Two for 2.0 and Two for us

It began as an ambitious idea; yesterday it became a reality when the CIRM Board approved two projects under CIRM 2.0, one of them a Phase 3 clinical trial for a deadly form of skin cancer.

Just to recap, CIRM 2.0 was introduced by Dr. C. Randal Mills when he took over as President and CEO of the stem cell agency last year. The idea is to speed up the way we work, to get money to the most promising therapies and the best science as quickly as possible. It puts added emphasis on speed, patients and partnerships.

Yesterday our Board approved the first two projects to come before them under this new way of working. One was for almost $18 million for NeoStem, which is planning a Phase 3 clinical trial for metastatic melanoma, a disease that last year alone claimed more than 10,000 lives in the U.S.

This will be the first Phase 3 trial we have funded so clearly it’s quite a milestone for us and for NeoStem. If it proves effective in this trial it could well be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in melanoma patients. The therapy itself is unique in that it uses the patient’s own tumor cells to create a personalized therapy, one that is designed to engage the patient’s immune system and destroy the cancer.

The Board also approved almost $5 million for Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles to do the late-stage research needed to apply to the FDA for approval for a clinical trial to treat retinitis pigmentosa (RP). RP is a nasty, degenerative condition that slowly destroys a patient’s vision. There is no cure and no effective therapy.

We are currently funding another clinical trial in this area. The two projects use different types of cells and propose different methods of reducing RP’s devastation. CIRM has a record of trying multiple routes to achieve success when dealing with unmet medical needs.

As Dr. Mills said in a news release, both the therapies approved for funding yesterday support our mission:

“CIRM 2.0 is designed to accelerate the development of treatments for people with unmet medical needs, and these two projects clearly fit that description. With the Board’s approval today we will now get this work up and running within the next 45 days. But that’s just the start. We are not just providing financial support, we are also partnering with these groups to provide expertise, guidance and other kinds of support that these teams need to help them be successful. That’s the promise of CIRM 2.0. Faster funding, better programs and a more comprehensive approach to supporting their progress.”

CIRM Chair Jonathan Thomas swearing in new Board members Adriana Padilla and Bob Price

CIRM Chair Jonathan Thomas swearing in new Board members Adriana Padilla and Bob Price

Two seemed to be the number of the day yesterday with the Board welcoming two new members.

Dr. Adriana Padilla is the new Patient Advocate Board member for type 2 Diabetes. She’s a family physician, a member of the University of California, San Francisco-Fresno medical faculty, and an award-winning researcher with expertise in diabetes and its impact on Latino families and the health system in California’s Central Valley. She is also active in the National Hispanic Medical Association (NHMA) and is also a member of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Padilla said she hopes her presence will help increase awareness among Latinos of the importance of the work the agency is doing:

“When I was asked about being on the Board I did some research to find out more and it was really touching to learn about some of the exciting work that has been done by the agency and the possibilities that can be done for patients, including those I serve, members of the Latino community.”

Dr. Bob Price is the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and a Professor of Political Science at U.C. Berkeley. His academic and teaching interests include comparative politics, with a particular interest in the politics of South Africa. This is Dr. Price’s second time on the Board.  He previously served as the alternate to UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau.

Although he has only been off the Board for a little more than a year Dr. Price said he is aware of the big changes that have taken place in that time and is looking forward to being a part of the new CIRM 2.0.

How stimulating! A new way to repair broken bones

For those of us who live in earthquake country the recent devastating quakes in Nepal are a reminder, as if we needed one, of the danger and damage these temblors can cause. Many of those injured in the quake suffered severe bone injuries – broken legs, crushed limbs etc. Repairing those injuries is going to take time and expert medical care. But now a new discovery is opening up the possibility of repairing injuries like this, even regenerating the broken bones, in a more efficient and effective way.

shutterstock_18578173A study published in Scientific Reports  shows that it is possible to regrow bone tissue using protein signals from stem cells. Even more importantly is that this new bone tissue seems to be just as effective, in terms of the quantity and quality of the bone created, as the current methods.

