December ICOC Board Meeting to Begin Soon

The December ICOC Board Meeting begins this morning in Berkeley, CA.

The complete agenda can be found here. Dude to inclement weather our Spotlight on Disease has been canceled.

For those not able to attend, you are welcome to dial in:

To join the event as an attendee
——————————————————-
1. Go to https://cirm.webex.com/mw0307l/mywebex/default.do?nomenu=true&siteurl=cirm&service=6&rnd=0.3004049356896069&main_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcirm.webex.com%2Fec0606l%2Feventcenter%2Fevent%2FeventAction.do%3FtheAction%3Dlandingfrommail%26confViewID%3D2023263422%26%26EMK%3D4832534b0000000206e16422b6688520d75b860933effb35ce2c41b56594ba5351fdb8c0a969dd92%26email%3Dacheung%2540cirm.ca.gov%26encryptTicket%3Daee20fe734ccdae68884f9fe07b3197e%26%26siteurl%3Dcirm

2. Click “Join Now”.

——————————————————-
To join the teleconference only
——————————————————-
Dial in: (800) 398-9389

Confirmation Number: 346314

To access the live event or archive, use this URL:

https://im.csgsystems.com/cgi-bin/confCast

Enter Conference ID# 346314

[Members of the Public will be invited to provide testimony before or during consideration of each item. Makers of public comments are asked to limit their testimony to three (3) minutes.]

Stem cells and professional sports: a call for more science and less speculation

In the world of professional sports, teams invest tens of millions of dollars in players. Those players are under intense pressure to show a return on that investment for the team, and that means playing as hard as possible for as long as possible. So it’s no surprise that players facing serious injuries will often turn to any treatment that might get them back in the game.

image courtesy Scientific American

image courtesy Scientific American

A new study published last week in 2014 World Stem Cell Report (we blogged about it here) highlighted how far some players will go to keep playing, saying at least 12 NFL players have undergone unproven stem cell treatments in the last five years. A session at the recent World Stem Cell Summit in San Antonio, Texas showed that football is not unique, that this is a trend in all professional sports.

Dr. Shane Shapiro, an orthopedic surgeon at the Mayo Clinic, says it was an article in the New York Times in 2009 about two of the NFL players named in the World Stem Cell Report that led him to becoming interested in stem cells. The article focused on two members of the Pittsburgh Steelers team who were able to overcome injuries and play in the Super Bowl after undergoing stem cell treatment, although there was no direct evidence the stem cells caused the improvement.

“The next day, the day after the article appeared, I had multiple patients in my office with copies of the New York Times asking if I could perform the same procedure on them.”

Dr. Shapiro had experienced what has since become one of the driving factors behind many people seeking stem cell therapies, even ones that are unproven; the media reports high profile athletes getting a treatment that seems to work leading many non-athletes to want the same.

“This is not just about high profile athletes it’s also about older patients, weekend warriors and all those with degenerative joint disease, which affects around 50 million Americans. Currently for a lot of these degenerative conditions we don’t have many good non- surgical options, basically physical therapy, gentle pain relievers or steroid injections. That’s it. We have to get somewhere where we have options to slow down this trend, to slow down the progression of these injuries and problems.”

Shapiro says one of the most popular stem cell-based approaches in sports medicine today is the use of plasma rich platelets or PRP. The idea behind it makes sense, at least in theory. Blood contains platelets that contain growth factors that have been shown to help tissue heal. So injecting a patient’s platelets into the injury site might speed recovery and, because it’s the patient’s own platelets, the treatment probably won’t cause any immune response or prove to be harmful.

That’s the theory. The problem is few well-designed clinical trials have been done to see if that’s actually the case. Shapiro talked about one relatively small, non-randomized study that used PRP and in a 14-month follow-up found that 83% of patients reported feeling satisfied with their pain relief. However, 84% of this group did not have any visible improved appearance on ultrasound.

He is now in the process of carrying out a clinical trial, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), using bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) cells harvested from the patient’s own bone marrow. Because those cells secrete growth factors such as cytokines and chemokines they hope they may have anti-inflammatory and regenerative properties. The cells will be injected into 25 patients, all of whom have arthritic knees. They hope to have results next year.

