Stem Cell Institute’s Start-Up Debated

With less than a week before the debut of the state’s new $3-billion stem cell institute, intense behind-the-scenes debate is growing over who should head the agency and whether a Friday deadline for filling the post will allow the best candidates to be considered.

The debate is expected to crest Monday when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and three other elected state officials must, under the tight deadlines set by the state’s embryonic stem cell initiative, put forward their nominees to lead the new agency.

On Friday, board members -- many still to be named -- are scheduled to meet in San Francisco and vote on those nominees.

The chairperson will immediately become among the most influential officials in the field of biological research, running much of the day-to-day operations of an institute that will dole out about $300 million a year in grants, more than 10 times what the federal government now spends yearly in the stem cell field.

The way the initiative, Proposition 71, was written, the institute’s decisions will be largely immune to review by the state Legislature or other government agencies.

Raising the stakes further, the guidelines that the agency creates for embryonic stem cell research here are likely to set the standards for work elsewhere. Advocates for the research worry that missteps could damage their cause.

Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is strictly limited by the Bush administration, and the research is still threatened by proposals in Congress that would ban some procedures and impose both criminal and financial sanctions.

“There remains a fundamental moral controversy over the status of the embryo, a controversy that will leave its imprint on research in California,” said Bernard Lo, a professor of medicine and director of medical ethics at UC San Francisco.

“We should expect extreme and careful scrutiny. We’re pioneers, trailblazers, and other states and countries will look to us.”

Embryonic stem cells are created in the first days after an egg is fertilized by sperm, and can become cells of any type. Many scientists believe they have great promise for treating diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s disease and insulin-dependent diabetes. But research using embryonic stem cells requires destruction of embryos.

Supporters of the ballot measure intended the billions in new research funds as a replacement for federal funding.

Lo, speaking earlier this week at a two-day National Academy of Sciences seminar held at UC Irvine to discuss guidelines for the new California program, said any “stumble or fall” would be exploited by those who believe that such research should never take place.

UC Irvine Chancellor Ralph Cicerone also warned about the dangers of making errors on a massive public science project.

“The largest voter-approved science project to date was the superconductor in Texas, and all they’re left with is a very large hole in the ground,” he said, referring to a now abandoned, $11-billion federal physics research effort. “We’re going to have to do much better.”

Bob Klein, the Palo Alto real estate developer who wrote the stem cell initiative and ran its successful multimillion-dollar campaign, is widely seen as having the inside track on the top job.

The initiative, which passed with 59% of the vote, includes detailed criteria for the qualifications of the chairperson, which Klein’s resume meets, including a background in bond financing and legal experience. The requirements include that the chairperson be a Californian with a background as an advocate for research on specific diseases.

Klein, whose son has diabetes, has been an advocate for research on that disease and also is widely respected among advocates for embryonic stem cell research. He spent a little more than $3 million of his own money to back Proposition 71.

His supporters include several people who already have been appointed to the agency’s 27-member board. So far, fewer than half of the board appointments have been named.

Along with other leaders of the Proposition 71 campaign, Klein met with Schwarzenegger earlier this month to discuss the process of setting up the agency.

A background in science or administering grants is not among the criteria. Moreover, the initiative bars from the top job anyone who works for or is on leave from an institution eligible to receive grants. That provision would rule out many major scientific figures or academic officials at places such as the University of California.

But the fact that Klein is not a scientist and lacks experience administering a large scientific grant program troubles some.

Moreover, a number of the initiative’s backers now say they are uneasy about the hurried deadlines and limitations that the initiative imposes on who can be named to run the organization.

“The taxpayers of California are going to give it $3 billion, which is going to cost them $6 billion” counting principal and interest on the bonds, said Jerry Zucker, a film producer and one of the earliest backers of Proposition 71.

“Don’t we have some responsibility to these people to have a board that’s beyond reproach? Don’t we owe it to them to find the best person to run this institute?”

Zucker, whose teenage daughter has insulin-dependent diabetes, said his family’s “greatest hope” remains an open selection process in which multiple candidates are considered.

With the deadline looming, supporters and opponents of Klein, as well as those, including Zucker, who say their only interest is a clean process, have strenuously lobbied the elected officials who have the power to appoint members of the board, aides said Friday.

In addition to Schwarzenegger, those officials include Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, Treasurer Phil Angelides and Controller Steve Westly. Aides to all four declined to discuss specific names of nominees Friday.

Klein, a longtime Democratic donor, has given to the campaigns of Bustamante, Angelides and Westly, all of whom have publicly praised him for his work as an advocate for stem cell research.

Klein has said repeatedly that he would be compelled to serve if elected, but at some point has to “get back to making a living.”

The importance of the state’s effort was demonstrated by the dozens of top scientists, lawyers and bioethicists who came to Irvine on short notice to debate the guidelines.

Participants in the two-day workshop discussed a multitude of issues facing the institute’s board, including how the grant applications should work, what ethical guidelines should be in place and how to balance public disclosure requirements with the need to get top out-of-state volunteers to review applications.

“It has been a totally overwhelming and revelatory experience just getting a glimpse of the task ahead,” said Susan Bryant, dean of the UC Irvine Biological Sciences Department, who will represent the campus on the institute’s board.