In a news release senior author Todd McDevitt, Ph.D., said this shows we might not even need whole stem cells to regenerate damaged tissue:

“This proof-of-principle work establishes a novel bone formation therapy that exploits the regenerative potential of stem cells. With this technique we can produce new tissue that is completely stem cell-derived and that performs similarly with the gold standard in the field.”

McDevitt – who is now at the Gladstone Institutes thanks to a research leadership award from CIRM  – extracted the proteins that stem cells produce to help regenerate damaged tissues. They then isolated the particular factors they needed to help regenerate bones, in this case bone morphogenetic protein or BMP. That BMP was then transplanted into mice to stimulate bone growth. And it worked.

While this compares favorably to current methods of regenerating or repairing damaged bones it has a few advantages. Current methods rely on getting bones from cadavers and grinding them up to get the growth factors needed to stimulate bone growth. But bones from cadavers can often be in short supply and the quality is highly variable.

As McDevitt says:

“These limitations motivate the need for more consistent and reproducible source material for tissue regeneration. As a renewable resource that is both scalable and consistent in manufacturing, pluripotent stem cells are an ideal solution.”

He says the next step is to build on this research, and try to find ways to make this method even more efficient. If he succeeds he says it could open up new ways of treating devastating injuries such as those sustained by soldiers in battle, or by earthquake victims.

A hopeful sight: therapy for vision loss cleared for clinical trial

Rosalinda Barrero

Rosalinda Barrero, has retinitis pigmentosa

Rosalinda Barrero says people often thought she was rude, or a snob, because of the way she behaved, pretending not to see them or ignoring them on the street. The truth is Rosalinda has retinitis pigmentosa (RP), a nasty disease, one that often attacks early in life and slowly destroys a person’s vision. Rosalinda’s eyes look normal but she can see almost nothing.

“I’ve lived my whole life with this. I told my daughters [as a child] I didn’t like to go Trick or Treating at Halloween because I couldn’t see. I’d trip; I’d loose my candy. I just wanted to stay home.”

Rosalinda says she desperately wants a treatment:

“Because I’m a mom and I would be so much a better mom if I could see. I could drive my daughters around. I want to do my part as a mom.”

Now a promising therapy for RP, funded by the stem cell agency, has been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to start a clinical trial in people.

The therapy was developed by Dr. Henry Klassen at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). RP is a relatively rare, inherited condition in which the light-sensitive cells at the back of the retina, cells that are essential for vision, slowly and progressively degenerate. Eventually it can result in blindness. There is no cure and no effective long-term treatment.

Dr. Klassen’s team will inject patients with stem cells, known as retinal progenitors, to help replace those cells destroyed by the disease and hopefully to save those not yet damaged.

In a news release about the therapy Dr. Klassen said the main goal of this small Phase I trial will be to make sure this approach is safe:

“This milestone is a very important one for our project. It signals a turning point, marking the beginning of the clinical phase of development, and we are all very excited about this project.”

Jonathan Thomas, the Chair of our Board, says that CIRM has invested almost $20 million to help support this work through early stage research and now, into the clinic.

“One of the goals of the agency is to provide the support that promising therapies need to progress and ultimately to get into clinical trials in patients. RP affects about 1.5 million people worldwide and is the leading cause of inherited blindness in the developed world. Having an effective treatment for it would transform people’s lives in extraordinary ways.”

Dr. Klassen says without that support it is doubtful that this work would have progressed as quickly as it has. And the support doesn’t just involve money:

“CIRM has played a critical and essential role in this project. While the funding is extremely important, CIRM also tutors and guides its grantees in the many aspects of translational development at every step of the way, and this accelerates during the later pre-clinical phase where much is at stake.”