Dr. Paul Saenz is a sports medicine specialist and the team physician for the San Antonio Spurs, the current National Basketball Association champions. He says that sports teams are frequently criticized for allowing players to undergo unproven stem cell treatments but he says it’s unrealistic to expect teams to do clinical studies to see if these therapies work, that’s not their area of expertise. But he also says team physicians are very careful in what they are willing to try.

“As fervent as we are to help bring an athlete back to form, we are equally fervent in our desire not to harm a $10 million athlete. Sports physicians are very conservative and for them stem cells are never the first thing they try, they are options when other approaches have failed.”

Saenz said while there are not enough double blind, randomized controlled clinical trials he has seen many individual cases, anecdotal evidence, where the use of stem cells has made a big difference. He talked about one basketball player, a 13-year NBA veteran, who was experiencing pain and mobility problems with his knee. He put the player on a biologic regimen and performed a PRP procedure on the knee.

“What we saw over the next few years was decreased pain, and a dramatic decrease in his reliance on non-steroidal anti inflammatory drugs. We saw improved MRI findings, improved athletic performance with more time on court, more baskets and more rebounds.”

But Saenz acknowledges that for the field to advance anecdotal stories like this are not enough, well-designed clinical trials are needed. He says right now there is too much guesswork in treatments, that there is not even any agreement on best practices or standardized treatment protocols.

Dr. Shapiro says for too long the use of stem cells in sports medicine has been the realm of individual physicians or medical groups. That has to change:

“If we are ever to move forward on this it has to be opened up to the scientific community, we have to do the work, do the studies, complete the analysis, open it up to our peers, report it in a reputable journal. If we want to treat the 50 million Americans who need this kind of therapy we need to go through the FDA approval process. We can’t just continue to treat the one patient a month who can afford to pay for all this themselves. “

World Stem Cell Summit: The environment stem cells find themselves in after transplant really matters

On Friday’s closing day of the 2014 World Stem Cell Summit a panel of three researchers working on neurodegenerative diseases drove home the importance of paying attention to the environment that surrounds stem cells after transplant.

world-stem-cells-summit-2014

CIRM grantee Evan Snyder from the Sanford-Burnham Institute noted that most of the neurologic diseases people are looking at are conditions associated with aging and the cellular makeup of the brain changes as we get older, adding that most of the diseases result from chronic states that have existed over many years. He contrasted this against mouse models of the disease, which usually involve artificially recreating the disease and treating shortly after the injury happens.

“In stem cell therapies there is a dialogue between the transplanted cells and the recipient. The host influences the fate of the stem cells.”

He noted that the patients we will be treating have generally had long-term degeneration and asked if we might be able to develop drugs that effect the environment where the stem cells will be placed so that it mimics more closely the environment found in the animal model in the acute phase, that is right after injury.

One aspect of the environment in the brain in most patients with neurodegeneration is chronic inflammation. Another CIRM grantee on the panel, Jeanne Loring of the Scripps Research Institute, discussed a project her team hopes will take advantage of the inflammation that occurs in Alzheimer’s disease. They are loading nerve stem cells with an enzyme that can degrade the plaque that accumulates in nerves in the disease. Because stem cells home to inflammation, they hypothesize that the stem cells will be drawn to deliver their cargo to the nerves with the worst plaque.

The third panelist, Erzi Kokovay of the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, described the changes in the brain as we age in a bit more detail. She described infiltration of cells called microglia that researchers will need to take into account when they plan to transplant stem cells in the brain.

While on the surface this all may sound like another road block to getting to the stem cell cures we all want, the presentation actually made me optimistic that we are starting to learn enough about the field that we are more likely to get it right when we start to treat some of these devastating brain diseases.

Don Gibbons

Stem Cell Stories that Caught our Eye: Stem Cell Summit Roundup, Spinal Cords in a Dish and Stem Cell Tourism in the NFL

Here are some stem cell stories that caught our eye this past week. Some are groundbreaking science, others are of personal interest to us, and still others are just fun.

