Bane, chairman of the influential Assembly Rules Committee and one of the Legislature’s most prolific fund-raisers. “I don’t make any calls.”

Bane, who attended some lupus board meetings as chairman of the Assembly Select Committee on Genetic Diseases, said any suggestion that a campaign contribution was a prerequisite for research funding was “totally false.” Moreover, he said the grants were made to universities, not individuals.

Several scientists, however, said they felt that the pressure to contribute cast a cloud over the grant-making process.

“There’s a general feeling among people who get lupus grants that you have to give contributions to get state funding,” said Joan Klotz, a UCLA scientist who has received $316,800 in the past six years. She said she contributed several hundred dollars to Bane, believing that “it certainly wouldn’t hurt.”

“It’s not clear that it’s going to be funded on the basis of merit alone,” said Sullivan, who did not contribute to either Bane or Brown.

“At the time I was concerned that my proposal had not been reviewed objectively. I still wonder.”

Sullivan’s grant proposal was turned down by the lupus board but was later funded by the National Institutes of Health, which he said rated it fourth highest of 1,000 applications.

A review of minutes and other records of the little-known lupus board raised additional questions about favoritism:

The board awarded at least $757,375 for research to Dr. Raymond L. Teplitz over a 10-year period even though board members strongly questioned Teplitz’s research proposal, laboratory setbacks and failure to publish significant results. Each year, Marlene Bane, the lone non-physician on the board, went to bat for Teplitz and urged higher funding levels than her colleagues, according to board minutes.

‘Very Poor Results’

“We have seen very poor results in previous state funding, now stretching over 10 years,” board member Dr. Joshua Levy said during a discussion of Teplitz’s latest proposal in December, 1987. “And there are no publications listed . . . that relate to any of the state’s supported projects.”

Board member Dr. Kenneth M. Nies concurred, calling Teplitz’s laboratory problems “really inexcusable, absolutely inexcusable.” But Marlene Bane repeatedly said she felt strongly that Teplitz should receive another $15,000 as well as a grant extension to use $10,000 remaining from the previous year’s allocation. He was only given the grant extension.

Tom Bane called Teplitz a “good friend” of both himself and his wife. He noted that Teplitz has contributed to his campaign over the years but said he did so “on a personal basis, not a grant basis.” They had spent long hours with Teplitz, he said, and the physician has “given an education to me and Marlene” about lupus.

Teplitz received much of his research money when he was at City of Hope National Medical Center and its Beckman Research Institute in Duarte. Tom Bane is on City of Hope’s board of directors and is chairman of the National Lupus Foundation, which was founded to raise money for grants to City of Hope scientists. Teplitz, who left City of Hope to join the UC Davis faculty in 1985, could not be reached Friday.

Dr. Ephraim Engleman, who was on the board from 1978 to 1984, participated in discussions and then voted for $614,984 in grants to his son, Dr. Edgar G. Engleman of Stanford University. He expressed strong support for his son’s research on several occasions.

“The work was so outstanding that it was receiving national attention and acclaim,” the elder Engleman, a professor of medicine and director of the Rosalind Russell Arthritis Center in San Francisco, said Friday. “It was well, well worthy of the award.”

During discussions of his son’s research proposals, Engleman frequently alluded to the appraisals of outside sources, board meeting minutes show. In November, 1983, he gave Edgar Engleman’s application for $93,024 a perfect 10. The other physician on the board, Dr. Zachary H. Haddad, gave it a six. But Marlene Bane concurred that it should be fully funded as the highest priority.

“I think it’s important for everybody to know that your prejudice was not at all obvious,” Marlene Bane said to Ephraim Engleman after the decision was made.

Engleman was another board member who repeatedly challenged Teplitz’s grant proposals but was generally overruled by Marlene Bane, who for years was chairwoman of the board. But, in general, Engleman said of the grant process: “I thought it was handled very well and that the projects that were approved were worthy of state support.”

Not everyone agreed. Some scientists who did not complain about being asked to contribute did question the board’s scientific expertise.

Dr. Eng Tan, director of the W. M. Keck Autoimmune Disease Center at the Scripps Clinic and a highly respected lupus research scientist, was turned down when he applied for a grant in 1985 and a second time when he appealed the decision. In a Jan. 7, 1986, letter to the lupus board, Tan responded to the members’ criticism of his methodology.

“We proposed using the newest and latest methods in biochemistry, immunology and molecular biology to attack this problem,” he said. “The questions raised by the board were trivial and illustrates their lack of understanding of advanced biotechnology.”

Dr. Sudhir Gupta, a professor of medicine and chief of immunology at UC Irvine, said he came away with similar sentiments about the lupus board after they denied his funding request in 1984.

“As a scientific board, they were incompetent in choosing the proper reviewer,” Gupta said in an interview. “There were absolutely ridiculous comments.”

One of the board members is appointed by the governor and the other two by the Legislature. Marlene Bane’s qualifications were called into question last year when The Times reported that she had falsified her resume.

She initially claimed in an interview that she had a Ph.D in genetics from UCLA and an honorary degree from UC Davis. Pressed to produce a copy, her husband acknowledged that she had not earned a degree from UCLA and had only an honorary doctorate of laws from Mid-Valley College of Law.

Bane refused to allow his wife to come to the phone Friday to respond to questions.