This is now the 12th project that we are funding that has been approved by the FDA for clinical trials. It’s cause for optimism, but cautious optimism. These are small scale, early phase trials that in many cases are the first time these therapies have been tested in people. They look promising in the lab. Now it’s time to see if they are equally promising in people.

Considering we didn’t really start funding research until 2007 we have come a long way in a short time. Clearly we still have a long way to go. But the news that Dr. Klassen’s work has been given the go-ahead to take the next, big step, is a hopeful sign for Rosalinda and others with RP that we are at least heading in the right direction.

One of our recent Spotlight on Disease videos features Dr. Klassen and Rosalinda Barrero talking about RP.

This work will be one of the clinical trials being tested in our new Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Network. You can read more about that network here.

Goodnight, Stem Cells: How Well Rested Cells Keep Us Healthy

Plenty of studies show that a lack of sleep is nothing but bad news and can contribute to a whole host of health problems like heart disease, poor memory, high blood pressure and obesity.

HSCs_Sleeping_graphic100x100

Even stem cells need rest to stay healthy

In a sense, the same holds true for the stem cells in our body. In response to injury, adult stem cells go to work by dividing and specializing into the cells needed to heal specific tissues and organs. But they also need to rest for long-lasting health. Each cell division carries a risk of introducing DNA mutations—and with it, a risk for cancer. Too much cell division can also deplete the stem cell supply, crippling the healing process. So it’s just as important for the stem cells to assume an inactive, or quiescent, state to maintain their ability to mend the body. Blood stem cells for instance are mostly quiescent and only divide about every two months to renew their reserves.

Even though the importance of this balance is well documented, exactly how it’s achieved is not well understood; that is, until now. Earlier this week, a CIRM-funded research team from The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) reported on the identification of an enzyme that’s key in controlling the work-rest balance in blood stem cells, also called hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). Their study, published in the journal Blood, could point the way to drugs that treat anemias, blood cancers, and other blood disorders.

Previous studies in other cell types suggested that this key enzyme, called ItpkB, might play a role in promoting a rested state in HSCs. Senior author Karsten Sauer explained their reasoning for focusing on the enzyme in a press release:

“What made ItpkB an attractive protein to study is that it can dampen activating signaling in other cells. We hypothesized that ItpkB might do the same in HSCs to keep them at rest. Moreover, ItpkB is an enzyme whose function can be controlled by small molecules. This might facilitate drug development if our hypothesis were true.”

Senior author Karsten Sauer is an associate professor at The Scripps Research Institute.

Senior author Karsten Sauer is an associate professor at The Scripps Research Institute.

To test their hypothesis, the team studied HSCs in mice that completely lacked ItpkB. Sure enough, without ItpkB the HSCs got stuck in the “on” position and continually multiplied until the supply of HSCs stores in the bone marrow were exhausted. Without these stem cells, the mice could no longer produce red blood cells, which deliver oxygen to the body or white blood cells, which fight off infection. As a result the animals died due to severe anemia and bone marrow failure. Sauer used a great analogy to describe the result:

“It’s like a car—you need to hit the gas pedal to get some activity, but if you hit it too hard, you can crash into a wall. ItpkB is that spring that prevents you from pushing the pedal all the way through.”

With this new understanding of how balancing stem cell activation and deactivation works, Sauer and his team have their sights set on human therapies:

“If we can show that ItpkB also keeps human HSCs healthy, this could open avenues to target ItpkB to improve HSC function in bone marrow failure syndromes and immunodeficiencies or to increase the success rates of HSC transplantation therapies for leukemias and lymphomas.”

The best tools to be the best advocate

It’s hard to do a good job if you don’t have the right tools. And that doesn’t just apply to fixing things around the house, it applies to all aspects of life. So, in launching our new website this week we didn’t just want to provide visitors to the site with a more enjoyable and engaging experience – though we hope we have done that – we also wanted to provide a more informative and helpful experience. That’s why we have created a whole new section call the Patient Advocate Toolbox. shutterstock_150769385

The goal of the Toolbox is simple; to give patients and patient advocates help in learning the skills they need to be as effective as possible about raising awareness for their particular cause.