Success at the World Stem Cell Summit. This week some of the biggest names in regenerative medicine descended upon San Antonio, Texas for the annual summit. Along with researchers from the world’s top universities, institutions and companies were members of CIRM, including CIRM President and CEO C. Randall Mills.

We’ve been publishing top highlights from the Summit all week here on the Stem Cellar. There’s also been detailed coverage in the local San Antonio press, including the local ABC station. And if you’d like to find out more about this year’s conference, be sure to visit @WSCSummit and #WSC14 on Twitter.

Scientists have found a way to grow spinal cords from embryonic stem cells in a petri dish. [Credit: Abigail Tucker/ MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology/ Wellcome Images.]

Scientists have found a way to grow spinal cords from embryonic stem cells in a petri dish. [Credit: Abigail Tucker/ MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology/ Wellcome Images.]

Growing Spinal Cords in the Lab. Tissue engineering, the process of using stem cells to build new tissues and organs, has been the Holy Grail for regenerative medicine. And while there has been some progress with engineering some organs, others—especially the spinal cord—have proven far more difficult. This is because the biodegradable scaffolding cannot be made correctly to grow complex and intricately connected nerve cells.

But now, a research team in Germany has grown complete spinal cords in the lab, pointing to a new strategy for treating those with irreparable spinal cord injuries.

As reported in The Guardian this week, Andrea Meinhardt of the Dresden University of Technology and her colleagues worked around the problem of scaffolding by employing a new method called self-directed morphogenesis, first developed by the late Yoshiki Sasai. According to The Guardian‘s Mo Costandi:

“Self-directed morphogenesis is a method for growing embryonic stem cells in a three-dimensional suspension. Cells grown in this way can, when fed the right combination of signaling molecules, go through the motions of development and organize themselves to form complex tissues such as eyes, glands and bits of brain.”

While preliminary, this research offers immense promise towards the ultimate goal: reversing the devastating effects of spinal cord injuries.

Stem Cells and the NFL. Despite the best efforts of experts, stem cell tourism continues to proliferate. A new study published this week in 2014 World Stem Cell Report (a special supplement to Stem Cells and Development) describes the latest example of people seeking unproven stem cell treatments: this time in the NFL.

New research from Rice University is suggesting that some NFL players are seeking out unproven stem cell treatments—oftentimes traveling abroad without fully understanding the risks. This poses serious problems not only for players but also for the NFL as a whole. As Co-lead author Kirsten Matthews elaborated in a news release:

“With the rise of new and unproven stem cell treatments, the NFL faces a daunting task of trying to better understand and regulate the use of these therapies in order to protect the health of its players.”

Specifically, 12 NFL players are known to have received unproven treatments at some point during the last five years, including star quarterback Peyton Manning who we’ve blogged about before The authors caution that high-profile players broadcasting that they are receiving these unproven therapies could influence regular patients who are also desperate for cures.

In order to fix this growing problem, the authors recommend the NFL review and investigate these unproven stem cell treatments with the help of an independent committee of medical professionals. Finally, they suggest that the NFL could support stem cell research here in the United States—so that proven, effective stem cell-based treatments could more quickly enter the clinic.

At World Stem Cell Summit improvements in the precision with which we can edit our genes grabs spotlight

Just a day and a half into this year’s World Stem Cell Summit in San Antonio and there have been numerous highlights. But a pair of sessions on gene editing grabbed the attention of many of the scientists at the meeting. One of the renown leaders in the field, Harvard’s George Church wowed the scientists, but I fear the heavy dose of scientific detail may have overwhelmed many of the patient advocates that make the attendee mix at this meeting special.

George Church speaking recently [Credit: PopTech.org]

George Church speaking recently [Credit: PopTech.org]

In 2013, Church first published results using a new gene-editing tool he helped perfect called CRISPR, and almost immediately it became the most talked-about tool for advancing stem cell research. As powerful as stem cells may be by themselves, in many situations, they become even more powerful—especially if you use them to deliver a gene that corrects an error in a patient’s cells. Before 2013 we had a few ways to edit genes in living cells and all were modestly effective at making the desired change and relatively specific in making only a few unwanted changes, called “off target” edits.

In some uses, particularly when cells are being modified in the lab for specific and small targets, these other editing techniques are probably OK. This is what several CIRM-funded teams (links) are doing with diseases like sickle cell anemia and HIV, where you can target blood-forming stem cells and even giving a small percentage the proper gene edit may be sufficient to cure the disease. But with something like muscular dystrophy where the gene editing would be required throughout the body and have to be done in the patient not in the lab, you need to improve the efficiency and precision.

CRISPR/Cas9 [Credit: University of California, San Francisco]

CRISPR/Cas9 [Credit: University of California, San Francisco]

After that first publication CRISPR was viewed as a home run in efficiency, taking the number of cells with the gene correction from a few percent to 50 percent or more. But it still had off-target effects. Yet only a year after the technology was introduced, a few teams developed so-called “next generation” CRISPR that comes close to perfect precision, causing an unintended edit in just one in a billion cells, by Church’s estimate.

I have never seen the full name of CRISPR spelled out in a scientific presentation, and after a visit to Wikipedia I know why. Here it is: Clustered Regularly Interspersed Short Palindromic Repeats. Basically, Church took advantage of something that occurs naturally in many bacteria. Just as we are susceptible to viruses, bacteria have their version known as phages. When those parasites integrate their DNA into the bacteria’s genes, part of the bacterial DNA forms CRISPRs that can partner with a protein called Cas to cut the phage DNA and keep the phage from hurting the host bacteria.

In a research setting, creating that “nick” in the DNA is the first step in harnessing CRISPR to insert a desired gene. So, that extreme precision in finding spots on our DNA where we want to create an opening for inserting a new gene became this valuable research tool. It can create a nick as precise as a single nucleotide base, the building blocks of our DNA.

Church and two additional speakers gave detailed descriptions about how the technology has improved and how it is being used to model disease today and is expected to be used to treat disease in the near future. An exciting future is in store.

Don Gibbons

Truth or Consequences: how to spot a liar and what to do once you catch them

Nothing undermines the credibility of science and scientists more than the retraction a high profile paper. Earlier this year there was a prime example of that when researchers at one of Japan’s most prestigious research institutions, the Riken Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, had to retract a study that had gathered worldwide attention. The study, about a new method for creating embryonic-like stem cells called stimulus triggered acquisition of pluripotency or STAP, was discredited after it was discovered that the lead author had falsified data.

Publication retractions have increased dramatically in recent years [Credit: PMRetract]

Publication retractions have increased dramatically in recent years [Credit: PMRetract]

The STAP incident drew international coverage and condemnation and raised the question, how common is this and what can be done to combat it? A panel discussion at the World Stem Cell Summit in San Antonio, Texas entitled “Reproducibility and rigor in research: What have we learned from the STAP debacle” tackled the subject head on.

Ivan Oransky, medical journalist and the co-founder of the website Retraction Watch posed the question “Does stem cell research have a retraction problem?” He says:

“The answer to my question is yes. But so does everyone else. All of science has a retraction problem, not just stem cells.”

Oransky says the number of retractions has doubled from 2001 to 2010. One author has retracted 183 times – the record so far – but to break into the top 5 you need to have at least 50 retractions. These come from all over the world from the US to Germany and Japan and most recently Azerbaijan.

Oransky says part of the problem is the system itself. Getting your research results published is critical to advancing a career in science and those kinds of pressures force people to cut corners, take risks or even just falsify data and manipulate images in order to get a paper into a high profile journal. In most cases, journals charge a fee of several hundred to thousands of dollars to publish studies, so they have no incentive to dig too deeply into findings looking for flaws, as it might undermine their own business model.

“Some authors, more than 100, have been caught reviewing their own papers. When the journal they were submitting their paper to asked for the names of recommended reviewers they would submit the names of people who are legitimate reviewers in the field but instead of giving real email addresses they would give fake email addresses, ones they controlled so they could submit their own reviews under someone else’s name.”