As an advocate for a disease or condition you may be asked to speak at public events, to be part of a panel discussion at a conference, or to do an interview with a reporter. Each of those requires a particular set of skills, in areas that many of us may have little, if any, experience in.

That’s where the Toolbox comes in. Each section deals with a different opportunity for you to share your story and raise awareness about your cause.

In the section on “Media Interviews”, for example, we walk you through the things you need to think about as you prepare to talk to a reporter; the questions to ask ahead of time, how to prepare a series of key messages, even how to dress if you are going to be on TV. The idea is to break down some of the mystique surrounding the interview, to let you know what to expect and to help you prepare as fully as possible.

If you are going to be asked questions about stem cell research there’s a section in the Toolbox called “Jargon-Free Glossary” that translates scientific terms into every-day English, so you can talk about this work in a way that anyone can understand.

There’s also a really wonderfully visual infographic on the things you need to know when thinking about taking part in a clinical trial. It lays out in simple, easy-to-follow steps the questions you should ask, the potential benefits and problems of being in a trial, including the risks of going overseas for unproven therapies.

The Toolbox is by no means an exhaustive list of all the things you will need to know to be an effective advocate, either for yourself or a friend or loved one, but it is a start.

We would love to hear from you on ways we can improve the content, on other elements that would be useful to include, on links to other sites that you think would be helpful to add. Our goal is to make this as comprehensive and useful as possible. Your support, your ideas and thoughts will help us do just that. If you have any comments please send them to info@cirm.ca.gov

Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, once wrote: “Man is a tool-using animal. Without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all.” That’s why we want to give you the tools you need to be as effective as you can. Because the more powerful your voice, the more we all benefit.

Money matters: how investing in research advances stem cell science

Our goal at the stem cell agency is simple; to accelerate the development of successful therapies to patients with unmet medical needs. But on the way to doing that something interesting is happening; we’re helping advance the scientific understanding of stem cells and building a robust stem cell research community in California in the process.

You don’t have to take our word for it. A new paper in the journal Cell Stem Cell takes a look at the impact that state funding for stem cell research has had on scientific publications. The question the researchers posed was; have the states that fund stem cell research seen an increase in their share of scientific publications in the field? The answer, at least in California’s case, is absolutely yes.

Let’s back up a little. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the field of stem cell research was considered quite controversial, particularly when it came to human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). To help scientists get around some of the restrictions that were placed on the use of federal funds to do hESC research a number of states voted to provide their own funding for this work. This research focuses on four of the biggest supporters of this work: California, Connecticut, Maryland, and New York.

The researchers looked at the following factors:

  1. The percentage of scientific publications in the U.S.
  2. With at least one author from those four states.
  3. That focused on hESCs and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).
  4. Comparing the numbers from before the state funding kicked in to after.

Finally – stay with me here, we’re almost done – they compared those numbers to the number of publications for two other areas of non-controversial biomedical research, RNAi and cancer. For California the results were clear. The percentage of papers on RNAi and cancer from 1996 – 2013, that had at least one California author, stayed fairly consistent (between 15-18%). However, the percentage of papers on hESCs and iPSCS with a California author rose from zero in 1998 and 2006 (the year each was discovered) to a high of 45 percent in 2009. That has since dropped down a little but still remains consistently high.

Study graphic study code The article says the reason for this is really rather obvious: “that state funding programs appear to have contributed to over-performance in the field.”

“After the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) issued its first grants in April 2006, the share of articles acknowledging California funding increased rapidly. Between 2010 and 2013, approximately 55% of hESC-related articles published with at least one California author acknowledged state funding, suggesting that this funding program played an important role as California maintained and built upon its early leadership in the field.”

Connecticut also saw its share of publications rise, though not as dramatically as California. Maryland and New York, in contrast, saw their share of publications remain consistent. However, as the researchers point out, with California gobbling up so much more of the available space in these journals, the fact that both states kept their share consistent was an achievement in itself.

The researchers acknowledge that scientific publications are “only one measure of the impact of state science programs” and say it’s important we look at other measures as well – such as how many clinical trials arise from that research. Nonetheless they conclude by saying:

“This analysis illustrating the relative performance of states in the production of stem-cell-related research publications provides a useful starting point for policymakers and, potentially, voters considering the future of state stem cell funding efforts as well as others interested in state science and technology policy more generally.”

What…exactly…do you do? How 12 year olds helped me learn how to talk about science

Jackie Ward in her lab at UC San Diego

Jackie Ward in her lab at UC San Diego

Jackie Ward is a graduate student at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and received a training grant from CIRM while studying for her PhD. At UCSD Jackie uses stem cells as a model to study rare neurodegenerative diseases in the lab of Albert La Spada. Her work as a PhD student focuses on a rare form of inherited neurodegeneration called spinocerebellar ataxia. From time to time Jackie shares her experiences with us. Here’s her latest.

One of the many questions I get over my annual trek home during the holidays is “What…exactly…do you do?” This is usually couched somewhere between “have you learned to surf yet?” and “how’s the weather?” In the past, I preferred to talk about my surfing skills (very minimal) and the sunshine (always amazing, thanks San Diego), more than what I do every day. It’s amazing how this seemingly innocuous question can be the most difficult to answer. Because we’re used to presenting our work in lecture formats or lengthy scientific papers, summing it up in three sentences of non-jargon can be difficult. A similar thought was outlined recently at UCSD, by the actor and science advocate Alan Alda. The title of his presentation, “Getting the Public Past a Blind Date with Science,” highlighted the uncomfortable feelings many people have towards science. Like any relationship, sustained communication and trust is necessary for success. Unfortunately, on many scientific issues, that relationship has suffered. As a PhD student, I am constantly surrounded by my peers—other scientists who know exactly what I mean when I use terms like “reprogramming” or “retinal photoreceptor.” While these scientist-to-scientist conversations are vital to our work, we often forget that it is equally, or perhaps more, important to have conversations with people who have no idea what we do. As any CIRM- or NIH-funded lab is well aware, a significant portion of our funding comes from taxpayer dollars. It’s these “investors” to whom we ultimately report back. This conversation is challenging. Not only do we have to change our language, we have to remember what it was like to not know everything we do now. The best practice I’ve gotten in this regard is talking to kids. Seventh graders seem to be less afraid to ask you questions or call you out on something that doesn’t make sense to them. (Now that I think about it, it might be beneficial to include some 13-year-olds on our grant review panels.) My graduate program allows students to fulfill their teaching requirement by doing science outreach activities. I chose to do this with the Salk Institute’s mobile science lab, where real scientists are connected to local middle schools to discuss their jobs and lead hands-on science labs. I didn’t realize how valuable this experience was until it started to become easier for me to answer the “what do you do” question. I changed the words I use. I replaced the word “reprogram” with “rewind” and “retinal photoreceptor” with “eye cell.” Unexpectedly, I think this practice helped me become a better communicator when I talk to other scientists now too. I try not to assume a certain level of knowledge with anybody. While I still love talking about pretending to surf and gloating about the weather, I’ve become more fond of the “what do you do” question. I hope to only improve with time. It’ll be my small contribution for getting science to that second date.

CIRM 2.0: A New Year, a new start, a new way to advance research

It’s tradition to begin the New Year by making a resolution. Wikipedia has a wonderful description of what this involves saying it is where “a person makes a promise to do an act of self-improvement or something slightly nice, such as opening doors for people beginning from New Year’s Day.”

CIRM2.0_Logo

Well, by that criteria, CIRM 2.0 is a perfect way for us to start 2015 because it is both an act of self-improvement and something “slightly nice” (love that phrase).