What gave them away is that all the potential “reviewers” didn’t first reply and say “yes, I’ll review”, instead they responded by sending back a full review of the paper, raising suspicions and ultimately to detection.

Graham Parker, a researcher at Wayne State University School of Medicine and the editor of Stem Cell and Development says spotting the problem is not always easy:

“As an editor I regard scientific misconduct as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism of data but there are lots of other areas where it’s not always so clear – there are often shades of gray”

He says researchers may make an honest mistake, or include duplicative images and in those cases should be allowed to fix the problems without any stigma attached. But when serious cases of falsification of data are uncovered they can have a big impact by retarding scientific progress and sapping public confidence in the field as a whole.

Jeanne Loring, a stem cell scientist at The Scripps Research Institute and a recipient of funding from CIRM, says the STAP incident was actually a sign of progress in this area. Ten years ago when a Korean researcher named Hwang Woo-Suk claimed to have cloned human embryos it took more than a year before he was found to have falsified the data. But in the STAP case it took a little over a week for other researchers to start raising red flags:

“One of the real heroes in this story is Paul Knoepfler (a CIRM-funded researcher at UC Davis) who takes on difficult issues in his blog. It took Paul just 8 days to post a request for people to crowdsource this study, asking people who were trying to replicate the findings to report their results – and they did, showing they failed over and over again”

Parker said it’s getting easier for editors and others in the field to double check data in studies. For example new software programs allow him to quickly check submitted manuscripts for plagiarism. And he says there is a growing number of people who enjoy looking for problems.

“Nowadays it’s so easy for people to dig very deeply into papers and check up on every aspect of it, from the content to the methodology to the images they use and whether those images were in any way manipulated to create a false impression. Once they find a problem with one paper they’ll dig back through papers in that scientist’s past to see if they can find other problems dating back years that were never found at the time.”

He says that in most cases researchers caught falsifying data or deliberately misleading journals faced few consequences:

“Often the consequences of misconduct are very mild, the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, which does not discourage others from trying to do the same.”

Each panel member says that tougher penalties are needed. For example, in extreme cases a threat of criminal action could be warranted, if the falsified research could lead to serious consequences for patients.

But the panel ended on an encouraging note. Oransky says, for example, that medical journals are now paying more attention and imposing stricter rules and he says there’s even scientific evidence that “doing the right thing might pay off.”

“One study recently showed that if you made an honest error and corrected it publicly not only does the stigma of retraction not apply to you, you don’t get a decrease in your citations—you actually get an increase. So we’d like to think that doing the right thing is a good thing and might actually be a positive thing.”

Taking Promising Therapies out of the Lab and into People: Tips from Experts at the World Stem Cell Summit on How to Succeed

Having a great idea for a stem cell therapy is the easy part. Getting it to work in the lab is tougher. But sometimes the toughest part of all is getting it out of the lab and into clinical trials in patients. That’s natural and sensible, after all we need to make sure that something seems safe before even trying it in people. But how do you overcome all the challenges you face along the way? That was the topic of one of the panel discussions at the World Stem Cell Summit in San Antonio, Texas.

Rick Blume is the Managing Director at Excel Venture Management, and someone with decades of experience in investing in healthcare companies. He says researchers face numerous hurdles in trying to move even the most promising therapies through the approval and regulatory process, only some of which are medical. Blume says:

“Great ideas can become great companies. And good Venture Capitalists (VCs) can help with that process, but the researchers have to overcome technical, funding and logistical hurdles before VCs are usually ready to move in and help.”

Of course that’s where agencies and organizations like CIRM come in. We help fund the early stage research, helping researchers overcome those hurdles and getting promising therapies to a point where VCs and other large investors are willing to step in.

Left to right: Geoff Crouse CEO of Cord Blood Registry, C. Randal Mills, President and CEO of CIRM, Rick Blume of Excel Venture Management and Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University Medical Center

Left to right: Geoff Crouse CEO of Cord Blood Registry, C. Randal Mills, President and CEO of CIRM, Rick Blume of Excel Venture Management and Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University Medical Center

Geoff Crouse, the CEO of the Cord Blood Registry, says researchers need to be increasingly imaginative when looking for funding these days.

“While Federal funding for this kind of research is drying up, there are alternatives such as CIRM and philanthropic investors who are not just seeking to make active investments but are also trying to change the world, so they offer alternatives to more traditional sources of funding. You have to look broadly at your funding opportunities and see what you want to do.”

C. Randal Mills, the President and CEO of CIRM said too many people get caught up looking at the number of challenges that any project faces when it starts out:

“The single most important thing that you need to do is to show that the treatment works in people with unmet medical needs, that it is safe. If you can do that, all the other problems, the cost of the therapy, how to market it, how to get reimbursed for it, those will all be resolved in time. But first you have to make it work, then you can make it work better and more efficiently.”

The panel all agreed that one of the areas that needs attention is the approval and regulatory process saying the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the regulatory body governing this field, needs to adjust its basic “one size fits all” paradigm.”

Mills says the FDA is in a difficult position:

“Everyone wants three things; they want fast drugs, they want cheap drugs and they want perfect drugs. The problem is you can’t have all three. You can have two but not all three and that puts the FDA into an almost impossible position because if therapies aren’t approved quickly they are criticized but if they are approved and later show problems then the FDA is criticized again.”

Often the easiest way to get a traditional drug therapy approved for use is to ask for a “humanitarian exemption”, particularly for an orphan disease that has a relatively small number of people suffering from it and no alternative therapies. But when it comes to more complex products knows as biologics, which includes stem cell therapies, this humanitarian exemption does not exist making approval much harder to obtain, slowing down the field.

Mills says other countries, such as Japan, have made adjustments to the way they regulate new therapies such as stem cells and he hopes the FDA will learn from that and make similar modifications to the way they see these therapies.

All three panelists were optimistic that the field is making good progress, and will continue to advance. Good news for the many patient advocates attending the World Stem Cell Summit who are waiting for treatments for themselves or loved ones.

At World Stem Cell Summit: Why results in trials repairing hearts are so uneven

Just as no two people are the same, neither are the cells in their bone marrow, the most common source of stem cells in clinical trials trying to repair damage after a heart attack. Doris Taylor of the Texas Heart Institute in Houston, which is just a couple hours drive from the site of this year’s World Stem Cell Summit in San Antonio, gave a key note address this morning that offered some good reasons for the variable and often disappointing results in those trials, as well as some ways to improve on those results.

THI's Dr. Doris Taylor

THI’s Dr. Doris Taylor

The cells given in a transplant derived from the patient’s own bone marrow contain just a few percent stem cells and a mix of adult cells, but for both the stem and adult cells the mix is highly variable. Taylor said that in essence we are giving each patient a different drug. She discussed a series of early clinical trials in which cell samples from each patient were banked at the National Heart and Lung and Blood Institute. There they could do genetic and other analysis on the cells and compare that data with how each individual patient faired.

In looking at the few patients in each trial that did better on any one of three measures of improved heart function, they were indeed able to find certain markers that predicted better outcome. In particular they looked at “triple responders,” those who improved in all three measures of heart function. They found there were both certain types of adult cells and certain types of stem cells that seemed to result in improved heart health.

They also found that two of the strongest predictors were gender and age. Women generally develop degenerative diseases of aging like heart disease at an older age than men and since many consider aging to be a failure of our adult stem cells, it would make sense that women have healthier stem cells.

Taylor went on to discuss ways to use this knowledge to improve therapy outcomes. One way would be to select for the more potent cells identified in the NHLBI analysis. She mentioned a couple trials that did show better outcomes using cells derived from heart tissue. One of those is work that CIRM funds at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles.

Another option is replace the whole heart and she closed with a review of what is probably her best-known work, trying to just that. In rats and pigs, she has taken donor hearts and used soap-like solutions to wash away the living cells so that all that is left behind are the proteins and sugars that make of the matrix between cells. She then repopulates the scaffolds that still have the outlines of the chambers of the heart and the blood vessels that feed them, with cells from the recipient animal. She has achieved partially functional organs but not fully functional ones. She—along with other teams around the world—is working on the remaining hurdles to get a heart suitable for transplant.