2.0, for those of you who haven’t been following us, is a rather dramatic overhaul of the way we do business. It’s about streamlining the way we work in a way that places added emphasis on speed, partnerships and patients.

CIRM 2.0 makes it easier for both companies and academic researchers with promising projects to partner with CIRM to get the support they need when they need it, reducing the time from application to funding from around two years to just 120 days – that’s the “self-improvement”.

In a news release marking the launch of 2.0, our President and CEO Randy Mills summed up the reason why we are making these changes:

“Our mission is to accelerate the development of stem cell therapies for patients with unmet medical needs. Today, in officially launching the first three programs under CIRM 2.0, we have boldly reaffirmed our commitment to continuously seek new and innovative ways to better serve that mission.”

Simply put, we hope that by improving the way we work we can help speed up the development of treatments for patients in need. I would say that more than qualifies as being “slightly nice.”

You can hear Randy talking about CIRM 2.0 here

This is just the first phase of our new look. In December our governing Board gave us $50 million to get this up and running for clinical stage work over the next six months (you can find links to the Program Announcements for that work on our news release). Later this year we are going to expand 2.0 to include both discovery – or basic – research and translational research.

We are now in our 11th year as an agency funding stem cell research. Last year was a big year for us with 8 projects we are funding approved for clinical trials. But as we see every New Year, getting a little older shouldn’t stop you from wanting to improve or making the next year or years even better. Or from just doing something “slightly nice” for others.

How partnering with someone half way around the world could help develop new treatments here in California

Much as we love California, and we really do, even we have to admit that genius knows no boundaries and that great scientific research is taking place all over the world. As our goal as an agency is to accelerate the development of successful therapies for people in need it only makes sense that we would try and tap into that genius, wherever it is, in whatever way we can. That’s where our Collaborative Funding Partnership (CFP) program comes in.

Michel Hivert, Executive Director at MATIMOP (L) and ICOC Chairman Jonathan Thomas

Michel Hivert, Executive Director at MATIMOP (L) and ICOC Chairman Jonathan Thomas

Under Proposition 71, the voter-approved initiative that created the stem cell agency, all the research we fund has to be in California. But that doesn’t mean we can’t help create collaborations between researchers here – that we fund – and researchers in other parts of the world who get funding from other sources. And we do just that. In fact we now have 24 CFPs stretching from New York state to Brazil, Japan, the UK and Australia.

And now we have added two more. One with Poland two weeks ago  and today, with Israel. As the Chair of our governing Board, Jonathan Thomas said in a news release , the goal of these agreements is simple, to advance stem cell research around the world:

“Israel has long had a robust stem cell research community. Through this newly announced collaboration, we hope to generate partnerships between Israeli and California scientists that build on our complementary strengths and generate joint research projects that will benefit patients everywhere.”

Dr. Andy David, Consul General of Israel to the Pacific North West, echoed those sentiments:

“It represents a practical expression of shared interests that is unusual for its depth and range. Israel and California are on opposite corners of the globe geographically, but they are practically coming closer every day. The reason for this thriving relationship is the understanding that we are strong mutual assets.”

But nice as these partnerships are the only questions that really matter are do these collaborations really make a difference; do they really help increase the likelihood of a successful therapy? The answer from our experience is yes. For example, a team we are funding at Stanford is collaborating with a team from the Medical Research Council in the UK, focused on solid tumor cancers. The Stanford team has been given approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to run a clinical trial testing this approach on solid tumors, while the UK team is using the same approach to tackling acute myeloid leukemia (AML) an often-fatal cancer of the blood and bone marrow. Knowledge gained from one trial may well benefit the other and could ultimately lead to approaches to treating other solid tumor cancers such as breast, ovarian, bladder and colon.

Disease does not stop at the border and we see no reason for our engagement with the best science, and the best scientists, to stop there either. Our goal is to find cures, and we’ll go wherever we have to and work with whoever we can to meet that goal.

 

 

 

 

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.