Don Gibbons

Tune into Famelab: “American Idol” for scientists and engineers

I sometimes joke that I consider myself and my communications colleagues the “official translators” at the stem cell agency, trying to turn complex science into everyday English. After all, the public is paying for the research that we fund and they have a right to know about the progress being made, in language they can understand.

famelab

That’s why events like Famelab are so important. Famelab is like American Idol for scientists. It’s a competition to find scientists and engineers with a flair for public communication, and to help them talk about their work to everyone, not just to their colleagues and peers. Famelab gives these scientists and engineers support, encouragement and training them to find their voices, and to put those voices to use wherever and whenever they can; in the media, in public presentations, even just in everyday conversations.

Kathy Culpin works with the British Council to promote Famelab here in the US. She says it’s vitally important for scientists to be able to talk about their work:

“At the British Council we have worked with people who are doing amazing things but they can’t communicate to a broader audience. If scientists, particularly younger scientists, are unable to communicate effectively and clearly in a way that people want to listen to, in a way that people can understand, how are they going to have public support for their work, how are they even going to be able to raise funds for their work?”

The premise behind Famelab is simple: young up-and-coming scientists have just three minutes to present their research to a panel of three judges. They can’t use any slides or charts. Nothing. All they have is the power of their voice and whatever prop they can hold in their hands. For many scientists, taking away their PowerPoint presentation is like asking them to walk a tight rope without a safety net. It’s uncomfortable territory. And yet many respond magnificently.

Here’s Lyl Tomlinson, the winner of the most recent U.S. event, competing in the international finals. Appropriately enough Lyl’s presentation was on the role of running and stem cells in improving memory.

Famelab began in England but has now spread to 19 other countries. The competition starts at the regional level before progressing on to the national finals (April 2016) and then the international competition (June 2016, at the Cheltenham Science Festival in the UK).

In the U.S. there are a number of regional heats (you can find out by going here)

NASA helps run Famelab in the U.S. Daniella Scalice, the Education and Public Outreach Lead for the Astrobiology program at the agency, says Famelab is fun, but it has a serious side to it as well:

“We feel strongly that good communications skills are essential to a scientist’s training, especially for a Federal agency like NASA where we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure they understand what their hard-earned dollars are paying for.  With FameLab, we hope to make learning best practices in communications easy and fun, and provide a safe environment for young scientists to get some experience communicating and meet other like-minded scientists.”

The next event in the U.S. is here in San Francisco on Monday, December 15 at the Rickshaw Stop at 155 Fell Street. Doors open at 6.30pm, competition starts at 7:30 P.

What is most fun about Famelab is that you never really know what to expect. One person will talk about the lifespan of the wood frog, the next will discuss the latest trends on social media. One thing is certain. It is always entertaining. And informative. And engaging. And isn’t that what science is supposed to be!

If you want to see how my colleagues and I at the stem cell agency tried to get stem cell scientists to develop sharper communication skills check out our Elevator Pitch Challenge.

Searching for a Cure for HIV/AIDS: Stem Cells and World AIDS Day

World-AIDS-Day

It’s been 26 years since the first World AIDS Day was held in 1988—and the progress that the international scientific community has made towards eradicating the disease has been unparalleled. But there is much more work to be done.

One of the most promising areas of HIV/AIDS research has been in the field of regenerative medicine. As you observe World AIDS Day today, we invite you to take a look at some recent advances from CIRM-funded scientists and programs that are well on their way to finding ways to slow, halt and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS:

Calimmune’s stem cell gene modification study continues to enroll patients, show promise:
Calimmune Approved to Treat Second Group in HIV Stem Cell Gene Modification Study

Is a cure for HIV/AIDS possible? Last year’s public forum discusses the latest on HIV cure research:


Town Hall: HIV Cure Research

The Stem Cell Agency’s HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet summarizes the latest advances in regenerative medicine to slow the spread of the disease.

And for more on World AIDS Day, follow #WorldAIDSDay on Twitter and visit WorldAIDSDay.org.